[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


On 1/2/2011 12:13 PM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
most small mixers, analog or digital do not come
with full always on metering, how would you know
what level a aux was sending on a LX7 or 500B
without pressing the afl button,

You may not know how many volts you're sending (you'll
take care of that during setup), but on an analog
console, you can tell relative levels simply by looking
at the position of the knobs.

I don't see a lot of difference or if there is a difference any loss
between that and how things work on my digital console. The "knobs" may
be on a menu that has to be displayed but I usually can select that menu
by simply touching the relevant fader.

I tried the touch fader option on my yamahas but found i tend to rest my
fingers on faders even when not in use and was always selecting a channel
other than intended
I perfer the select button option, but it is really 6 of one and 1/2 dozenof
the other according to mpersonal prefrence
George

[Arny Krueger]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message

Behringer has pros and cons. The pro is that it is cheap,
but by and large, not very serviceable.

I don't see where Behringer products are any more or less servicable than
competitive products. They may make consoles with relatitvely large circuit
cards in them, but they are hardly unique in that regard.

I have 2 behringer powered mixers. I have yet to figure
out how to dismantle one of them to replace the master
volume pot that got bent a bit. Furthermore, to get a
replacement pot is about $25 all in all.

I have 2 Behringer mixers, one that cost under $60 and the other than cost
$99. They have served me reliably for enough years that if I had to scrap
them, my cost of ownership would be well under $1 per month. Would I even
pay $10 to fix my cheaper Behringer which is now 6 years old.? If I fix it,
I then have a six year old used mixer that could easily fail some other way
in a few months.

I use tissue paper to blow my noise because neither I nor my wife have any
time to acquite and maintain cotton hankies. So does just about everybody
else in the first world. We need not get into the other things I do with
it... ;-)

I now use a Studiomaster powered wedge mixer as its mic
input noise is -127db verses the huge -112dbv of the behringer. The
noise of the Behringer is very noticeable at pub gigs,
let along recording.

Given the acoustic noise levels that one sees in real world studios and
stages, I will fearlessly suggest that if you can't get a subjectively noise
free recording with equipment with -112 dB noise, perhaps you need to
rethink your gain staging and/or mic choice and positioning.

The dynamic range of live music is usually around 70 dB or worse. To me
that means that I would have about 50 dB headroom with equipment that
has -112 dB noise. 20 dB headroom, but sometimes as little as 6 dB headroom
usually suffices for me. It is all about how well I can predict what the
talent is going to do.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


That being said, I think that the new Behringer digital
console, if it gets out the gate soon enough, and
sufficiently bug-free, will give the PreSonus StudioLive
24.4.2 a good run for the money and may offer an
alternative for people attracted to the Roland system but
find it too pricey. The Behringer seems to be looking at
the same sort of connectivity that Roland (and, sure,
Yamaha, too) has been pushing - integrated digital snake
system, integrated multichannel monitor system, and such.

I've been pretty vocal with my questions about the PreSonus. Frankly, I
don't see it as being a very powerful tool. I don't see it as exploiting
many of the worthwhile benefits of being digital. Its not that I have a
grudge against PreSonus, I have other gear that they make and it is fine.

While the new Behringer digital mixer seems to be a lot of mystery meat at
this time, what little is known about it it positions it as addressing a
lot of the questions I have about the Presonus. The last Behringer digital
console was pretty much a functional clone of an 01V96 which put it well
ahead of the Presonus in my book.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

I now use a Studiomaster powered wedge mixer as its mic
input noise is -127db verses the huge -112dbv of the behringer. The
noise of the Behringer is very noticeable at pub gigs,
let along recording.

Given the acoustic noise levels that one sees in real world studios and
stages, I will fearlessly suggest that if you can't get a subjectively
noise free recording with equipment with -112 dB noise, perhaps you need
to rethink your gain staging and/or mic choice and positioning.


I agree, I would also suggest you measure that studiomaster as that figure
seems awful suspect to me
George

[Arny Krueger]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message

Its a Eurodesk SL2442FX-Pro. I will have another check
when I get over to see him.

RTFM

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


That being said, I think that the new Behringer digital
console, if it gets out the gate soon enough, and
sufficiently bug-free, will give the PreSonus StudioLive
24.4.2 a good run for the money and may offer an
alternative for people attracted to the Roland system but
find it too pricey. The Behringer seems to be looking at
the same sort of connectivity that Roland (and, sure,
Yamaha, too) has been pushing - integrated digital snake
system, integrated multichannel monitor system, and such.

I've been pretty vocal with my questions about the PreSonus. Frankly, I
don't see it as being a very powerful tool. I don't see it as exploiting
many of the worthwhile benefits of being digital. Its not that I have a
grudge against PreSonus, I have other gear that they make and it is fine.

While the new Behringer digital mixer seems to be a lot of mystery meat at
this time, what little is known about it it positions it as addressing a
lot of the questions I have about the Presonus. The last Behringer digital
console was pretty much a functional clone of an 01V96 which put it well
ahead of the Presonus in my book.

