Behringer guitar amps rule!!

[Hittmann]

Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
in perfect use.

What I use at the moment very often are behringer's small guitar combo
Firebird GX108 for practising in a small room and V-AMPIRE in a
rehearsal room. Behringer GX108 seems to be now out of catalogue?? but
hey, it's awesome. Just plug into it and turn up the volume! The big
sound direct in the face. EQs are very delicate and you can set the
various tone with them easily. Tone change is not so soft, but not too
sharp. Very precise, I'd say. I sometimes add a distortion and delay
effects in betweend and it also helps to get fun with this small
combo. I actually didn't expect this combo would sounds sooo good in
my small room when I just tested it in a store, but I really liked its
vintage design and the simplicity it has and I bought it. This GX108
turned out to be a perfect fun-maker for a free-time chopping, you
know.

I'm also very curious about Behringer's V-Tone GM108. It's also a
small combo with 15 watt and it looks not so smarty, but its analog
modeling function sounds very interesting... 70 USD for this small
thing alone is a bit expensive, but I'll try to test it somewhere if
possible. It might be a good idea that I buy the behringer v-tone
guitar pack as the amp is included in this package and give someone
(maybe my nephew?) as a present. Then I can test it easily, hehe.

About my BEHRINGER V-ampire, I just like it as it is although I myself
still have some difficulties to figure out how to controll all these
effects and MIDIs. I don't own any MIDI-footswitches, so I just plug
my guitar directly into the box and play. I bought it a few weeks ago
as my friend in Japan told me it sounded awesome when it was presented
at music fair out there in the last autumn. I didn't have prior
testings but it was a love at the first glance, I couldn't help myself
from ordering it right after I checked it out on Behringer website and
saw the features. The price for these functions are simply
impossible!! The reason why I'm totally attracted at Behringer's
products are its price in the first place. Some people are talking bad
about behringer and I don't know what's happening or has happened to
them before, but I really don't care such things. The most important
thing for me is to get good quality products for a fair prices, which
behringer does. If you own an amp like Vampire, you just can't
complain anything. As far as I know, Behringer offeres the best
possible gears for the lowest possible price. I'm more than satisfied
about my behringer gears and I'm already planning to buy another
behringer stuffs such as FCB1010 footcontroller or DI box or whatever.
I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
with somebody else here... can't I?

thanks and bye bye!

[Kurt Albershardt]

We've been hitt again.

[Mondoslug1]

wow.

>Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
>in perfect use.
>
>What I use at the moment very often are behringer's small guitar combo
>Firebird GX108 for practising in a small room and V-AMPIRE in a
>rehearsal room. Behringer GX108 seems to be now out of catalogue?? but
>hey, it's awesome. Just plug into it and turn up the volume! The big
>sound direct in the face. EQs are very delicate and you can set the
>various tone with them easily. Tone change is not so soft, but not too
>sharp. Very precise, I'd say. I sometimes add a distortion and delay
>effects in betweend and it also helps to get fun with this small
>combo. I actually didn't expect this combo would sounds sooo good in
>my small room when I just tested it in a store, but I really liked its
>vintage design and the simplicity it has and I bought it. This GX108
>turned out to be a perfect fun-maker for a free-time chopping, you
>know.
>
>I'm also very curious about Behringer's V-Tone GM108. It's also a
>small combo with 15 watt and it looks not so smarty, but its analog
>modeling function sounds very interesting... 70 USD for this small
>thing alone is a bit expensive, but I'll try to test it somewhere if
>possible. It might be a good idea that I buy the behringer v-tone
>guitar pack as the amp is included in this package and give someone
>(maybe my nephew?) as a present. Then I can test it easily, hehe.
>
>About my BEHRINGER V-ampire, I just like it as it is although I myself
>still have some difficulties to figure out how to controll all these
>effects and MIDIs. I don't own any MIDI-footswitches, so I just plug
>my guitar directly into the box and play. I bought it a few weeks ago
>as my friend in Japan told me it sounded awesome when it was presented
>at music fair out there in the last autumn. I didn't have prior
>testings but it was a love at the first glance, I couldn't help myself
>from ordering it right after I checked it out on Behringer website and
>saw the features. The price for these functions are simply
>impossible!! The reason why I'm totally attracted at Behringer's
>products are its price in the first place. Some people are talking bad
>about behringer and I don't know what's happening or has happened to
>them before, but I really don't care such things. The most important
>thing for me is to get good quality products for a fair prices, which
>behringer does. If you own an amp like Vampire, you just can't
>complain anything. As far as I know, Behringer offeres the best
>possible gears for the lowest possible price. I'm more than satisfied
>about my behringer gears and I'm already planning to buy another
>behringer stuffs such as FCB1010 footcontroller or DI box or whatever.
>I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
>with somebody else here... can't I?
>
>thanks and bye bye!
>
>
>
>
>
>





