preamp test Behringer 602 versus Roland VS890
peterb
I would like to post some test result which I findd remarkable:
I was unsatisfied with my recordings of acoustic guitars and mainly
with voice recordings: I used a Roede NT1 mic and a behringer 602
mixer, then into a
Roland harddisc recorder VS890 (No phantom power available in the
Roland preamp section). The voice sounded flat, and the ess sounds
were sharp.
So I thought the mic is too bad.
However, I tried a different setup: Using a stagg Phantom power supply
for 39 EUROS, I directly connected the mic into the Roland....
No EQ's or other gear in the signal path.
The difference was amazing, the sound became more natural, open, no
sharp ess sounds anymore.
My wife and my daughter performed a blind test on the two recordings (
"sitting at the dock of the bay" sung by me a cappella) and described
their impression of the sound quality. The roland was preferred in
both cases, and the description of the direct recording into the
Roland was given in terms of "more natural - as if you would sing by
yourself...)
As Roland gear is judged usually as being middleclass with respect to
effect quality and overall sound quality, I am drawing the conclusion
that the Behringer preamp quality in their mixers is "really" bad.
So, I have to admit that I am a new member of the "Behringer sucks"
clan...
Beside of sound quality, I like the Behringer and the price is
attractive, but what is a mixer worth that sounds bad...?
Any comments appreciated!
Luk Van de Heyning
>I was unsatisfied with my recordings of acoustic guitars and mainly
>with voice recordings: I used a Roede NT1 mic and a behringer 602
>mixer, then into a....
IMHO, hoping a $70 "mixer" would enhance your sound is a bit too
optimistic, no ?
I love Behringer gear (most of it) but only when used for what it's
ment to be used.
A 602 should not be used as a mike-preamp for recording IMHO.
It's very OK for a live situation to mix 2 keyboards and a sax-mike
i.e. But not more than that. And exactly what is't made for, no ?
So to conclude a 602 is "crap" ? It is when used for "recording
voices with a nice mike" perhaps.
But not if used for those purpouses it's made for.
My idea....
John Cafarella
news:eb1a0412.02081...@posting.google.com...
>So, I have to admit that I am a new member of the "Behringer sucks"
> clan...
Funny you should bring this up just now...
Two days ago I did a very similar test, between a behringer 2004 mixer,
coming out of the insert jack, and inbuilt pre's on an ADSP CPORT.
I tried two mics, a 57 which is renowned for its sensitivity to loading,
and an NT1, on two different sources, acoustic guitar and snare. They both
showed me the same thing
In a word, the Behringer really SUCKS.
I've used this thing a LOT, and I now understand why I've had to work so
hard with lower mid muddiness.
EVERY bit of work I've taken to the mastering house has had a predominance
at around 200Hz. I had attributed this to acoustic problems in the live
room, which has very little treatment applied, but with the inbuilt preamps,
(which I have no doubt are also likely crappy!), there was far less mud.
There was also a worthwhile improvement in detail I could hear in the decay
of the snares.
It is possible to get reasonable result with a behringer, but man, is it
hard work.
I'm looking forward to RNP delivery time.
--
John Cafarella
EOR Studio
Melbourne, Australia
Luk Van de Heyning
wrote:
>Since the 602 has the same preamps as the rest of Behringer's mixer
>line, are we to assume that you don't think that the pre's in any
>Behringer mixer should be used for recording?
It certainly does NOT have the same EQ .
And it certainly does NOT sound the same as the larger desks.
And it is certainly not build for the same purposes as their larger
desks.
>That would be an odd
>suggestion from Behringer's Number 1 fan.
>
What I'm suggesting is: don't use a $70 mixer for recording if you are
critical about the sound when using a mike.
>- J. Slator
>
>
>Luk Van de Heyning...
Luk Van de Heyning
wrote:
>Since the 602 has the same preamps as the rest of Behringer's mixer
>line, are we to assume that you don't think that the pre's in any
>Behringer mixer should be used for recording? That would be an odd
>suggestion from Behringer's Number 1 fan.
>
>- J. Slator
>
>
BTW, mister Slator, I never expressed "I think a Behringer is the best
thing to buy for critical recording", especially when using
microphones.
Most of their gear is very useable if one knows what to expect and if
one knows ones needs.