The ddx3216, which I still own and use was considerably easier to config
and operate that any of the yamaha 01 series stuff
George

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 1/2/2011 1:37 PM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

Here is a little better picture of it from a few months
ago

How unusual to have analog meters on a digital console. I
like it already.

Compare the picture at

http://www.mio.co.za/article/behring...xer-2010-11-29

to the one at

http://www.behringer.com/DE/Products/X32.aspx

and notice that they must be two different consoles.

[Arny Krueger]

"George's Pro Sound Co." wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message


On 1/2/2011 12:13 PM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
most small mixers, analog or digital do not come
with full always on metering, how would you know
what level a aux was sending on a LX7 or 500B
without pressing the afl button,

You may not know how many volts you're sending (you'll
take care of that during setup), but on an analog
console, you can tell relative levels simply by looking
at the position of the knobs.

I don't see a lot of difference or if there is a
difference any loss between that and how things work on
my digital console. The "knobs" may be on a menu that
has to be displayed but I usually can select that menu
by simply touching the relevant fader.

I tried the touch fader option on my yamahas but found i
tend to rest my fingers on faders even when not in use
and was always selecting a channel other than intended

Been there, done that. Making the touch sensitivity work takes a little
light fingered work. Hand size may be part of the equation. My hands and
fingers are unusually small.

I perfer the select button option, but it is really 6 of
one and 1/2 dozenof the other according to mpersonal
preference

Exactly. What works for some does not work for others, and vice-versa. Happy
mixing!

[Arny Krueger]

"George's Pro Sound Co." wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup
I now use a Studiomaster powered wedge mixer as its mic
input noise is -127db verses the huge -112dbv of the
behringer. The noise of the Behringer is very
noticeable at pub gigs, let along recording.

Given the acoustic noise levels that one sees in real
world studios and stages, I will fearlessly suggest that
if you can't get a subjectively noise free recording
with equipment with -112 dB noise, perhaps you need to
rethink your gain staging and/or mic choice and
positioning.

I agree, I would also suggest you measure that
studiomaster as that figure seems awful suspect to me

Normal spec for a Behringer console mic preamp is 120 dB EIN, but I don't
know how that translates into dBV.

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Normal spec for a Behringer console mic preamp is 120 dB EIN, but I don't
know how that translates into dBV.

Different Berhinger models have different performance.

The PMP880 and PMP1280S are bad, spec -112db ein. The SX2442 spec -129db
ein.


Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"George's Pro Sound Co." wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup...



I now use a Studiomaster powered wedge mixer as its mic
input noise is -127db verses the huge -112dbv of the behringer. The
noise of the Behringer is very noticeable at pub gigs,
let along recording.

Given the acoustic noise levels that one sees in real world studios and
stages, I will fearlessly suggest that if you can't get a subjectively
noise free recording with equipment with -112 dB noise, perhaps you need
to rethink your gain staging and/or mic choice and positioning.


I agree, I would also suggest you measure that studiomaster as that figure
seems awful suspect to me
George

Not to me it isn't. Studiomaster have always had that sort of noise
performance, ever since I was their chief design engineer in 1982:-)

Its not very difficult to get -127db, getting -132db unweighted @ 200 ohms
is a tad difficult:-)


Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
"George's Pro Sound Co." wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup...



I now use a Studiomaster powered wedge mixer as its mic
input noise is -127db verses the huge -112dbv of the behringer. The
noise of the Behringer is very noticeable at pub gigs,
let along recording.

Given the acoustic noise levels that one sees in real world studios and
stages, I will fearlessly suggest that if you can't get a subjectively
noise free recording with equipment with -112 dB noise, perhaps you need
to rethink your gain staging and/or mic choice and positioning.


I agree, I would also suggest you measure that studiomaster as that figure
seems awful suspect to me
George

Not to me it isn't. Studiomaster have always had that sort of noise
performance, ever since I was their chief design engineer in 1982:-)

Its not very difficult to get -127db, getting -132db unweighted @ 200 ohms
is a tad difficult:-)

did not see much studiomaster here in the states and what I did come across
sure was not "up to snuff'
I think the last unit I saw was over 12 years ago and even then it was a
rarity, so a default to your experiance as mine was limited but none too
fondly remembered.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Normal spec for a Behringer console mic preamp is 120 dB
EIN, but I don't know how that translates into dBV.

Different Berhinger models have different performance.

The PMP880 and PMP1280S are bad, spec -112db ein.

If memory serves those are powered mixers, which are not really comparable
to stand-alone mixing consoles. They usually perform a little worse, if only
because of the big, potentially heavily-loaded power transformer in the box.

The SX2442 spec -129db ein.

The problem with all of the above is that dBs without a stated reference
level and meausrement bandwidth are meaningless.

Of course, for numbers in the 100+ dB range, the difference between leading
candidate reference levels, either dBu or dBv, don't make that much
difference.