Palmer Guit DI Examples at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[hank alrich]

Hittmann > wrote:

> Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
> in perfect use.

You **** little pills that Beri gives you; trying chewing them befrore
swallowing.

--
ha

[S O'Neill]

Hittmann wrote:
> Hi, guys, I'm also using Trojan Rubbers for years and they are still in
> perfect use.
>
> What I use at the moment very often are Trojan's small rubber Petite for
> practising in a small room and Extra-Petite in a rehearsal room. Trojan
> Petite seems to be now out of catalogue?? but hey, it's awesome. The big
> squirt direct in the face not so soft, but not too sharp. Very precise, I'd
> say. I helps to get fun with this small combo. I actually didn't expect this
> combo would squirts sooo gooo in my small room when I just tested it in a
> store, but I really liked its vintage design and the simplicity it has and I
> bought it. This Petite turned out to be a perfect fun-maker for a free-time
> chopping, you know.
>
> I'm also very curious about Trojan's Super-extra-petite. It's also a small
> smarty, but its analog modeling function squirts very interesting... I'll try
> to test it somewhere if possible. It might be a good idea that I buy the
> Trojan rubber pack as the lube is included in this package and give someone
> (maybe my nephew?) as a present. Then I can test it easily,
> hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.
>
> About my Trojan Extra-Petite, I just like it as it is although I myself still
> have some difficulties to figure out how to controll. I don't have any
> MIDI-girlfriends, so I just plug my rubber directly into the box and play. I
> bought it a few weeks ago as my friend in Japan told me it squirted awesome.
> As far as I know, Trojan offeres the best possible Rubbers for the lowest
> possible price. I'm more than satisfied about my Trojan Rubbers and I'm
> already planning to buy another Trojan stuffs. I'm sure I can share my
> opinion about Trojan Rubbers and its quality with somebody else here... can't
> I?
>
> thanks and bye bye!

[Steven Sena]

Please have someone who speaks English proofread your post before you send
it. Thanks...