As I use most of it with line-level signals (synts etc) and I use some
outboard gear (yes, a lot of Behringer there too) when it comes to
mike-signals, I still can do a decent job with this stuff and I still
didn't pay too much IMHO. In that perspective I could indeed be called
one of the (many, and more every day) number 1 fans.
I also think just "having the same pre-amps" isn't enough to say "they
all sound bad". Not even to say "so they all sound the same". Signal
paths and EQ and overall build and layout and... the lot... (or,
perhaps as you think, "the lack of" these factors ;-)
Of course there is better gear around. I still "refuse" to pay 3 or
more times the amount for those "last 10% improvement".
But I still find it "amusing" someone blames a $70 mixer for not being
the best mike-pre around.
And I still believe having a "lesser" desk (with many interestind
features) and some "better" outboard pre's is a lot better (when only
a few decent pre's are needed) than having to buy a Neve or SSL or
even an Allen and H when one doesn't need those.
But OK, opinions may and should differ.
The world would be a boring place if we would all agree (and without
Behringer it would be even more boring IMHO :-)
>Luk Van de Heyning...
Danny Taddei
boards have very nice sounding pres in them.... at least for the
money. They are without a doubt in my mind head and shoulders over any
mackie board. G C sales reps would not tell you that and therefore the
misconception perpetuates but I know it to be true because I did the
testing for my opinion.
The little behringer boards are find for coffee shop shows where the
tile floor and glass display cases are anything but conducive to
sound. They are not meant for anything else.
Behringer gear is great for what it is meant for though QC is often
lacking. The larger boards are meant to record and they do it very
well. The price is so low that most would run for fear of
embarrassment but I use one all the time. The bussing is less then I
would like but using a mx9000 for it's pres is fine. I should mention
that I have several very nice preamps including 2 avalon 737sp's and a
ad2022. I also have a matched pair of neumann u87ai's that I bought
new and about 40 other mics that everyone would feel they liked well
too. The pres in the behringer are not Avalon quality but they don't
stand out when used side by side. If that doesn't tell you what you
can do with them then nothing will.
I have a friend with a 12 channel eurorack behringer. We used his
board to add some tracks and those pres stood out easily. I am not
saying all of the boards have good pres. Only behringer will allude to
that.
jslator wrote:
> Since the 602 has the same preamps as the rest of Behringer's mixer
> line, are we to assume that you don't think that the pre's in any
> Behringer mixer should be used for recording? That would be an odd
> suggestion from Behringer's Number 1 fan.
>
> - J. Slator
>
> Luk Van de Heyning...
> > A 602 should not be used as a mike-preamp for recording IMHO.
--
Danny Taddei
Danny Taddei
jslator wrote:
> Luk Van de Heyning wrote...
> > It certainly does NOT have the same EQ .
>
> He wasn't using EQ.
>
> >
> > And it certainly does NOT sound the same as the larger desks.
> >
>
> The pre's do.
>
> > And it is certainly not build for the same purposes as their larger
> > desks.
>
> The pre's are.
>
> - J. Slator
--
Danny Taddei
Danny Taddei
better then my friend's smaller version because he has no direct outs. In
that case, the pres in the small boards sound very good and the circuitry
around them screws up the sound. I suppose that would be expected out of a
cheap board though.
I question the intentions or the ears of behringer bashers. They are either
fooled or they are advertising for someone else because my ears don't hear
the flaw that others seem to. I don't hear the smooth natural sound of an
expensive pre amp but I don't hear that in any of the other small boards
out there either. Mackie certainly isn't anything to write home about and
even soundcraft doesn't shake my tree to much. For critical tracks i have
good pres and for the rest I have the board I am using whatever it may be.
There are more gear junkies out there with great talent that never get
anything done because they are so worried about the gear they are doing it
on that I quiver. I'd rather have a 93% great sounding finished project
then a 100% rocking incomplete project. For most of us this is what it
comes down to. I worry less about the critical sound and worry more about
the critical feel. It is very nice to know what is best and how things
compare but cost should always be a part of the comparison
jslator wrote:
> Luk Van de Heyning wrote in message...
> > I also think just "having the same pre-amps" isn't enough to say "they
> > all sound bad". Not even to say "so they all sound the same".