But the actual reference voltage is not given explicitly, and the
measurement bandwidth can only be speculated at.

Usually dBA is about 10 dB better than 20-20K -3 dB weighting. Not that
dBA doesn't make sense, this is all troublesome because we are unsure that
we are comparing apples to apples.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

It would have been a tough decision to choose which I disliked more
the Kelsey or the studiomaster , now I never owned either, they were what
was on the rental market before I started buying gear
George

[Arny Krueger]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message

Not to me it isn't. Studiomaster have always had that
sort of noise performance, ever since I was their chief
design engineer in 1982:-)


Do you know or know of Graham Stevenson? I believe he has said that he had
some connection with Studiomaster.

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I now use a Studiomaster powered wedge mixer as its mic
input noise is -127db verses the huge -112dbv of the behringer. The
noise of the Behringer is very noticeable at pub gigs,
let along recording.

Given the acoustic noise levels that one sees in real world studios and
stages, I will fearlessly suggest that if you can't get a subjectively
noise free recording with equipment with -112 dB noise, perhaps you need to
rethink your gain staging and/or mic choice and positioning.

I disagree. -112db ein is a staggering 15db larger than any typical "decent"
mic input stage, and this has been the case for 30 years. Even -127db ein,
when recording, can be very noticeable.

The dynamic range of live music is usually around 70 dB or worse. To me
that means that I would have about 50 dB headroom with equipment that
has -112 dB noise. 20 dB headroom, but sometimes as little as 6 dB headroom
usually suffices for me.
It is all about how well I can predict what the talent is going to do.

Its when the band isn't playing that the issue arises.

I can assure you that I did a gig. Just one mic on, sitting there at optimum
gain, drinking my pint when a general punter came up and complained about
the hiss from that Behringer. I was embarrassed, so I bought the
Studiomaster Powerhouse. Its quite nice, has the bass eq down at 60Hz.

Sure, one could pull the faders up and down, or use a mute, and generally
**** about, but that's all agro. I just want the thing to be reasonably
quiet as soon as the band stops playing.

I play in bars a fair bit. I know how to set up audio equipment correctly. I
even have wrote a design tutorial on mic amps
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/mic...AmpDesign.html. Annoying
background hiss at pubs is always a problem, in my experience.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"George's Pro Sound Co." wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup...

If you have some suitable instructions for opening up the PMP1280S I
would welcome your obviously superior knowledge on this matter.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

Kebin
you have mail
George

Yes. Thanks George. I will track it down.

Regards

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.

www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message

Not to me it isn't. Studiomaster have always had that
sort of noise performance, ever since I was their chief
design engineer in 1982:-)


Do you know or know of Graham Stevenson? I believe he has said that he had
some connection with Studiomaster.

Yes I know Graham. I joined after he left, then I left, and he rejoined.
However, he did visit the factory whilst I was there. I popped over to see
him not too long ago as he lives only about 20 miles from me. Graham
designed a fair amount of the Studiomaster gear over the years. Graham also
worked at Neve.


Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Normal spec for a Behringer console mic preamp is 120 dB
EIN, but I don't know how that translates into dBV.

Different Berhinger models have different performance.

The PMP880 and PMP1280S are bad, spec -112db ein.

If memory serves those are powered mixers, which are not really comparable
to stand-alone mixing consoles.

Exactly.

They usually perform a little worse, if only because of the big,
potentially heavily-loaded power transformer in the box.

Input noise, is essentially, determined completely by the thermal and shot
noise of the input transistors in any competent mic front end. However
bad/cheap mic inputs sometimes use resisters in an op-amp configured design.
These generate 1kohms to 2kohms, or thereabouts of thermal noise.


The SX2442 spec -129db ein.

The problem with all of the above is that dBs without a stated reference
level and meausrement bandwidth are meaningless.


db ein is a well recognised and pretty much universal agreed way of specing
mic inputs, and has been for 30+ years.

The input noise of the block is referred to a 0.775V reference, and over a
20Hz to 20Khz bandwidth. This bandwidth is assumed flat, unless the spec
states a weighting such as "A-weighted".

The thermal noise of a resister is sqrt(4kTRB). So a 150 ohm resistor + say,
a nominal 50 ohm of base resistance of the input transistor would generate
round about 0.35uv of noise. Referred to 0.775 it would be ~-127db. Shot
noise of the input transistor might increase this by 1db, or so. To get
better numbers, frequency weighting is used. If someone quotes -132db,
without weighting and a non zero source resistance, they are lying, well not
unless they are at the north pole. "Captain, I cannie change the laws of
physics"

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Jan 2, 4:31*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/2/2011 2:16 PM, Kevin Aylward wrote:

My brother has one of their 24 channel live mixers.
Behringer don't understand that in normal use, one would
like the main output led metering to actually display the
output signals. They don't. You can only get the meters to
read things like soloing of a channel etc.

