Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
release date - is it going to fall apart the first time the truck hits
a pothole.... does it sound good.... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
By using Twitter to show his fans an image from the MRI of his sore hamstring, Houston running back in custom nfl jerseys may have been a target for opponents.
Now that the opponents know the exact location of the inflamed area, which Foster referred to as "anti-awesomeness," defensive players are liable to take unnecessary shots on Foster's leg. Former Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi, speaking on ESPN radio, said that if he were preparing to play against Foster, he'd remember the exact location of Foster's injury and be thinking about that if he found himself in a pileup. "As a defensive player, if this is his hamstring, noting that the sore spot--the white spot he calls 'anti-awesomeness'--is in the middle of the hamstring, as I'm getting off of a pile, maybe I push," Bruschi said. "Maybe that's where I push. Because I know that's exactly where it is. I give it a little dig. I give it a little twist as I get off the pile. Maybe I do that." That might be what some of the defenders wearing custom nfl jerseys are thinking. They might want to extract a little payoff from Foster, whose breakout performance of 231 yards rushing in last year's opener against Indianapolis launched a season in which Foster finished as the league's leading rusher (1,616 yards). |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On 9/8/2011 10:05 PM, Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote:
release date - is it going to fall apart the first time the truck hits a pothole.... does it sound good.... Mum's the word. Obviously a premature announcement. They had some good ideas but it takes a lot of time to develop and implement them. It's difficult to clone or copy a digital console - not that Behringer does anything like that any more. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sep 9, 5:56*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/8/2011 10:05 PM, Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote: release date - is it going to fall apart the first time the truck hits a pothole.... does it sound good.... Mum's the word. Obviously a premature announcement. They had some good ideas but it takes a lot of time to develop and implement them. It's difficult to clone or copy a digital console - not that Behringer does anything like that any more. * -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and interesting audio stuff I was wondering how many injunctions they had to get past to release that thing. I wish they'd start making cars. I'd love to buy another Jaguar for $2500 too :-) |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/8/2011 10:05 PM, Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote: release date - is it going to fall apart the first time the truck hits a pothole.... does it sound good.... Mum's the word. Obviously a premature announcement. They had some good ideas but it takes a lot of time to develop and implement them. It's difficult to clone or copy a digital console - not that Behringer does anything like that any more. Everyone has taken a cue from the computer people and now it's common to announce products years before they are actually available (if they even become available at all). A bird in the hand, and all that.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... Mike Rivers wrote: On 9/8/2011 10:05 PM, Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote: release date - is it going to fall apart the first time the truck hits a pothole.... does it sound good.... Mum's the word. Obviously a premature announcement. They had some good ideas but it takes a lot of time to develop and implement them. It's difficult to clone or copy a digital console - not that Behringer does anything like that any more. Everyone has taken a cue from the computer people and now it's common to announce products years before they are actually available (if they even become available at all). Exactly. They want to see how the market reacts before they get too deep into production to make changes. This isn't an entry level digital board, and the target market is much smaller than the usual bottom feeders that bolster their other lines. Thay can't aford it to fail either technically or commercially. Sean |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On 9/9/2011 11:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Everyone has taken a cue from the computer people and now it's common to announce products years before they are actually available (if they even become available at all). Remember the Alesis ADAT? The first NAMM press conference for that was at least a year and a half before release. But at least they demonstrated it by sticking a video cassette into a slot in the wall of the booth where it got swallowed by a VCR. They didn't even play any audio from it. I've seen better science fair projects that could never work, but they gave a great presentation. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On 9/8/2011 10:05 PM, Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote:
release date - is it going to fall apart the first time the truck hits a pothole.... does it sound good.... One of my favorite projects is (voice-only) podcasting. Because it's a hobby (no income), we bought a Behringer X2442USB mixer for the dedicated studio. It's very inexpensive and has quite a lot of good features. Recently, we purchased a used Behringer MX2642A Eurodesk mixer for a backup. It is in great shape except for one trim pot. Out of curiosity, I decided to crack open the case to see how hard it might be to replace the pot. Once I got my first look inside, my enthusiasm for Behringer mixers declined dramatically. If Behringer has pioneered anything, they've pioneered the art of making things cheap. Everything except the power supply is mounted on one gigantic circuit board. The pots are less than $3 each, but it takes a day and two charges of the electric screwdriver to get all of the screws out to get to main board out to get to the pot. No, I didn't replace the pot. A local Behringer warranty repair shop told me that they've had a number of units in for repair for two or three months. They can't get the parts, so I didn't try. They are going to stop taking them in for repair if the parts problem doesn't get better. At this point, my opinion is that a Behringer mixer is probably worth its purchase price, based on the application, but don't buy one expecting it to last forever. Maybe your experience is different, but my experience is that, unless you really love challenges, the difficulty in repairing one makes them disposable commodities. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sep 9, 10:25*pm, mcp6453 wrote:
.. we bought a Behringer X2442USB mixer for the dedicated studio Sorry to go slightly off thread ... couldn't help reply to this one. My band has had the on going problem for years of playing an odd 'private' party, usually at hotels such as Hilton, Dorchester, Grosvenor House or such. For folk with too much money! We had the usual massive F.O.H. mixing desk with outboard racks etc. Every time we played such a venue the problems with Maitre Di's was a nightmare for our crew. So we had to make the decision to downsize dramatically. After much research, querying others with the same problem we simply could not find anything with long time reliability that would have 24 channels, groups, on board FX with the size footprint that the Behringer had to offer. Behringer X2442USB Pro ... probably exactly like your one. Perfect and massively impressive in sound delivery. We, of course, had huge problems with our sound jockey who felt, and still feels, embarassed using it. Mounted in a waist high square touring flightcase it houses lots of compressors, FX's and end of line enhancer. Quite perfect. We always, from the first purchase, had two ... one new [spare] .... extremely easy to substitute in a hurry. However, we ran into exactly the problem you had ... pots! But this coincided with the change in Behringer policy ... they simply exchange for new if there is a problem. But the new problem is that the reliability has improved and the units last about 18 months ... so, warranty is no good! At the price the deal stood up well. We still operate on the new/spare principal ... we know that pots are going to give up the ghost eventually ... but hey, everyone else who operates a small footprint 24 channel seems to have the same problem regardless of the make ... that is our experience, from talking to many. So, it would seem that small size = loss of reliability. But the benefits far outweigh the problems .... should see the faces of Festival organisors when our sound jockey wheels in the flightcase and asks for two channels of the Midas F.O.H. desk [grin!]. But we know our sound presentation is going to be awesome and will be awesome from the first note of music. Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I am not a Behringer employee, I am a contractor working with the Army in Iraq.