>
> It's certainly enough to say that the pre's sound the same. As long
> as you're taking a direct out or a tap from the insert points, or
> otherwise minimizing the other crap in the signal path. The 602 pre
> should sound exactly the same as the pre's in the larger format mixers
> because it is exactly the same pre.
>
> > But I still find it "amusing" someone blames a $70 mixer for not being
> > the best mike-pre around.
> >
>
> I just found it amusing that you, of all people, suggested that
> Behringer mic pre's are not good for use in recording. That's all.
Scott Dorsey
>I tap out of the direct outs and maybe that is why my board's pres sound
>better then my friend's smaller version because he has no direct outs. In
>that case, the pres in the small boards sound very good and the circuitry
>around them screws up the sound. I suppose that would be expected out of a
>cheap board though.
You tried using the inserts instead of the direct outputs? On the Mackies
at least, the inserts sound a lot cleaner than the direct outputs which
themselves sound a lot cleaner than the buss outputs.
>There are more gear junkies out there with great talent that never get
>anything done because they are so worried about the gear they are doing it
>on that I quiver. I'd rather have a 93% great sounding finished project
>then a 100% rocking incomplete project. For most of us this is what it
>comes down to. I worry less about the critical sound and worry more about
>the critical feel. It is very nice to know what is best and how things
>compare but cost should always be a part of the comparison
That's absolutely true. My feeling, though, is that 2 channels of high
grade gear beat 16 channels of lousy sounding gear any day, and probably
cost about the same.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Danny Taddei
the crutch. I know lots of guys that just can't or wont work until the
sound is right and it never is. That is what I was talking about. We
all want to sound our best.
jslator wrote:
> Danny Taddei wrote...
> > I worry less about the critical sound and worry more about
> > the critical feel.
>
> Why do those have to be mutually exclusive? Can't one be concerned
> with both sound and feel?
Luk Van de Heyning
wrote:
>I just found it amusing that you, of all people, suggested that
>Behringer mic pre's are not good for use in recording. That's all.
Depends on what you expect.
I use them and I like what I hear.
But I'm "just a professional hobby guy".
Hey, just the "audience" Behringer is targettting.
IF I would have to record something that is "only acoustical" and
needs to be "almost perfect" I would perhaps not use the build-in
pre's in a Behringer desk.
Since I never have to do that, their gear is perfect for me.
BTW, if you state "the pre's are the same" I guess you are solely
referring to the "op-amp used" ?
An op-amp is not a "pre" IMHO...
My old MX8000 surely sounds "better" than my 602 when using mikes.
And the MX1002 is "somewhere in between".
But I like the idea I'm able to "amuse" you ;-)
Luk Van de Heyning
>>There are more gear junkies out there with great talent that never get
>>anything done because they are so worried about the gear they are doing it
>>on that I quiver. I'd rather have a 93% great sounding finished project
>>then a 100% rocking incomplete project. For most of us this is what it
>>comes down to. I worry less about the critical sound and worry more about
>>the critical feel. It is very nice to know what is best and how things
>>compare but cost should always be a part of the comparison
>
>That's absolutely true. My feeling, though, is that 2 channels of high
>grade gear beat 16 channels of lousy sounding gear any day, and probably
>cost about the same.
So, when one combines the two (as I try to do) one still has paid a
lot less than having 16 channels of high grade gear (which perhaps one
doesn't need). That's what I think and do...
The "louse sounding gear" may be perfect for less critical stuff (lots
of line inputs, no extensive EQ, flexible routing, enough auxes etc
etc).
Danny Taddei
the sound of the board, something is very different between them.
jslator wrote:
> Behringer claims that the pre's are the same. Surely, your not
> suggesting that Behringer would be less than truthful.
>
> - J. Slator
>
> Luk Van de Heyning wrote in message...
> > BTW, if you state "the pre's are the same" I guess you are solely
> > referring to the "op-amp used" ?
> >
> > An op-amp is not a "pre" IMHO...
--
Danny Taddei
Luk Van de Heyning
wrote:
>Behringer claims that the pre's are the same. Surely, your not
>suggesting that Behringer would be less than truthful.
>
I never (N E V E R ) believe things "they claim". Not Behringer,
certainly not Mack**, no one !
The only thing I believe is my ears (and my eyes, when looking in my
wallet).
I think I still have to meet the first "truthful" company.