How strange. Maybe it's always been broken. I have a little
Behringer tabletop sized mixer, a Xenix 1204FX, I think. I
got it for a review and they told me that if I could use it,
to keep it, that it wasn't worth the cost of shipping back.

I suspect that your brother's mixer works the same way as
the one I have. The meters read what you've selected for
monitoring (headphones/Control Room outputs) except when you
press a SOLO button, in which case they show the channel
level. Since normally you'd be monitoring the main mix, when
you press that button, the meters are reading the main mix
level.

What may seem a little kooky is that the meters are ahead of
the main L/R output faders, so what you're seeing is the
level coming out of the summing bus. This is what you really
want to watch to be sure you aren't clipping the bus. You
can hear how loud the PA system is, and presumably you've
calibrated what comes after the mixer so that when the
meters hit the pin with the faders all the way up, you're
still below clipping. With the main faders at their "unity
gain" position, the meters actually do represent the output
level. I'm pretty sure that 0 dB on the meters is +4 dBu, or
at least it's a constant. It's true, you don't see the
meters go downscale when you fade out the mains, but then if
you do that, you want to do it by ear, not by eye.

* I was absolute

stunned on discovering this. How can anyone get that wrong.

It's just one way of doing it. It's a good way of forcing
you to set up the system for maximum headroom rather than
having to keep the meters down in the bottom quarter of the
scale where they don't tell you anything useful since you
have too much gain on the power amplifiers.

I have a berihnger guitar foot pedal, the knob snapped off.

The phantom power LED on my Behringer mixer failed (there's
still phantom power) but it's a surface mounted LED on the
main circuit board. I'm not likely to replace it. Stuff breaks.

--
"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

My UB1832fx works as you described with a SOLO selection (without a
channel selected) providing Main Bus output metering....the mixer is
sometimes noisy and getting a bit long in the tooth, but it still
works. As for my other Behringer gear...my Autocomp (mdx 1600) is
nowhere as nice as my RNC, but it works as advertised and is quite
versatile (having dual expander, gate, compressor, limiter and
"dynamic enhancer" all on one strip). I also use a BFC-2000 controller
(way cheaper than a Mackie Hui), an AB200 footswitch and a Behringer
active DI20 box...all have suffered my abuse for at least 5 years
now...yet they still work. I know it isn't top of the line gear, but I
do think they have an image problem they do not deserve. Besides, for
my little demo projects (with no hope of recouping a dime), the price
is very right. Looking forward to seeing an X32 live.

Regards, CS

[Arny Krueger]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message

Not to me it isn't. Studiomaster have always had that
sort of noise performance, ever since I was their chief
design engineer in 1982:-)

Do you know or know of Graham Stevenson? I believe he
has said that he had some connection with Studiomaster.

Yes I know Graham. I joined after he left, then I left,
and he rejoined. However, he did visit the factory whilst
I was there. I popped over to see him not too long ago as
he lives only about 20 miles from me. Graham designed a
fair amount of the Studiomaster gear over the years.
Graham also worked at Neve.

FYI Graham has contributed to several of the Usenet Pro audio forums in the
past few years. He is fairly opinionated (not a problem for me, he can be
fun!)) and thus has attracted some favorable and unfavorable opinions. Our
correspondent George might be in the second group. Just so you aren't
surprised by some reactions you might see.

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/3/2011 8:04 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't see a lot of difference or if there is a difference any loss between
that and how things work on my digital console. The "knobs" may be on a
menu that has to be displayed but I usually can select that menu by simply
touching the relevant fader.

That usually gives you the indicators and knobs for a single
channel. You have to do something active in order to go from
looking or adjusting one channel and another.

One key to a happy life on a digital console is
knowing how to bring up menus

And one problem is that you can't do very much without
bringing up a menu or a display screen. And then it's not
big enough. g

Look, you don't have to try to sell me on digital consoles.
I like the idea, I just don't like the implementation of
most of them. At least big ones like the DigiCo and Harrison
have several screens.

Some people seem to hate layers, but to me layers mean that I never have to
look at more than 24 faders at a time.

To me, it means that there may be some faders that you won't
see until you go fishing for them. I'm sorry, but I just
can't think from both sides of my brain at once. When I'm
mixing, I'm playing a musicial instrument, not operating a
machine. There are others who work exactly the other way.
They figure the band is doing something wrong if they don't
sound good when all the meters are moving the way they think
they should be and all the EQ knobs are in position
according to the preset.

Rather than having to thread my way through 448 knobs for aux sends, I only
have to look at the virtual knobs for one aux channel at a time. Or, I have
the option at looking at all of the virtual knobs for the aux sends for one
input channel at a time.

One good case for a digital console is in making monitor
mixes, most (but unfortunately not all) have the ability to
copy settings from one bus to another. That way you can
start off everyone with a workable mix, then modify it to
suit their individual needs. I find that's often quicker
than starting everyone's mix from scratch.