--
Steven Sena
XS Sound Recording
www.xssound.com
"Hittmann" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
> in perfect use.
>
> What I use at the moment very often are behringer's small guitar combo
> Firebird GX108 for practising in a small room and V-AMPIRE in a
> rehearsal room. Behringer GX108 seems to be now out of catalogue?? but
> hey, it's awesome. Just plug into it and turn up the volume! The big
> sound direct in the face. EQs are very delicate and you can set the
> various tone with them easily. Tone change is not so soft, but not too
> sharp. Very precise, I'd say. I sometimes add a distortion and delay
> effects in betweend and it also helps to get fun with this small
> combo. I actually didn't expect this combo would sounds sooo good in
> my small room when I just tested it in a store, but I really liked its
> vintage design and the simplicity it has and I bought it. This GX108
> turned out to be a perfect fun-maker for a free-time chopping, you
> know.
>
> I'm also very curious about Behringer's V-Tone GM108. It's also a
> small combo with 15 watt and it looks not so smarty, but its analog
> modeling function sounds very interesting... 70 USD for this small
> thing alone is a bit expensive, but I'll try to test it somewhere if
> possible. It might be a good idea that I buy the behringer v-tone
> guitar pack as the amp is included in this package and give someone
> (maybe my nephew?) as a present. Then I can test it easily, hehe.
>
> About my BEHRINGER V-ampire, I just like it as it is although I myself
> still have some difficulties to figure out how to controll all these
> effects and MIDIs. I don't own any MIDI-footswitches, so I just plug
> my guitar directly into the box and play. I bought it a few weeks ago
> as my friend in Japan told me it sounded awesome when it was presented
> at music fair out there in the last autumn. I didn't have prior
> testings but it was a love at the first glance, I couldn't help myself
> from ordering it right after I checked it out on Behringer website and
> saw the features. The price for these functions are simply
> impossible!! The reason why I'm totally attracted at Behringer's
> products are its price in the first place. Some people are talking bad
> about behringer and I don't know what's happening or has happened to
> them before, but I really don't care such things. The most important
> thing for me is to get good quality products for a fair prices, which
> behringer does. If you own an amp like Vampire, you just can't
> complain anything. As far as I know, Behringer offeres the best
> possible gears for the lowest possible price. I'm more than satisfied
> about my behringer gears and I'm already planning to buy another
> behringer stuffs such as FCB1010 footcontroller or DI box or whatever.
> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
> with somebody else here... can't I?
>
> thanks and bye bye!

[PRS Geek]

"Mondoslug1" > wrote in message
...

> wow.

Holy crap... I'm buying one tomorrow. Gonna sell my Vox, Fender and
Marshalls for one of these things.

Time to dump that Matchless Mr. Mondoslug and get a vintage Beri!


--
Jeff

www.soundclick.com/bands/8/jeffliberatoremusic.htm

[WillStG]

(Hittmann)

> Behringer guitar amps rule!!>

Maybe they "rule" in the disposable piece of dreck sound world you live
in, but they do not rule in the Pro Audio world. Marshalls, Mesa Boogies,
Fenders, Ampegs, Acoustics, Tech 21 and Boutique amps are the general rule if
you want great sound on a record. Not that there aren't good amps by G&K,
Roland, Peavey, Randall or Crate. Did Uri give you all that "B" gear for free?
If so it's the right price.

>I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality with
somebody else here... can't I? >

Garbage in garbage out.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Jari Pietila]

"Hittmann" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
> in perfect use.

no, you just try to spread anger onto B-stuff. ie. trolling.
I would not replace my AC30 with Behr, obviously, but
on the other hand I don't think B is any worse than any other
low end stuff out there. They're all made by happy children of China.

-jp

[philicorda]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:04:04 -0800, Hittmann wrote:

<snip>
> possible gears for the lowest possible price. I'm more than satisfied
> about my behringer gears and I'm already planning to buy another
> behringer stuffs such as FCB1010 footcontroller or DI box or whatever.

Now, the FCB1010 is a bit of behringer gear that I would advocate. It's
well made, cheap, and has very comprehensive midi spec. A little tricky to
program until you get the hang of it, but makes sense in the end.

It's the only piece of behringer gear I own, and I have no complaints.
It's been touring with me a while and taken a few serious knocks, but
keeps working fine.

> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
> with somebody else here... can't I?

As long as you are honest about their stuff that *is* bad.

>
> thanks and bye bye!

[WillStG]

> "Jari Pietila"

> wrote
>> Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
>> in perfect use.

>no, you just try to spread anger onto B-stuff. ie. trolling.

Jeez. If you think he is just "trolling" "to spread anger onto B-Stuff"
why did you say to Ty Ford that you _liked_ "Hittman"'s Behringer commercialt?

Are you stoned or what?


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Ben Bradley]

How about we all report this to (and maybe
and while we're at it) and
let the ISP's sort them out. The previous run was also from Germany,
but I recall it being a diffeent ISP, perhaps the earlier run should
be reported too.