At least the Behringer ads don't "look that truthfull" as much as the
Mack** ones (and others) did.
'Part of the hobby' for me is to try to look "behind" all the ads and
claims. Never "believe" someone who is trying to sell you something.
Not even Behringer :-)
But I'm not "suggesting" they are lying ;-)
They are "kidding" perhaps...
>
>Luk Van de Heyning wrote in message...
peterb
my simple experimental finding which I like to share with you: I would
like to state some points:
1) I do not expect from a $70 mixer to compete with decent mike
preamps
2) I am not a pro, I am not too picky, but do use my ears.
3) The reason for my posting was that I compared to preamps of the
lower quality region, and the experimental findings was that the
Behringer was so much worse than the Roland. That was my point.
4) The reason for me to buy a Behringer was that Behringer announced
their little 602 mixer with the following arguments:
**********************************************************************
http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=MX602A&lang=eng
EURORACKŽ MX602A
6-CHANNEL 2-BUS MIXING CONSOLE
Our MX602A takes compact mixing a step further, offering audio quality
and flexibility you'd never expect in such a miniscule package. With
two mono mic/line and two stereo channels, all with great-sounding
3-band EQ's, a 2-track input and output, phantom power, phones output,
balanced inputs and true main mix and control room outputs, it's
equipped to handle the most demanding of situations where few inputs
are required. And thanks to its ULN circuitry, INVISIBLE MIC PREAMPS
and impeccable construction, it'll deliver professional results every
time.
***************************************************************************
5) My point is that my mixer sounds inacceptable bad even for absolut
no-musicians, i performed blind tests with striking result, always the
Behringer was picked out due to "unnatural" sounding, as the
no-musicians called it.
And I would have saved a lot of time if Behringer would have spoken
the truth:
BUT: There was no warning: Don't take our mixer for recordings!!!
6) As most companies do use the same components in all their gear, I
think Behringer products will shape the sound like my 602 in a way I
absolutely don't like, a mixer should be neutral, and the 602 in
combination with my mic is far away from being neutral.
7) It may be that other combination of gear (other mic) sounds better
with Behringer preamps, so my experimental findings are restricted to
the setup described above.
I would recommend to give more facts and less ideology in this thread!
Have fun Peter
Paolo Tramannoni
> I question the intentions or the ears of behringer bashers. They are either
> fooled or they are advertising for someone else because my ears don't hear
> the flaw that others seem to.
Recently, I did a drum recording with the following setup:
- OH: Behringer B2 (omni) -> Sytek MPX4ii
- BD: AKG something -> Sytek MPX4ii
- SD: EV something -> Sytek MPX4ii
- HH: Elation KM201 -> Sytek MPX4ii
- Tom Hi: Sennheiser MD421 -> MOTU 828
- Tom Lo: Sennheiser MD421 -> MOTU 828
- Panora/ambience: Elation KM201 -> Behringer MX602A
BD, SD, HH, were simply wonderful: clean, detailed, with a huge dynamic
and great realism. Toms were nice, even if less detailed and less
dynamics. The difference was very evident, and urged me to plan
purchasing a new Sytek or other pre of the same class.
The OH was veiled, midrangey, unclear. It was usable, but we didn't like
it very much, and decided to use less of it during the mix. Next time,
we will use a better omni, or move the Elations to the overheads.
The Panorama/Ambience track was a total waste of disk space. The sound
was muddy, muffled, grainy, lifeless. It was a shame, because the room
sounded wonderully, and we had to get rid of it. The 602 is now used
just as a submixer during live performances, as a keyboard mixer. I can
no longer imagine any use of it during recording.
Mind me: for the price, it is surprising, and can be a useful tool in a
live dj set. But using it in a commercial studio or for live recording -
heck, don't call me in!
> There are more gear junkies out there with great talent that never get
> anything done because they are so worried about the gear they are doing it
> on that I quiver. I'd rather have a 93% great sounding finished project
> then a 100% rocking incomplete project.
I would add another percentage (for a total of 137%, maybe?): those who
finish a project, are happy with it, but think: if only I had recorded
it a little better...
Best regards,
Paolo
--
Paolo Tramannoni
Porto Recanati, Italy
Luk Van de Heyning
>BUT: There was no warning: Don't take our mixer for recordings!!!
The price-tag, didn't that warn you a little bit ?