My digital console has meters on every input and output. Where there is an
option for what they show, they are usually set to PFL. And that is what I
get with no pysical meter bridge at all. Why would I want a meter bridge
interferring with sight lines to the performers?

So I can see them at a glance. To me, not seeing a meter
move when I think it's supposed to be moving is more
important than losing the visibility of a performer's feet.
Wedge monitors cut off more view than a meter bridge.

--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/3/2011 8:42 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

Normal spec for a Behringer console mic preamp is 120 dB EIN, but I don't
know how that translates into dBV.

Equivalent Input Noise for most everyone else is in the the
range of -127 dBu. EIN is also not a very good way to
express how much noise you hear because it's a derived
number, one that's good to tell a designer how well he's doing.

People who make up spec sheets like to include it, though,
since it's a very small number with "dB" and "noise"
associated with it. It's the rabbit carefully put into the
hat before pulling it out.

EIN is the noise level measured at some chosen gain, with
the gain subtracted. For example, if you measured -65 dBu of
noise coming out of a preamp with 55 dB of gain, EIN would
be -120 dBu. If they tell you the gain at which the EIN is
measured, you can calculate the noise output.

--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/3/2011 9:36 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Its not very difficult to get -127db, getting -132db
unweighted @ 200 ohms is a tad difficult:-)

If you're talking about EIN, it's darn near impossible
unless the temperature is close to absolute zero. Me, I
don't mix if it's any colder than 60 degrees F. I find it
hard to mix with gloves on.



--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/3/2011 8:23 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

I've been pretty vocal with my questions about the PreSonus. Frankly, I
don't see it as being a very powerful tool. I don't see it as exploiting
many of the worthwhile benefits of being digital.

Aside from a few dumb things about it, I think that they
have a good place in the market. It works more like an
analog console most of the time than many other small
digital consoles. That's a plus for someone who is
graduating from a small analog mixer. While you can still
get a whole picture only one channel at a time, the knobs
and indicators for every parameter are on the work surface.
It's like looking at a channel strip sideways rather than
looking at a too-small LCD screen. Also, you can (if the
planets and stars are in correct alignment) connect it to a
computer with a single Firewire cable and bring home what
went into every mic so you can do a recording mix at home.
And if you don't want ot mix in the box, you can feed it
back through the console and mix on the console.

One problem with it is that there seem to be an awful lot of
people for whom this is their first mixer at all, and it's a
little difficult ot grasp the concepts of gain structure and
signal flow when you haven't had the analog experience.




--
"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

[Richard Kuschel]

On Jan 3, 7:36*am, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:
"George's Pro Sound Co." *wrote in messagenews:FIWdnTYmUfiIU7zQnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@poste d.fingerlakestechnologygroup...



I now use a Studiomaster powered wedge mixer as its mic
input noise *is -127db verses the huge -112dbv of the behringer. The
noise of the Behringer is very noticeable at pub gigs,
let along recording.

Given the acoustic noise levels that one sees in real world studios and
stages, I will fearlessly suggest that if you can't get a subjectively
noise free recording with equipment with -112 dB noise, perhaps you need
to rethink your gain staging and/or mic choice and positioning.

I agree, I would also suggest you measure that studiomaster as that figure
seems awful suspect to me
George

Not to me it isn't. Studiomaster have always had that sort of noise
performance, ever since I was their chief design engineer in 1982:-)

Its not very difficult to get -127db, getting -132db unweighted @ 200 ohms
is a tad difficult:-)

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

I'm still using an antique Studiomaster 8 into 4 mixer which I like a
lot. The sound is good and the eq is exceptional. I carry it to
recording gigs that don't require more than 8 channels

It has always had one problem. when a set of headphones is plugged
into it, there is bleed across all of the channels. Any idea what
might be causing this?

I used other permutations of this mixer which did not work so well.
There was a version that had two 80 watt amplifiers built into it and
it was really noisy, and one with a 4 track cassette recorder built
into it and it did not work well either. I can't remember the exact
problem on that.

[Dec [Cluskey]]

Bu I would guess, unserviceable if its like a lot of their other kit. It
goes wrong, and you have to throw it away.

Regards

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.


Kevin

A little naughty to say that ....

I have been a long time advocate of "buy with your ears, not your
eyes" ... in other words, don't suffer from 'branditis' ... a disease
which a lot of novice sound engineers and home studio people suffer
from.

Behringer offer a complete 'return if not happy' service ... which has
worked brilliantly for me.

I feel it is worth remembering that their 'Composer' series is
accepted as studio and 'live' Industry standard. I have used, and
currently use, many of their products and have been thoroughy
happy ... always bought through BEM [Brixton Music Exchange]. Frank
looks after me rather well.

Dec [Cluskey]

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Richard Kuschel" wrote in message
...

On Jan 3, 7:36 am, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:
"George's Pro Sound Co." wrote in
messagenews:FIWdnTYmUfiIU7zQnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@poste d.fingerlakestechnologygroup...