With that out of the way, here a few clips from the Behringer Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/BEHRINGER (I can tell you one thing, I can't wait to get my hands on one!) Behringer: Exciting news. Our new X32 digital mixer is now fully working. We are starting the extensive testing phase that will take a few more months. Many thanks to our friends from MIDAS who have helped us to design this flagship product. Snip: BEHRINGER Thanks everyone. Midas will help us to test the console as they have been part of the development and know best how to test it. However we are more than happy to engage some of you to help us out. Be assured we won't release the.X32 until is is perfect. Snip: BEHRINGER @Kevin. We are targeting US$ 2500. This does not include the digital snake. @Pepe. Yes absolutely can it be used as a DAW. From another post later: BEHRINGER @David. It has auto-range power supply. The digital snake will be released beginning of next year and made by us. Another: BEHRINGER The preamp of the X32 is one of the finest components of the new digital console. It has been designed together with our friends from Midas, is fully programmable and has the sound quality and technical specs found in US$ 100,000 consoles. We are not exaggerating. BEHRINGER @Mark. the X32 is 24-Bit 96 kHz. BEHRINGER @Stephen, @Hemal, it's not available yet, and will be out in early 2012. Cheers! So that is all the "official" word I have found so far. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On 9/9/2011 5:25 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
Recently, we purchased a used Behringer MX2642A Eurodesk mixer for a backup. It is in great shape except for one trim pot. Out of curiosity, I decided to crack open the case to see how hard it might be to replace the pot. Everything except the power supply is mounted on one gigantic circuit board. The pots are less than $3 each That's the way everybody builds mixers these days. They're just not designed to be repaired. And I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding a suitable replacement pot unless Behringer has a parts department that will sell you one. Same for switches. And maybe that mixer was old enough to still use thru-hole components with real identification numbers on them. So much of this gear, even expensive gear, uses surface mount parts which take a different kind of skill to replace that the older style of components. But equally as big a problem is that for many surface mount parts, you can't tell a resistor from a capacitor, and often there's no value marked on them. So unless you have a schematic and a circuit board layout, you might find the part that smoked or cracked in two, but you won't know what to replace it with. So, yeah, you go on the Internet and ask "Does anyone know what C23 is?" Fortunately, this stuff usually last at least as long as it takes for the first owner to outgrow it. At this point, my opinion is that a Behringer mixer is probably worth its purchase price, based on the application, but don't buy one expecting it to last forever. That's nothing new, but glad you discovered it. I have a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro here with a dead channel. I traced the problem down to just a few components by probing on the back side of the circuit board that I could get to without taking the whole thing apart. It's probably an IC but it might be a shorted capacitor. I'm sure that Mackie can get me the parts (their parts department is pretty good and they sell to real people, not just authorized repair shops) but it'll be a while yet before I decide to tie up my workbench for a few days taking it all apart. Like your Behringer, it's all on one board except the power supply. Once I take it apart, I'm not going to put it back together until it's fixed, and I don't want to leave it disassembled for very long because I might not remember how to put it back together. It's probably about a $100 shop job, but on the other hand, it's a $400 or so mixer. If I were to sell it for $150, someone wiling to get a shop to repair it would be getting a bargain. But if I sold it for $300 (disclosing the problem of course) some sucker would think he got it "on eBay for a good price" and would end up spending what it would cost to buy a new one of the current model (which is actually a little better). Maybe your experience is different, but my experience is that, unless you really love challenges, the difficulty in repairing one makes them disposable commodities. I have a certain tolerance for that, but I know when to put it on the shelf with all the other stuff that's too good to throw away but that I know I'll never get around to fixing. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On 9/10/2011 8:20 AM, Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
We still operate on the new/spare principal ... we know that pots are going to give up the ghost eventually ... So, it would seem that small size = loss of reliability. Reliability is both expensive and hard to do (which is why it's expensive). There's a lot more to it than just buying "MIL-Spec" parts. There are electrical design issues, mechanical design issues, calculations to verify that you'll really get the reliability that you expect, testing to verify your calculations . . . and really, nobody in the audio field does it right. They simply cannot afford to. There are some that take lower risk paths than others but that's about it. What you really want (and each has its own way of measurement and calculation) rather than generic "reliability" (mean time between failures) is availability and continuity of service. Availability is the probability that it will work when you turn it on. Continuity of service is the probability that, once you turn it on, it will continue to work for as long as necessary. One way to get a good availability number is to use high reliability components and good design. One way to get good continuity of service is redundancy. This is why many large live sound consoles have redundant power supplies, since that's a point of failure that can take down the whole show. But when you spend $2,000 or less for your 24-channel mixer, you don't get very much of that stuff. And even if you have a spare in the van, the audience isn't going to appreciate fidgeting for 15 minutes while you haul it in, disconnect the dead one, connect the replacement, and hope it's availability is good enough so that the probability that it won't work THIS time is negligible. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sat 2011-Sep-10 09:20, Mike Rivers writes:
snip And maybe that mixer was old enough to still use thru-hole components with real identification numbers on them. So much of this gear, even expensive gear, uses surface mount parts which take a different kind of skill to replace that the older style of components. But equally as big a problem is that for many surface mount parts, you can't tell a resistor from a capacitor, and often there's no value marked on them. So unless you have a schematic and a circuit board layout, you might find the part that smoked or cracked in two, but you won't know what to replace it with. So, yeah, you go on the Internet and ask "Does anyone know what C23 is?" YEah this is true, or call it a 23 channel mixer, until another one crumps, then it's a 22, etc. Fortunately, this stuff usually last at least as long as it takes for the first owner to outgrow it. Right, but I don't want to throw a $1k or more item I purchased and end up feeding the damned thing to a landfill where it's toxic to other living creatures, including the humans who try to salvage the materials it's made of. To be real blunt about it Screw that!!! YEs, I like those little Behringer 8 channel MIc pre and a/d with adat out. I know it's a damned Bic lighter. IT's a couple hundred bucks, they sell a ton, I can get another one. But I'm not gonna spend $2k on a friggin mixer that might become landfill fodder in two years. I spend that much on a used vehicle that's ten years old and get another five out of it! When I finally do put it away I put it away beause the cost of putting another $1.5k in is more than I'm willing to spend right now. snip again That's nothing new, but glad you discovered it. I have a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro here with a dead channel. I traced the problem down to just a few components by probing on the back side of the circuit board that I could get to without taking the whole thing apart. It's probably an IC but it might be a shorted capacitor. I'm sure that Mackie can get me the parts (their parts department is pretty good and they sell to real people, not just authorized repair shops) but it'll be a while yet before I decide to tie up my workbench for a few days taking it all apart. Like your Behringer, it's all on one board except the power supply. Once I take it apart, I'm not going to put it back together until it's fixed, and I don't want to leave it disassembled for very long because I might not remember how to put it back together. Right, and I might buy a new 1402 or equivalent, but I'm not gonna buy a 24 channel board with that short a life expectancy that doesn't sound that good, or that much better than what I could buy. I'm in the midst of changing the business plan and prepping for a move to NEw ORleans which may mean I'm selling my old MCI and parting out pieces I want to move from the remote truck, but it isn't for lack of liking the gear. Would that I could acquire the channel strips I need for it and justify moving it all back to NEw ORleans, and for the work I'll be seeking there I'm needing recording rig in a rack, something that a cabbie with large cab can be hired to transport to the gig for me. Will there be Behringer stuff in that rig? YEs, those aforementioned mic pre a/d units probably. Will line mixers for monitoring be Behringer. There will probably be one as spare channels in the rack, but otherwise they'll be of higher quality. I might buy a 1402 or their version to have around the house, but I won't buy large format of anything from the usual bottom of the line mi gear folks. I'm not spending that kind of money for that level of quality. Takes up too much room, can't be relied upon after awhile. Other folks mileage varies, and that's why they have a business model that's successful. Take my old remote truck as another example. A 350 cubic inch v8 powers it. IT's an older engine. YEs, it's a gas hog, you're not gonna move that much truck without using a gas hog. ONly trouble with that engine is that it nickels and dimes me to death thanks to modern fuel with the alcohol additives, and when going to/from a gig finding totally alcohol free fuel is a pita. Somebody with the know how and the facilities both could stick a modern 350 heart in there and have an engine that would get 'em another 100k miles on that thing and won't mind if it sits up for three months between uses, whereas this old engine and fuel system has extreme problems with the alcohol additives that mean a new powerplant is required in the near future. IT was one of the things I sort of anticipated when I invested in it, but with changing economic conditions since then, and my lady's health deteriorating that means I'm without my driving partner, and most of the folks I can hire for what I'm paying '"m willing to teach audio, but I'm not willing to trust them handling my vehicle going down the road g. Still somebody with the interest and the facilities could put a new powerplant in it and have an excellent control room to work out of. That brings us finally back to the question of whether it would be worthwhile for Danny. All I can say to DAnny is this: With your resources etc. YOu might be better served spending the same money elseewhere. IF you gotta go digital plunk down a bit more and get one of the Yamahas or something. IF you just need that many channels, and don't want to have to reinvest in another whole mixing desk in five years you might be better off buying something like my old iron, repopulating the missing input strips. HEll you'd get vca groups; hot swappable channel strips, two outboard power supplies! You'd probably spend about the same money to get 28 inputs up and running with vca automation, actual vu meters, hot swappable components while at the gig. That is, if we should decide to sell it. That's still up in the air. But, check your favorite vendors if you're not picky about analog or digital, spend some of your play money to get something that's serviceable, dependable and you'll actually enjoy working on for the next decade. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"mcp6453" wrote in message ... If Behringer has pioneered anything, they've pioneered the art of making things cheap. Everything except the power supply is mounted on one gigantic circuit board. Nope, I think it was Alesis who pioneered the single board unrepairable mixer long before Behrenger, or even Mackie. What Behrenger did was to actualy make them cheap enough to throw away! Frankly any channel problem only means you have one less to play with until you purchase your next mixer. The pots are less than $3 each, but it takes a day and two charges of the electric screwdriver to get all of the screws out to get to main board out to get to the pot. No, I didn't replace the pot. A local Behringer warranty repair shop told me that they've had a number of units in for repair for two or three months. They can't get the parts, so I didn't try. They are going to stop taking them in for repair if the parts problem doesn't get better. Who the hell in their right mind would want to pay a service centre to replace a pot even IF they were available? It would cost as much as a new Behrenger mixer anyway! At this point, my opinion is that a Behringer mixer is probably worth its purchase price, based on the application, but don't buy one expecting it to last forever. I doubt anybody ever did, besides you perhaps. Maybe your experience is different, but my experience is that, unless you really love challenges, the difficulty in repairing one makes them disposable commodities. Exactly, but at least affordable disposable comodities. There are many other brands that are far more expensive disposable comodities. Trevor. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... That's nothing new, but glad you discovered it. I have a Mackie 1402 VLZ Pro here with a dead channel. I traced the problem down to just a few components by probing on the back side of the circuit board that I could get to without taking the whole thing apart. It's probably an IC but it might be a shorted capacitor. I'm sure that Mackie can get me the parts (their parts department is pretty good and they sell to real people, not just authorized repair shops) but it'll be a while yet before I decide to tie up my workbench for a few days taking it all apart. Like your Behringer, it's all on one board except the power supply. Once I take it apart, I'm not going to put it back together until it's fixed, and I don't want to leave it disassembled for very long because I might not remember how to put it back together. It's probably about a $100 shop job, Either your service centres charge a LOT less per hour for labour than ours, or you are *seriously* underestimating the repair cost. I suspect the latter is more likely. If it's only one channel, you simply mark that as dead and live with the rest. It's simply not worth the cost of repair, or time if you do it yourself. Trevor. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On 9/11/2011 2:29 AM, Trevor wrote:
Everything except the power supply is mounted on one gigantic circuit board. Nope, I think it was Alesis who pioneered the single board unrepairable mixer long before Behrenger, or even Mackie. That Alesis mixer took it a step further than anyone else, and anyone since, thank goodness. The switch contacts and pot and fader elements were printed on the board so there was no wiring involved. But when a fader track got worn, you couldn't replace just the fader, you had to replace the whole board. I think the 1622s all turned to dust, but it was a $1,000 16-channel mixer when nobody else made one. They also had a large format recording console for a short time. I don't know if they ever sold any, but it was a great match for three ADATs to make a 24-track control room. Alesis was a pretty innovative company back in the early days. Who the hell in their right mind would want to pay a service centre to replace a pot even IF they were available? It would cost as much as a new Behrenger mixer anyway! Somebody who had a mixer that served his needs and wanted to continue using it. There indeed is a point where the cost of repair exceeds the cost of replacement since it's not any easier to replace a pot on a 4 channel mixer than on a 24 channel mixer, but the cost of replacement is significantly different. Exactly, but at least affordable disposable comodities. There are many other brands that are far more expensive disposable comodities. The thing is that people buy products in this price/functionality range because that's all they can afford. It enables them to do something that they couldn't otherwise do. They don't buy them with the idea that they'll throw them away when they develop a problem that can't be ignored, so they're ****ed when that ultimately happens. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/9/2011 11:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Everyone has taken a cue from the computer people and now it's common to announce products years before they are actually available (if they even become available at all). Remember the Alesis ADAT? The first NAMM press conference for that was at least a year and a half before release. But at least they demonstrated it by sticking a video cassette into a slot in the wall of the booth where it got swallowed by a VCR. They didn't even play any audio from it. Sure, but IBM was selling products like that fifty years earlier! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"Trevor" wrote in message
... "mcp6453" wrote in message ... Maybe your experience is different, but my experience is that, unless you really love challenges, the difficulty in repairing one makes them disposable commodities. Exactly, but at least affordable disposable comodities. There are many other brands that are far more expensive disposable comodities. You know, I understand how the economics work and why it can make a real difference to someone on a budget, but... On the other hand I find it endlessly delightful to fire up my old gear that wasn't designed to be disposable, and sounds as good now as it did 10-15-20 years ago. The sound quality goes up a lot once you step up from the commodity level, and you have time to really learn and understand how it sounds and what you can do with it. Yes it costs more up front but I would have had to purchase a lot more of the disposable stuff by now anyway. I wonder if the people who were raised on disposable gear really know what they're missing. Sean |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sep 10, 2:37*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/10/2011 8:20 AM, Dec [Cluskey] wrote: We still operate on the new/spare principal ... we know that pots are http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and interesting audio stuff Mike And even if you have a spare in the van, the audience isn't going to appreciate fidgeting for 15 minutes while you haul it in, disconnect the dead one, connect the replacement, and hope it's availability is good enough I would have to say that Behringer gear has never compromised any performance or studio situation I have ever been involved with. So we have never had an audience left waiting ... just the inconvenience of perhaps a High Hat channel not working [would the sudience really notice?] I have long been an advocate of buying with your ears rather than with your eyes [for the brand name]. Having said that it is annoying that a good sounding piece of kit will suddenly missbehave ... ergo: their fabulous Ultrafex Pro [end of line enhancer ... much admired and still seems to have secret circuitry] ... mine [in the studio] has lost the LED lights on the right channel ... rest is working but this is annoying ... cost? £40 [$60?] New. Similarly, their Multicom PRO-XL [4 in one compressor] ... stunnig bit of kit for live work and also for studio.... but tends to just drop a channel for no reason ... then again, would the audience notice? I have all the expensive stuff in my studio but the sound of that is tasty [for my kind of work] . Reliability is a strange animal .... Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
The B-brands, was: " Any recent word on the Behringer X32?"