I don't filter Usenet, but if I did, I'd drop (among other things)
posts through google from hotmail and yahoo addresses - that would get
rid of a lot of shill and troll crap posts. It would drop the
occasional legit poster as well, but nowadays legit poster should know
that posting through google with a free email address is a bad
combination.


>Path: bigbe2.bellsouth.net!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!news.be llsouth.net!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.tel us.net!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
>From: (Hittmann)
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
>Subject: Behringer guitar amps rule!!
>Date: 11 Mar 2004 11:04:04 -0800
>Organization: http://groups.google.com
>Lines: 48
>Message-ID: >
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.104.213.68
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: posting.google.com 1079031844 24082 127.0.0.1 (11 Mar 2004 19:04:04 GMT)
>X-Complaints-To:
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:04:04 +0000 (UTC)
>Xref: bigfeed.bellsouth.net rec.audio.pro:888265


>62.104.213.68 = [ dus2-t3-1.mcbone.net ]
>
> inetnum: 62.104.213.0 - 62.104.213.255
> netname: ROKA-NET
> descr: freenet Cityline GmbH
> descr: Willstaetterstrasse 13
> descr: 40549 Duesseldorf
> descr: Germany
> country: DE
> admin-c: FCL-RIPE
> tech-c: NMC-RIPE
> status: ASSIGNED PA
> remarks:
> remarks: please report spam/abuse mailto:

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

The few things I've personally heard by Behr I was not impressed with...
another individual I know has had not one, but TWO Beheringer products
catch fire in his rack, on two separate occasions. Considerng this, I think
it's safe to say that I would be hard-pressed to consider ANY product by
Behringer for any application in which I had a choice of product lines that
equated to: "Behringer vs. ANYthing else".

And I'm no gear snob, either.

--
Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com


"Hittmann" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
> in perfect use.
>
> What I use at the moment very often are behringer's small guitar combo
> Firebird GX108 for practising in a small room and V-AMPIRE in a
> rehearsal room. Behringer GX108 seems to be now out of catalogue?? but
> hey, it's awesome. Just plug into it and turn up the volume! The big
> sound direct in the face. EQs are very delicate and you can set the
> various tone with them easily. Tone change is not so soft, but not too
> sharp. Very precise, I'd say. I sometimes add a distortion and delay
> effects in betweend and it also helps to get fun with this small
> combo. I actually didn't expect this combo would sounds sooo good in
> my small room when I just tested it in a store, but I really liked its
> vintage design and the simplicity it has and I bought it. This GX108
> turned out to be a perfect fun-maker for a free-time chopping, you
> know.
>
> I'm also very curious about Behringer's V-Tone GM108. It's also a
> small combo with 15 watt and it looks not so smarty, but its analog
> modeling function sounds very interesting... 70 USD for this small
> thing alone is a bit expensive, but I'll try to test it somewhere if
> possible. It might be a good idea that I buy the behringer v-tone
> guitar pack as the amp is included in this package and give someone
> (maybe my nephew?) as a present. Then I can test it easily, hehe.
>
> About my BEHRINGER V-ampire, I just like it as it is although I myself
> still have some difficulties to figure out how to controll all these
> effects and MIDIs. I don't own any MIDI-footswitches, so I just plug
> my guitar directly into the box and play. I bought it a few weeks ago
> as my friend in Japan told me it sounded awesome when it was presented
> at music fair out there in the last autumn. I didn't have prior
> testings but it was a love at the first glance, I couldn't help myself
> from ordering it right after I checked it out on Behringer website and
> saw the features. The price for these functions are simply
> impossible!! The reason why I'm totally attracted at Behringer's
> products are its price in the first place. Some people are talking bad
> about behringer and I don't know what's happening or has happened to
> them before, but I really don't care such things. The most important
> thing for me is to get good quality products for a fair prices, which
> behringer does. If you own an amp like Vampire, you just can't
> complain anything. As far as I know, Behringer offeres the best
> possible gears for the lowest possible price. I'm more than satisfied
> about my behringer gears and I'm already planning to buy another
> behringer stuffs such as FCB1010 footcontroller or DI box or whatever.
> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
> with somebody else here... can't I?
>
> thanks and bye bye!