I now use a Studiomaster powered wedge mixer as its mic
input noise is -127db verses the huge -112dbv of the behringer.
The
noise of the Behringer is very noticeable at pub gigs,
let along recording.

Given the acoustic noise levels that one sees in real world studios
and
stages, I will fearlessly suggest that if you can't get a
subjectively
noise free recording with equipment with -112 dB noise, perhaps you
need
to rethink your gain staging and/or mic choice and positioning.

I agree, I would also suggest you measure that studiomaster as that
figure
seems awful suspect to me
George

Not to me it isn't. Studiomaster have always had that sort of noise
performance, ever since I was their chief design engineer in 1982:-)

Its not very difficult to get -127db, getting -132db unweighted @ 200
ohms
is a tad difficult:-)

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

I'm still using an antique Studiomaster 8 into 4 mixer which I like a
lot. The sound is good and the eq is exceptional.

Take any mixer with a bass turnover set to 100Hz. Play some music through
and twiddle the knob.
Take a mixer with a bass turnover set to 50Hz. Play some music through and
twiddle the knob.

For me its a no contest. For me, 100Hz bass boost just sounds bad. At 50 Hz,
for me, its good and meaty

Studiomaster usually had tuneable bass, or fixed bass at 50-60Hz.

I carry it to
recording gigs that don't require more than 8 channels

It has always had one problem. when a set of headphones is plugged
into it, there is bleed across all of the channels. Any idea what
might be causing this?

Those mixers were done just before I arrived. I could check with Graham if
there is anything known.

Has it always behaved that way?

One fundamental problem on a lot of the Studiomaster kit is the use of IDC
connecters. i.e. wire pushed onto connecter metal that breaks the wire when
inserted. i.e bad contacts over time.

In principle, if a highish resistance got developed in an earth/ground lead,
it could get a drop on it due to current from the headphone amp ground. This
might well cause crosstalk like this.

I used other permutations of this mixer which did not work so well.
There was a version that had two 80 watt amplifiers built into it and
it was really noisy, and one with a 4 track cassette recorder built
into it and it did not work well either. I can't remember the exact
problem on that.

Again, just before my time. I personally thought the the studio 4 recorder
was quite good for its day. Noisy is also a complaint not often made for the
studiomasters mixers though. It may be you got a bad one:

To get low noise on the mic input stage, 2n4003 transisters were used. These
are switching transistors, with no spec on their 1/f (low frequency noise).
However, they had very low 12 ohms base spreading resistance. This made them
very low noise in general, e.g. compared to something like a bc109 with 400
ohms base resistance. So, every individual transistor was tested in a rig
and all the noisy ones put aside to be used where noise did not matter. Its
possible that someone was sloppy, or the transistors went bad in use.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[axolotl]

On 1/3/2011 9:44 AM, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

did not see much studiomaster here in the states and what I did come across
sure was not "up to snuff'
I think the last unit I saw was over 12 years ago and even then it was a
rarity, so a default to your experiance as mine was limited but none too
fondly remembered.

George,

I have a Studiomaster 8 into 4 made in 1985. For its equipment class its
a pretty good little box, IMO better than the B* and M* products. The
front end is a differential pair (2N4403?) feeding a TL072- a fairly
common topology in consoles at that time. Well thought out system,
excepting that the channels are labeled backward. Mechanically OK; the
pots tend to freeze due to the gook used to damp the action hardening
due to old age.
I still keep my eye open for the 32 input version on Ebay. These
consoles generally command "haul it away" prices.

If audio performance is the evaluation metric, this era of console (IMO)
still holds its own. Certainly a good bang for the buck. With cheap
digitals hitting the market, sure to get better.

Kevin Gallimore

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Mike Rivers writes:
Look, you don't have to try to sell me on digital consoles. I like
the idea, I just don't like the implementation of
most of them. At least big ones like the DigiCo and Harrison have
several screens.

Indeed, snapshot automation is quite handy I've found from
the 01v generation which I've used a few times. I just
don't like the implementation.

To me, it means that there may be some faders that you won't see
until you go fishing for them. I'm sorry, but I just
can't think from both sides of my brain at once. When I'm
mixing, I'm playing a musicial instrument, not operating a
machine. There are others who work exactly the other way.
They figure the band is doing something wrong if they don't sound
good when all the meters are moving the way they think they should
be and all the EQ knobs are in position
according to the preset.

INdeed, I'm much the same way. WEre I doing two different
acts, and each needs, for example 16 channels, I could
handle the first act on 1-16, second on 17-32. SEt 'em,
forget 'em, when we change to act 2 I switch to the bank
that's 17-32.
I use some radio equipment that acts in that way, but I find my preferred radio equipment that uses menus with limited
controls are those which don't make me crawl around in menus and submenus to get to things i want right now on the fly
while operating the unit. I know part of this is the
blindness, I have to always remember where I'm at, how many
button presses of the select button get me to where I want
to be, how to exit and get back to a known state so that I
can access those menus later with the appliances. WHen you
can glance at the screen and see what menu you're in it's
easier to get used to I'm sure. There are times I wish my
old analog iron in the truck had snapshot automation and
recall, but other than that I'm quite happy with it.


snip again

So I can see them at a glance. To me, not seeing a meter
move when I think it's supposed to be moving is more
important than losing the visibility of a performer's feet. Wedge
monitors cut off more view than a meter bridge.