Dec [Cluskey] wrote:
I have long been an advocate of buying with your ears rather than with your eyes [for the brand name]. I was asked to be sound op with supplied, rented gear at the horseshow I have supplied sound to for a couple of years, and did it because the horse-people expected me as sound op. No budget to pay my time, so in the end I did it pro bono as a hobby venture in accordance with the conditions for intermediary early retirement. Video is on youtube, search for (copy and paste) "Historisk Hestetræf". I didn't focus on the equipment, but it is possible to see how things were set up. The rented rig was a behringer mixer, a bose eq, a one size too small amp, no compressor-limiter (the obvious choice then to clip the input rather than the poweramp!) and 4 Bose 802's. No speaker and mix-position monitor loudspeaker was supplied, so I brought a Thomann the cheapest own brand powermixer and a b1220 and ran it from the headphone output to have it follow the main mix of speak and music. The 802 is not a bad loudspeaker for speak, but that show had been better off with 4 B1220's and one 802 because that box has the property of projection and btw. also better bass. Good bass matters for horseshow because of the horse people music preferences .... Otoh, I did hear the Bose sound stick used for a piano, a mandolin and a couple of violins via some small membrane condenser recently, it actually worked very very well for the purpose, obviously the optimum rig. Must be what it is designed to do .... Reliability is a strange animal .... Horses for courses, it doesn't help if it is costlier if it doesn't fit the task it is there to do. Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On 9/11/2011 2:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Remember the Alesis ADAT? The first NAMM press conference for that was at least a year and a half before release. Sure, but IBM was selling products like that fifty years earlier! And "Nobody every got fired for buying IBM." ') -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"Dec [Cluskey]" wrote in message
news:757299aa-2780-4008-aef6- Similarly, their Multicom PRO-XL [4 in one compressor] ... stunnig bit of kit for live work and also for studio.... but tends to just drop a channel for no reason ... then again, would the audience notice? I have all the expensive stuff in my studio but the sound of that is tasty [for my kind of work] . I've been using one for the gates for a few years, so I can directly relate to this piece. Seriously, the best sounding setting on it is 'bypass'. It's not as bad as a 3630, but it's not something I'd use for lead vocal through, either. Give me an RNC any day. I'd rather have one channel of usable compression than four channels of crap. Sean |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... That Alesis mixer took it a step further than anyone else, and anyone since, thank goodness. The switch contacts and pot and fader elements were printed on the board so there was no wiring involved. But when a fader track got worn, you couldn't replace just the fader, you had to replace the whole board. I think the 1622s all turned to dust, but it was a $1,000 16-channel mixer when nobody else made one. They also had a large format recording console for a short time. I don't know if they ever sold any, but it was a great match for three ADATs to make a 24-track control room. Alesis was a pretty innovative company back in the early days. And thankfully their idea of "innovation" never caught on. Who the hell in their right mind would want to pay a service centre to replace a pot even IF they were available? It would cost as much as a new Behrenger mixer anyway! Somebody who had a mixer that served his needs and wanted to continue using it.... Would buy a new one complete with warranty! Unless they are an idiot. There indeed is a point where the cost of repair exceeds the cost of replacement since it's not any easier to replace a pot on a 4 channel mixer than on a 24 channel mixer, but the cost of replacement is significantly different. And since even the 24 channel Behrenger mixers cost about the same as pulling one apart, they are all disposable. The digital mixers would be the exception. Exactly, but at least affordable disposable comodities. There are many other brands that are far more expensive disposable comodities. The thing is that people buy products in this price/functionality range because that's all they can afford. It enables them to do something that they couldn't otherwise do. Exactly! They don't buy them with the idea that they'll throw them away when they develop a problem that can't be ignored, so they're ****ed when that ultimately happens. Then they just didn't understand what the trade off was. Now they know. Same with MOST consumer electronic equipment these days, FAR cheaper to buy than in the past, FAR less repairable. If they don't know that by now they only have themselves to blame. Trevor. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... On the other hand I find it endlessly delightful to fire up my old gear that wasn't designed to be disposable, and sounds as good now as it did 10-15-20 years ago. Me too, some over 30 years old, but that won't include any digital equipment! The sound quality goes up a lot once you step up from the commodity level, In most cases, but's it's surprising how small the gap now is for almost everything bar speakers, compared to 30 years ago when you HAD to pay ten times the budget level to get even reasonable sound quality. and you have time to really learn and understand how it sounds and what you can do with it. Yes it costs more up front but I would have had to purchase a lot more of the disposable stuff by now anyway. I'm SO glad I now have the choice, 20-30 years ago it was pay a fortune or go without. :-( I wonder if the people who were raised on disposable gear really know what they're missing. And what they have gained!!! Trevor. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
The B-brands, was: " Any recent word on the Behringer X32?"