[Jari Pietila]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> > "Jari Pietila"
>
> >no, you just try to spread anger onto B-stuff. ie. trolling.
>
> Jeez. If you think he is just "trolling" "to spread anger onto
B-Stuff"
> why did you say to Ty Ford that you _liked_ "Hittman"'s Behringer
commercialt?
>
> Are you stoned or what?

I did not refer to Hittman's post in my another reply.
And I did not say I liked anything, I said I did not dislike
someone posting his opinions. It is easy to flame people by
throwing in inaccurate references.

Since I'm not stoned I must be what.

-jp

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> How about we all report this to (and maybe
> and while we're at it) and
> let the ISP's sort them out.

How about we forget about it and just ignore messages praising
questionable gear? An ISP won't do anything about it. You're just
getting yourself worked up over something futile.

Like just about anything else in audio, at some point you have to
listen to it. Better to do that before you buy, but there's no reason
to stop someone from trying an amplifier based on the appearance of
spam in a newsgroup. Let the buyer beware.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[hank alrich]

Hittmann > wrote:

> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
> with somebody else here... can't I?

I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The specs are
apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.

If the gtr amps are comparably good, I can understand why you'd love
'em.

--
ha

[Preben Friis]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
. ..

> I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The specs are
> apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.

Where did you read that? And how come, that no one on rec.audio.pro that has
tested it, has told anything about that "fact" ? Who is the lier here?

/Preben Friis

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message



> Hittmann > wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
>> with somebody else here... can't I?
>
> I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The specs
> are apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.

Could be true if the line level inputs go through the mic preamps, which
they probably do.

[hank alrich]

Excerpted from a report of testing the Berryfinger ADA8000, where you
probably get your full two hundred dollars worth of "24/96".

** Quotation Begins **

<snipitty doo dah's happen - find this on PSW, too, if you've the
patience or urge>

Test results:
- -------------

Screen shots were taken and put in the following ZIP file:

http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000_test.zip (size = 688 KB)

When outputs were muted and 10 second recording was made with input
trims at maximum, noise was white with peaks of -36 dBFS and RMS power
of -47 dB referenced to RMS full scale sine wave.


Conclusions:
- ------------

Waveforms show that phase of the output signal is inverted going through
the unit, with respect to the digital signal provided into the unit.
(The phase of the input signal is not inverted in the other direction.)

Steady state FFT scans show roughly 70 dB S/N ratio at the +4 dB
setting, reducing to roughly 40 dB S/N ratio at maximum trim
sensitivity.

Transient response shots show some low frequency DC bias issues and some
phase alignment issues that vary by frequency, as well as a bit of
ringing

** Quotation Ends **

Might as well make "tunafish sandwich filling" out of tuna the kitty
already passed.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Preben Friis > wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote...

> > I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The specs are
> > apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.

> Where did you read that?

See my other post in this thread about Barkingear "Quality". Or read the
most recent issue of the Pro Audio List. Or follow up via the
ProSoundWeb reviews forum. Look for the author, Mr. Garth D. Wiebe of
Audiorail.

> And how come, that no one on rec.audio.pro that has
> tested it, has told anything about that "fact" ?

Who on RAP has actually _bench tested the device_? Or is it just a bunch
of pro-Beri ******s easily posting **** about **** they don't know ****
about?

> Who is the lier here?

See the test results and get back to me about issues of manufacturer
integrity. Hint: don't let the marketing department write your spec
sheets. They might be full of ****.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote

> > ****tmann > wrote:

> >> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
> >> with somebody else here... can't I?

> > I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The specs
> > are apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.

> Could be true if the line level inputs go through the mic preamps, which
> they probably do.