Indeed, even the old blind man has enough site to see that
the meter is moving when it's supposed to and I can isolate
that movement to that meter with my eyes, harder for me to
do with led and lcd displays.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| 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.

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Jan 2, 8:32*pm, "George's Pro Sound Co." wrote:

but if emotion and ego are what drives ones buying decisions then don't fret
over selling a desk that cost 100,000$ selling for 4K in perfect condition
some get their satisfation with name badges, I get mine with bank deposits
george

George....

Well said ....

I know lots of them ... even guys I employ in our crews ....

I call it suffering from 'branditis'.

My concert rig changed over to the rack mounted 24 channel Behringer
Xenyx x2442usb FXPro some 6 years ago ... the monster Soundcraft we
were using just got too many complaints from Festival FOH managers and
Hotel Maitre Di's .... Prima Donnas in every sense ... do not like
their pretty function set-up disturbed ... although our crew were in
early and set up properly at rear of venue.

Now with the small footprint Behringer, with all the Compressors, FX
etc. rack mounted underneath, we have the perfect FOH position.
However, we have to put up with other sound engineers and artists
smirking ....

The No Quibble exchange is excellent ... we always have two in stock
and the change over, should one fail, is so easy as all the inserts
and outputs are exactly the same and the change over takes 15 minutes.

Strange that the units all fail with the same fault .... channel
failure which starts from the gain and can be any part of the channel
right through to the fader ... but we never repair, just replace. the
problem always shows up after get in and on first firing up. So, our
guy just lives without that channel and replaces next day.

It is always fun when we play a huge Festival or venue [National
Concert Hall in Dublin a few weeks ago] and our sound jockey wheels
the Behringer into the sound position and asks for a left right feed
[organised and requested well in advance] .... the look on the faces
of the in-house sound guys is a picture ... we just sling in our
custon set up monitors .... and when they hear the resulting
sound????? They cannot understand why we won't use the provided
Midas etc. desks .... and who has the best sound? Always?

Only complaint we have is that the channel mutes still leave the
monitors on ... a design fault I wish they would fix.

I recommend them to everyone who has a 24 channel requirement.

At the proposed $2500 I doubt if many will treat their X32 FOH desk in
the 'replace when bust' category.

Dec [Cluskey]

[Trevor]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
...
Its a Eurodesk SL2442FX-Pro.

In that case it definitely does output metering, at least mine does.
Now the channel mutes that don't mute their conection to the aux busses are
another matter :-(

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/4/2011 3:23 PM, Trevor wrote:

Now the channel mutes that don't mute their conection to the aux busses are
another matter :-(

Behringer isn't likely to make that change for you, but you
could probably modify it if you cared enough. But it's tough
for a manufacturer. For live work, it's clearly the way to
go, but there are some other applications where you want to
keep the auxiliary sends live when muting the channel to the
main outputs. The only way to please everyone is to put
internal jumpers or switches in there to select one mode or
the other. But then someone who doesn't care or doesn't know
to care would complain that the mixer is more expensive than
its nearest competitor.

--
"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

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/2010 11:54 AM, Sean Conolly wrote:

Don't see it on their site yet, do you have a link?

You need to know the secret URL:
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/X32.aspx

The official release is at the NAMM show in a couple of weeks. Not much
more info than what Arny posted. Interesting part is that it's not yet
approved for sale in the US and Canada pending FCC certification.

and as such do not be surprised should the unit on display simply be a mock
up, not a functioning unit
George

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 1/4/2011 3:23 PM, Trevor wrote:
Now the channel mutes that don't mute their conection to the aux busses
are
another matter :-(

Behringer isn't likely to make that change for you, but you could probably
modify it if you cared enough.

One look at how it's built is enough to disuade me of attempting that
unfortunately.

But it's tough for a manufacturer. For live work, it's clearly the way to
go, but there are some other applications where you want to keep the
auxiliary sends live when muting the channel to the main outputs. The only
way to please everyone is to put internal jumpers or switches in there to
select one mode or the other.

Obviously a switch is what's required, but a jumper would be better than
nothing.

But then someone who doesn't care or doesn't know to care would complain
that the mixer is more expensive than its nearest competitor.

