Does anyone use a MDX2100 compressor

Jeff

unread,

Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98

to

I've been told by a rep that the Behringer Composer MDX 2100
compressor is as good as the Dbx 1066. But about 1/2 the
cost. Has anyone had any experience with it.
Thanks in advance Jeff

Milton Finks

unread,

Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98

to Jeff

No ...but don't be surprised if it IS a DBX 1066. Behringer is an equal
opportunity thief! The do not steal Mackie designs alone.

<G>

Milton Finks

David J. MacKenzie

unread,

Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98

to

"Jeff" <airm...@airmaster.com> writes:

> I've been told by a rep that the Behringer Composer MDX 2100
> compressor is as good as the Dbx 1066. But about 1/2 the
> cost. Has anyone had any experience with it.

I've used both. The dbx is a higher quality product, in terms of
sound, accuracy of control and metering. They're the same genre, but
the Composer is sort of store-brand quality, and the dbx is
national-brand quality.

JBoy32

unread,

Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98

to

I have used one, its ok, but not as good as any DBX. I really don't like
Behringer, they like to copy other peoples products.

JBo...@aol.com

Chris Gieseke

unread,

Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98

to

Hey yes they are! They're just as good as similar DBX compressors cause
they are mainly DBX compressor clones more or less. Anyways...yup I own
one and I like it alot. If used properly you can get some very good
sounds out of it. It certainly smokes the 3630 that I used before
buying the Composer.

Chris G.

Jay Kadis

unread,

Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98

to

In article <353D0F...@txdirect.net> Chris Gieseke <chri...@txdirect.net>
writes:

The dbx 166 and the Composer are pretty indistinguishable in my experience.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Garage Studio ----x
x CCRMA/Music x Dexter Records x
x Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

David J. MacKenzie

unread,

Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98

to

mma...@hol.frxx (MARC OLIVIER) writes:

> >The dbx 166 and the Composer are pretty indistinguishable in my experience.
>

> What? Open your ears!!!
>
> They are very different!!!
>
> The 1066 is good for voices, bass, but bad for drums.
> The MDX 2100 works correctly for drums.

Marc, reread the post you responded to carefully.
Are you saying you consider the 166 and 1066 equivalent to each other?

MARC OLIVIER

unread,

Apr 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/22/98

to

On 21 Apr 1998 21:50:23, Jay Kadis wrote:
>In article <353D0F...@txdirect.net> Chris Gieseke <chri...@txdirect.net>
>writes:
>> JBoy32 wrote:
>>> I have used one, its ok, but not as good as any DBX. I really don't
like
>> > Behringer, they like to copy other peoples products.

>> >> Hey yes they are! They're just as good as similar DBX compressors

cause >> they are mainly DBX compressor clones more or less. Anyways...yup
I own >> one and I like it alot. If used properly you can get some very
good >> sounds out of it. It certainly smokes the 3630 that I used before
>> buying the Composer.

>

>The dbx 166 and the Composer are pretty indistinguishable in my experience.

What? Open your ears!!!

They are very different!!!

The 1066 is good for voices, bass, but bad for drums.
The MDX 2100 works correctly for drums.

They aren't the best compressors of the world, but works fine for the
money. That's all!

MARC OLIVIER MAURY
FRENCH DANCE PRODUCER
http://wwwperso.hol.fr/~mmaury

--------------------------
MARC OLIVIER MAURY
mma...@hol.fr
--------------------------
enlevez xx pour repondre
remove xx for reply
--------------------------

Patrick Bakker

unread,

Apr 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/22/98

to

Hi all,

Anyone happen to know the difference between the mdx 2000 and 2100??
What are the opinions on comparing these Behringers to a Symetrix 425 and/or an
Aphex easyrider? Personally I hate the 425 - I'm gonna sell mine a.s.a.p. -
although it's price is about tree times the price of the mdx.
Thanks,

Patrick

Jay Kadis

unread,

Apr 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/22/98

to

In article <6hjfas$4s6$1...@news2.isdnet.net> mma...@hol.frxx (MARC OLIVIER)
writes:

> On 21 Apr 1998 21:50:23, Jay Kadis wrote:
> >In article <353D0F...@txdirect.net> Chris Gieseke
<chri...@txdirect.net>
> >writes:
> >> JBoy32 wrote:
> >>> I have used one, its ok, but not as good as any DBX. I really don't
> like
> >> > Behringer, they like to copy other peoples products.
>
> >> >> Hey yes they are! They're just as good as similar DBX compressors
> cause >> they are mainly DBX compressor clones more or less. Anyways...yup
> I own >> one and I like it alot. If used properly you can get some very
> good >> sounds out of it. It certainly smokes the 3630 that I used before
> >> buying the Composer.
>
> >
> >The dbx 166 and the Composer are pretty indistinguishable in my experience.
>
> What? Open your ears!!!
>

Open your eyes: I said 166 NOT 1066.

MARC OLIVIER

unread,

Apr 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/22/98

to

On 22 Apr 1998 17:01:18, Jay Kadis wrote:
>In article <6hjfas$4s6$1...@news2.isdnet.net> mma...@hol.frxx (MARC OLIVIER)
>writes:
>> On 21 Apr 1998 21:50:23, Jay Kadis wrote:
>> >In article <353D0F...@txdirect.net> Chris Gieseke
><chri...@txdirect.net>
>> >writes:
>> >> JBoy32 wrote:
>> >>> I have used one, its ok, but not as good as any DBX. I really don't
>> like
>> >> > Behringer, they like to copy other peoples products.
>>
>> >> >> Hey yes they are! They're just as good as similar DBX compressors
>> cause >> they are mainly DBX compressor clones more or less. Anyways...yup
>> I own >> one and I like it alot. If used properly you can get some very
>> good >> sounds out of it. It certainly smokes the 3630 that I used before
>> >> buying the Composer.
>>
>> >
>> >The dbx 166 and the Composer are pretty indistinguishable in my experience.
>>
>> What? Open your ears!!!
>>
>
>Open your eyes: I said 166 NOT 1066.

Sorry, but the 166 sounds different than the Composer: Not the same sound
and not the same applications.

MARC OLIVIER

unread,

Apr 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/22/98

to

On 21 Apr 1998 23:34:32, David J. MacKenzie wrote:

>mma...@hol.frxx (MARC OLIVIER) writes:
>
>> >The dbx 166 and the Composer are pretty indistinguishable in my experience.
>>
>> What? Open your ears!!!
>>

>> They are very different!!!
>>
>> The 1066 is good for voices, bass, but bad for drums.
>> The MDX 2100 works correctly for drums.
>

>Marc, reread the post you responded to carefully.
>Are you saying you consider the 166 and 1066 equivalent to each other?

>.

Sorry, the original post was for the 1066.

The 166 and 1066 are not equivalent because the 1066 have more controls,
but you can have the 166's sound with the 1066.

Angus Kerr

unread,

Apr 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/24/98

to

In article <6hlvfa$761$1...@news3.isdnet.net>, mma...@hol.frxx says...

> On 22 Apr 1998 17:01:18, Jay Kadis wrote:

> >> >The dbx 166 and the Composer are pretty indistinguishable in my experience.
> >>
> >> What? Open your ears!!!
> >>
> >

> >Open your eyes: I said 166 NOT 1066.
>
> Sorry, but the 166 sounds different than the Composer: Not the same sound
> and not the same applications.
>

I use my Composer quite a bit (it's the only one I've got). I have
neutral feelings toward it. It' OK.

As to the Composer sounding the same as the 166: if it's a direct copy
then it'll sound exactly the same. The laws of physics still hold no
matter what's printed on the front panel - the dbx will not sound better,
just the same.

Rob Reedijk

unread,

Apr 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/27/98

to

Patrick Bakker (pba...@xs4all.nl) wrote:
: Hi all,

: Anyone happen to know the difference between the mdx 2000 and 2100??

Yes, when they designed the MDX2000 they neglected to have both left and
right channels going to the side chain to trigger compression. With
the 2100, they solved it so that whichever of the two channels is loudest
triggers the amount of compression.

I have an MDX2000. At first I was really cheesed off to find out about this
flaw. Now I don't really care since I would never use it for any type
of stereo compression. It does work great on electric guitars.

Rob R.