On Sep 11, 9:02*pm, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
Peter The rented rig was a behringer mixer, a bose eq, a one size too small amp, no compressor-limiter You are a very brave man Peter .... [grin!] "On a hiding to nothing" .... as I have heard said. I was around when the first Bose came on the market ... we were in partnership with the first importers and distributors into UK [Robert Luff]. They proudly used two to power the show "Black and White Minstrels" [the biggest show in UK at the time ... oh how politically incorrect today?] ... both at Opera House Blackpool [3092 seats] and Victoria Palace, London [probably 2,000 seats]. Brings shivers to the spine to even think of it. I well remember the number they blew ... don't know how .... must have been clipping when I think about it .... but they certainly sold a few. Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Mike Rivers wrote: On 9/9/2011 11:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Everyone has taken a cue from the computer people and now it's common to announce products years before they are actually available (if they even become available at all). Remember the Alesis ADAT? The first NAMM press conference for that was at least a year and a half before release. But at least they demonstrated it by sticking a video cassette into a slot in the wall of the booth where it got swallowed by a VCR. They didn't even play any audio from it. Sure, but IBM was selling products like that fifty years earlier! If you start talking about products like the IBM System 360 models 92, and 93; some if not all of them never ever saw the light of day. They were forever vapor. The root model of that series, the model 90 is said to be represented by a few examples, but the only ones I know of existed within IBM. I just did a little research and find that NASA had a model 91. The 92 and 93 were alleged by IBM to be compeitition for the CDC 6000 and 6600 which not only saw the light of day but sold pretty well and worked far better than anything IBM had at the time or for maybe a decade or more later. One giant example of those allegations involved a large sale to Dow Chemical company which was handled out of the IBM field office I worked for at the time. IBM eventually paid a stiff price for that little slip-up. They settled with CDC by giving them a IBM division that was worth maybe 100 million dollars a year in revenues and if memory serves, some cash. I remain to be of the opinion that any effort at developing a digital console is constrained by patents. I would not be surprised if the owners of the bulk of he patents, being Yamaha are very happy to license their technology for costs that result in anybody else's digital console costing more than Yamaha's competitive product when everything is considered. Many of these patents should be expiring pretty soon. I suspect that people are entering this market now so that they will have a foothold in the market that they can exploit more agressively after the patents expire. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sep 11, 10:51*pm, "Sean Conolly" wrote:
It's not as bad as a 3630, but it's not something I'd use for lead vocal through, either. Give me an RNC any day. I'd rather have one channel of usable compression than four channels of crap. Sean Sean We only use the Multicom in our live concert rig .... just sits there and does the job. 3 Vocals and Ac. Guitar go through it. So never needs attention from concert to concert other than to check the settings haven't been altered. I have an old broken one knocking around the studio but have never used it. We tend to use mostly Industry Standard stuff in the studio but the main vocal compressor is Fatman 1 by TLA ... quite the best tool I have ever heard ... your certainly know it is on! I have always used compression as an effect never for sonic 'correctness'. Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Trevor wrote:
Nope, I think it was Alesis who pioneered the single board unrepairable mixer long before Behrenger, or even Mackie. What Behrenger did was to actualy make them cheap enough to throw away! Frankly any channel problem only means you have one less to play with until you purchase your next mixer. Well, Behringer also make them work beyond the first 30 days, which is something Alesis never could figure out how to do.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Sean Conolly wrote:
On the other hand I find it endlessly delightful to fire up my old gear that wasn't designed to be disposable, and sounds as good now as it did 10-15-20 years ago. The sound quality goes up a lot once you step up from the commodity level, and you have time to really learn and understand how it sounds and what you can do with it. Yes it costs more up front but I would have had to purchase a lot more of the disposable stuff by now anyway. The problem with disposable gear is that you get to the point where you can work with it... and then it breaks and you replace it and then you have to learn a whole new piece of gear... I wonder if the people who were raised on disposable gear really know what they're missing. They don't, and I can tell because of what happens when I bring folks in and sit them down at a real console for the first time. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Arny Krueger wrote:
If you start talking about products like the IBM System 360 models 92, and 93; some if not all of them never ever saw the light of day. They were forever vapor. The root model of that series, the model 90 is said to be represented by a few examples, but the only ones I know of existed within IBM. I just did a little research and find that NASA had a model 91. Goddard had the 91, also a 95 and later a 195. But from the beginning, IBM was in the business of selling products before they actually existed. It lead to huge numbers of jokes, like the IBM salesman's wife who never would have sex with her, he just sat on the bed and talked about how good it would be when it finally got here. Mind you, the rest of the computer industry was just as bad. DEC introduced the sales campaign "Digital Has It Now" as kind of a reaction to that, though customers tended to call it "Digital Has It Now But You Can't Have It." The 92 and 93 were alleged by IBM to be compeitition for the CDC 6000 and 6600 which not only saw the light of day but sold pretty well and worked far better than anything IBM had at the time or for maybe a decade or more later. One giant example of those allegations involved a large sale to Dow Chemical company which was handled out of the IBM field office I worked for at the time. The Cybers were very bizarre machines.... if you were looking for the fastest possible floating point performance, the 6600 beat the pants off of anything IBM made, and it pretty much drove IBM out of the scientific computing business. If you were looking to do anything involving text or BCD you could pretty much forget it. You got to use the floating point normalize instruction to move 6-bit characters around. I remain to be of the opinion that any effort at developing a digital console is constrained by patents. I would not be surprised if the owners of the bulk of he patents, being Yamaha are very happy to license their technology for costs that result in anybody else's digital console costing more than Yamaha's competitive product when everything is considered. Many of these patents should be expiring pretty soon. I suspect that people are entering this market now so that they will have a foothold in the market that they can exploit more agressively after the patents expire. It's going to be an interesting decade coming up, I agree. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sep 12, 7:09*am, "Dec [Cluskey]" wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:51*pm, "Sean Conolly" wrote: *It's not as bad as a 3630, but it's not something I'd use for lead vocal through, either. Give me an RNC any day. I'd rather have one channel of usable compression than four channels of crap. Sean Sean We only use the Multicom in our live concert rig .... just sits there and does the job. *3 Vocals and Ac. Guitar go through it. *So never needs attention from concert to concert other than to check the settings haven't been altered. *I have an old broken one knocking around the studio but have never used it. We tend to use mostly Industry Standard stuff in the studio but the main vocal compressor is Fatman 1 by TLA ... quite the best tool I have ever heard ... your certainly know it is on! *I have always used compression as an effect never for sonic 'correctness'. Dec [Cluskey] *http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog I put a few multicoms in my rack once upon a time and thought they were the worst most unusable compressors I had ever set hands on. I actually never used them. On the other hand, I have a bunch of RNC's that don't get used much but I won't part with them because I can't stand the thought of needing one and not having it. Yes there is a price difference and space difference but it isn't much. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sep 12, 8:06*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Sean Conolly wrote: snip,,,,,,, I wonder if the people who were raised on disposable gear really know what they're missing. They don't, and I can tell because of what happens when I bring folks in and sit them down at a real console for the first time. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." If you ever want to test the ears of the average public, sit down and play an out of tune guitar. It will be killing your ears and the public will not notice. Most people focus on something, a bass, drum beat, whatever but they don't hear all the music. They only hear a part of it. What they do hear is going into a head that doesn't really spend time thinking deeply about what they are hearing. The average length of concentration is surprisingly short. Kids at a concert are more concerned with blowing off energy they the music. Kids at a club are more concerned with their body movement and attracting the hot girl then the music. When it comes down to it, music is only a pulse or backdrop for whatever else is going on in the room. Only people that really study music hear the fine points. We're in a time when very few people have ever really studied music. You pretty much have to be over 40 to be in a generation that bothered to learn an instrument. Younger then that, you might have had a taste in music but rarely will you be accomplished. The per capita musician has dropped like crazy do to changes of times..... IMO |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 9/8/2011 10:05 PM, Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~ wrote: release date - is it going to fall apart the first time the truck hits a pothole.... does it sound good.... Mum's the word. Obviously a premature announcement. They had some good ideas but it takes a lot of time to develop and implement them. It's difficult to clone or copy a digital console - not that Behringer does anything like that any more. Digital fingerprints would be everywhere. It's not like we're an analog world anymore. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: On 9/9/2011 11:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Everyone has taken a cue from the computer people and now it's common to announce products years before they are actually available (if they even become available at all). Remember the Alesis ADAT? The first NAMM press conference for that was at least a year and a half before release. But at least they demonstrated it by sticking a video cassette into a slot in the wall of the booth where it got swallowed by a VCR. They didn't even play any audio from it. Sure, but IBM was selling products like that fifty years earlier! --scott Getting in shape to work with Gates. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: If you start talking about products like the IBM System 360 models 92, and 93; some if not all of them never ever saw the light of day. They were forever vapor. The root model of that series, the model 90 is said to be represented by a few examples, but the only ones I know of existed within IBM. I just did a little research and find that NASA had a model 91. Goddard had the 91, also a 95 and later a 195. But from the beginning, IBM was in the business of selling products before they actually existed. It lead to huge numbers of jokes, like the IBM salesman's wife who never would have sex with her, he just sat on the bed and talked about how good it would be when it finally got here. There is another mention of that that I found with additional searching. Both 95s that were ever made were alleged to have been delivererd to Goddard. http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/pan05.htm Given IBM's very tight relationship with NASA, they might have been mystery meat, as well. Mind you, the rest of the computer industry was just as bad. DEC introduced the sales campaign "Digital Has It Now" as kind of a reaction to that, though customers tended to call it "Digital Has It Now But You Can't Have It." It seems to me that there was a particual model that was delayed a long time, but eventuatlly was a real product. Was that the DEC 20? The 92 and 93 were alleged by IBM to be compeitition for the CDC 6000 and 6600 which not only saw the light of day but sold pretty well and worked far better than anything IBM had at the time or for maybe a decade or more later. One giant example of those allegations involved a large sale to Dow Chemical company which was handled out of the IBM field office I worked for at the time. The Cybers were very bizarre machines.... if you were looking for the fastest possible floating point performance, the 6600 beat the pants off of anything IBM made, and it pretty much drove IBM out of the scientific computing business. If you were looking to do anything involving text or BCD you could pretty much forget it. You got to use the floating point normalize instruction to move 6-bit characters around. I did quite a bit of scientific programming on Chrysler's dual Cyber complex in the early-mid 1970s. From the perspective of both floating point and nominal character manipulations in Fortran, there was nothing strange. Compared to IBM Fortran IV, CDC's compilers were far more powerful and flexible. The CPUs really ran code fast! CDC also had a working interactive computing solution that from the user's perspective whipped the pants off of IBM's competitive offerings. When Chrysler crashed in the mid-1970s, I moved to a IBM-only shop and it was like stepping back at least 5 years. It was actually a good career move because I was ahead of the rest at that shop when it came to the concepts and methods for using modern tools. I said nothing about what I saw in my life in the future until it showed up a number of years later from IBM. The Cybers may have been bizarre to some, but to me they were a very elegant solution. Instead of a myriad of very different I/O device controllers such as IBM used (disk, tape, cards, terminals, etc.) CDC used a number of idenical minicomputers that were programmed to perform the various control fuctions. The main processor ran under control of one of the controller minis. This allowed it to be very highly optimized for running user code. I remain to be of the opinion that any effort at developing a digital console is constrained by patents. I would not be surprised if the owners of the bulk of he patents, being Yamaha are very happy to license their technology for costs that result in anybody else's digital console costing more than Yamaha's competitive product when everything is considered. Many of these patents should be expiring pretty soon. I suspect that people are entering this market now so that they will have a foothold in the market that they can exploit more agressively after the patents expire. It's going to be an interesting decade coming up, I agree. The box count for effective systems will go down, as more and more functions that are now handled by dedicated devices are performed in the same box as basic functions such as mixing. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Arny Krueger wrote:
There is another mention of that that I found with additional searching. Both 95s that were ever made were alleged to have been delivererd to Goddard. http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/pan05.htm Given IBM's very tight relationship with NASA, they might have been mystery meat, as well. The other one was somewhere at NASA but I don't know offhand where. It wasn't in the Goddard computer center, though, which was definitely a collection of IBM weirdness. For a long time, Goddard basically did all of the computation for all of NASA and everybody sent data up there either on realtime circuits or from RJE stations for computation. It wasn't until Gemini, I think, that Kennedy got enough compute power to even do basic orbit calculations. These days that mission has moved from Goddard out to Ames in California and folks send big compute jobs to the supercomputers at Ames. Mind you, the rest of the computer industry was just as bad. DEC introduced the sales campaign "Digital Has It Now" as kind of a reaction to that, though customers tended to call it "Digital Has It Now But You Can't Have It." It seems to me that there was a particual model that was delayed a long time, but eventuatlly was a real product. Was that the DEC 20? DECSYSTEM-20 was actually the same hardware as the DECSYSTEM-10, but with different software and different color paint. DEC's real problem was that due to their weird ordering systems, there were plenty of systems in the catalogue that you couldn't get because they didn't support THAT card with THAT cable and so they wouldn't ship it. People would buy spare parts and assemble them together. I don't recall anything insanely delayed from DEC, although of course there was the Foonly which was going to be a DECSYSTEM clone if it ever happened. I did quite a bit of scientific programming on Chrysler's dual Cyber complex in the early-mid 1970s. From the perspective of both floating point and nominal character manipulations in Fortran, there was nothing strange. Fortran hid all the weirdness, but you should have SEEN what COMPASS was like. It was very bizarre... automatic fetches and stores (and you could do multiple stores in a cycle) and all the character silliness. You could even run COBOL on the things (and at least one site did) and it ran just fine, but down under the hood the compiler was using the vector pipe for character manipulation. Compared to IBM Fortran IV, CDC's compilers were far more powerful and flexible. The CPUs really ran code fast! CDC also had a working interactive computing solution that from the user's perspective whipped the pants off of IBM's competitive offerings. When Chrysler crashed in the mid-1970s, I moved to a IBM-only shop and it was like stepping back at least 5 years. It was actually a good career move because I was ahead of the rest at that shop when it came to the concepts and methods for using modern tools. I said nothing about what I saw in my life in the future until it showed up a number of years later from IBM. IBM basically abandoned the scientific computing community some time in the /360 era and so things like a fortran compiler that worked properly and fast vector computation just didn't happen in that world. I always found it ironic that so much of the technology in the computer world was developed by IBM's research arm, adopted by their competition, and only actually used by IBM until the rest of the world had been using it for years. The Cybers may have been bizarre to some, but to me they were a very elegant solution. Instead of a myriad of very different I/O device controllers such as IBM used (disk, tape, cards, terminals, etc.) CDC used a number of idenical minicomputers that were programmed to perform the various control fuctions. The main processor ran under control of one of the controller minis. This allowed it to be very highly optimized for running user code. Don't even get me started about PPU code. This kind of thing makes for some serious performance running scientific code.... the CPU is running fewer processes, and the process granularity can be very high because the PPU is servicing the user's terminal. With a big vector pipe, saving machine state to change contexts is very expensive, and the PPU concept fixes all that. But man, it's unpleasant for anyone having to write code that talks to I/O devices. The box count for effective systems will go down, as more and more functions that are now handled by dedicated devices are performed in the same box as basic functions such as mixing. I am not sure I believe this... I think we have come to the point in both the audio and computer worlds where 90% of the hard stuff is user interface. It's easy to put everything _but the UI_ into one box, but that UI becomes a killer. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On 9/12/2011 9:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The problem with disposable gear is that you get to the point where you can work with it... and then it breaks and you replace it and then you have to learn a whole new piece of gear... It's Alzheimer's all over again. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sep 12, 10:22*am, "Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~"
wrote: We're in a time when very few people have ever really studied music. You pretty much have to be over 40 to be in a generation that bothered to learn an instrument. Younger then that, you might have had a taste in music but rarely will *you be accomplished. The per capita musician has dropped like crazy do to changes of times..... IMO I'm not sure you're right about that. I work at a university which is loaded with musicians (we have a very active music school, but a lot of the students in the rest of the university also play). Many of them are accomplished beyond my wildest dreams. Peace, Paul |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
Younger then that, you might have had a taste in music but rarely will you be accomplished. The per capita musician has dropped like crazy do to changes of times..... IMO At least it makes the skill more rare. Maybe I'll get a spot on a talk show in 20 years as an old timer that makes music by stretching strings across a box - with no computer. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Any recent word on the Behringer X32?
On Sep 12, 1:42*pm, PStamler wrote:
On Sep 12, 10:22*am, "Danny ~~_/) ~~_/) ~~_/) wrote: We're in a time when very few people have ever really studied music. You pretty much have to be over 40 to be in a generation that bothered to learn an instrument. Younger then that, you might have had a taste in music but rarely will *you be accomplished. The per capita musician has dropped like crazy do to changes of times..... IMO I'm not sure you're right about that. I work at a university which is loaded with musicians (we have a very active music school, but a lot of the students in the rest of the university also play). Many of them are accomplished beyond my wildest dreams. Peace, Paul Sounds like you are great musical environment. I'm sure you'd feel different if you were not there. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mackie vs. Behringer (more recent versions) | Pro Audio | |||
loudness wars redux - the first word is the last word | Pro Audio | |||
Wanted: Godin Midi Guitar, recent grooveboxes, Behringer Power Play | Pro Audio | |||
Wanted: Godin Midi Guitar, recent grooveboxes, Behringer Power Play | Pro Audio | |||
Wanted: Godin Midi Guitar, recent grooveboxes, Behringer Power Play | Marketplace |