And that is EXACTLY the problem with all cheap mixers (and many not so cheap
ones), they have to compromise somewhere to meet the price point. I have no
problem with Behringer, and have used Soundcraft, Midas, Allen & Heath,
Yamaha, Mackie etc. Each had their pro's and cons AFAIC.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/4/2011 3:23 PM, Trevor wrote:

Now the channel mutes that don't mute their conection to the aux busses are
another matter :-(

Behringer isn't likely to make that change for you, but you
could probably modify it if you cared enough. But it's tough
for a manufacturer. For live work, it's clearly the way to
go, but there are some other applications where you want to
keep the auxiliary sends live when muting the channel to the
main outputs. The only way to please everyone is to put
internal jumpers or switches in there to select one mode or
the other. But then someone who doesn't care or doesn't know
to care would complain that the mixer is more expensive than
its nearest competitor.

The thing about the digital world is that making changes like this
require relatively simple software alterations. Instead of actually
adjusting internal jumpers or switches, you download a configuration
file off a host computer.

It adds some programming expense but no per-unit cost. So I'd actually
send Behringer an SPR on this one and see if they might be willing to
make it available as an option.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/4/2011 3:23 PM, Trevor wrote:

Now the channel mutes that don't mute their conection to the aux busses
are
another matter :-(

Behringer isn't likely to make that change for you, but you
could probably modify it if you cared enough. But it's tough
for a manufacturer. For live work, it's clearly the way to
go, but there are some other applications where you want to
keep the auxiliary sends live when muting the channel to the
main outputs. The only way to please everyone is to put
internal jumpers or switches in there to select one mode or
the other. But then someone who doesn't care or doesn't know
to care would complain that the mixer is more expensive than
its nearest competitor.

The thing about the digital world is that making changes like this
require relatively simple software alterations. Instead of actually
adjusting internal jumpers or switches, you download a configuration
file off a host computer.

It adds some programming expense but no per-unit cost. So I'd actually
send Behringer an SPR on this one and see if they might be willing to
make it available as an option.
--scott
--
Scott it will be part of the digitalmixer that the thread tiltle is about,
but this poster was speakeing of one of the existing xenex analog desks
that have been out a few years , signal flow of not muting monitors is
pretty typical on these budget desks
George

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/4/2011 5:55 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The thing about the digital world is that making changes like this
require relatively simple software alterations. Instead of actually
adjusting internal jumpers or switches, you download a configuration
file off a host computer.

The trouble is that they don't do it. I've been tapping my
foot, waiting for PreSonus to make the Solo function
interrupt what you're monitoring instead of adding to it
ever since the StudioLive mixer was released. They changed
that on the 24-channel version, but in a dozen or so
firmware updates to the original 16 channel version, that
change hasn't been there.

I complained about my 1993 Lexus ES300 that that he climate
control system wouldn't stick in "outside air" mode but
would come on in "recirculate" mode when it thought it was
too hot outside. My 2003 is the same way.

It adds some programming expense but no per-unit cost. So I'd actually
send Behringer an SPR on this one and see if they might be willing to
make it available as an option.

The console in question is analog.

--
"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

[Bill Graham]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/4/2011 5:55 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The thing about the digital world is that making changes like this
require relatively simple software alterations. Instead of actually
adjusting internal jumpers or switches, you download a configuration
file off a host computer.

The trouble is that they don't do it. I've been tapping my
foot, waiting for PreSonus to make the Solo function
interrupt what you're monitoring instead of adding to it
ever since the StudioLive mixer was released. They changed
that on the 24-channel version, but in a dozen or so
firmware updates to the original 16 channel version, that
change hasn't been there.

I complained about my 1993 Lexus ES300 that that he climate
control system wouldn't stick in "outside air" mode but
would come on in "recirculate" mode when it thought it was
too hot outside. My 2003 is the same way.

It adds some programming expense but no per-unit cost. So I'd
actually send Behringer an SPR on this one and see if they might be
willing to make it available as an option.

The console in question is analog.

I have made many such suggestions to manufacturers during my life. None of
them were taken. I have come to the conclusion that to adopt a user's
suggestion would be putting oneself in jepordy of being sued for some
percentage of the profits, so the manufacturers legal department advises
them to not adapt the suggestion. IOW, by simply sending them the
suggestion, you are guaranteeing that they will not change the design of
their equipment.

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Jan 4, 9:19*pm, "Trevor" wrote:
And that is EXACTLY the problem with all cheap mixers (and many not so cheap
ones), they have to compromise somewhere to meet the price point. I have no
problem with Behringer, and have used Soundcraft, Midas, Allen & Heath,
Yamaha, Mackie etc. Each had their pro's and cons AFAIC.

Trevor.

Trevor

When we first started using a Behringer Xen 24 channel our sound
jockey really had a hissy fit and proclaimed that in our position we
should be using the Allen and Heath comparable unit .... far better
built.

We were almost convinced until shortly after a support band was using
the Allen and Heath version ...

I got my brother to join me in a chat with that sound guy.... "how do
you find the Allen and Heath?" .... "Don't go anywhere near them ....
bin' back to the shop six times, still not right".

Case proven?

In my opinion it is the compactness that creates the lack of complete
reliability, not the price. Something the X32 should not suffer from.

Dec [Cluskey]