And that ain't worst case. Follow my other post in this thread which
excerpts quotes from the guy's test results. Enjoy! <g>

--
ha

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

Some people will never get (or hear) the picture. 'Cheap' is all that
matters these days.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com





"hank alrich" > wrote in message .. .
> Excerpted from a report of testing the Berryfinger ADA8000, where you
> probably get your full two hundred dollars worth of "24/96".
>
> ** Quotation Begins **
>
> <snipitty doo dah's happen - find this on PSW, too, if you've the
> patience or urge>
>
> Test results:
> - -------------
>
> Screen shots were taken and put in the following ZIP file:
>
> http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000_test.zip (size = 688 KB)
>
> When outputs were muted and 10 second recording was made with input
> trims at maximum, noise was white with peaks of -36 dBFS and RMS power
> of -47 dB referenced to RMS full scale sine wave.
>
>
> Conclusions:
> - ------------
>
> Waveforms show that phase of the output signal is inverted going through
> the unit, with respect to the digital signal provided into the unit.
> (The phase of the input signal is not inverted in the other direction.)
>
> Steady state FFT scans show roughly 70 dB S/N ratio at the +4 dB
> setting, reducing to roughly 40 dB S/N ratio at maximum trim
> sensitivity.
>
> Transient response shots show some low frequency DC bias issues and some
> phase alignment issues that vary by frequency, as well as a bit of
> ringing
>
> ** Quotation Ends **
>
> Might as well make "tunafish sandwich filling" out of tuna the kitty
> already passed.
>
> --
> ha

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> Preben Friis > wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" wrote...
>
>>> I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The
>>> specs are apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.
>
>> Where did you read that?
>
> See my other post in this thread about Barkingear "Quality". Or read
> the most recent issue of the Pro Audio List. Or follow up via the
> ProSoundWeb reviews forum. Look for the author, Mr. Garth D. Wiebe of
> Audiorail.
>
>> And how come, that no one on rec.audio.pro that has
>> tested it, has told anything about that "fact" ?
>
> Who on RAP has actually _bench tested the device_? Or is it just a
> bunch of pro-Beri ******s easily posting **** about **** they don't
> know **** about?
>
>> Who is the lier here?
>
> See the test results and get back to me about issues of manufacturer
> integrity. Hint: don't let the marketing department write your spec
> sheets. They might be full of ****.

Hang, I guess you mean this stuff:

http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=500&sid=33e4779944cdcb38834bcb087811cf1a

It would be easier to judge the situation if these tests were accompanied
with tests made by more traditional means, i.e., the Audio Rightmark
(current edition 5.3) which is freely downloadable. I would expect Rightmark
tests to suck as bad.

If I was going to point fingers, I'd point at the mic preamps.

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Hittmann > wrote:
>
>> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
>> with somebody else here... can't I?
>
>I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The specs are
>apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.

Yeah, but that's an audio industry tradition. I bet there is some condition
under which the specs are actually accurate. Possibly a condition you will
never encounter in the real world, mind you. But specsmanship and flat out
ludicrous numbers are pretty universal in the industry and aren't specific
to Behringer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Screen shots were taken and put in the following ZIP file:
> http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000_test.zip (size = 688 KB)

> Steady state FFT scans show roughly 70 dB S/N ratio at the +4 dB
> setting, reducing to roughly 40 dB S/N ratio at maximum trim
> sensitivity.

The Audiorail guy has been posting to the Pro Audio list lately, and
mentioned this converter as a low cost companion to their Ethernet
snake system. He said it was "OK for PA use" but the response from an
installer said that if he included a piece of Bearrooger gear in a
proposal, he might as well toss it (the proposal) directly into the
trash and save the potential client the trouble. Apparently in the
sound contracting world, it just isn't taken seriously.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Preben Friis]

"hank alrich" > wrote:
> Preben Friis > wrote:
>
> > "hank alrich" wrote...
>
> > > I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The specs
are
> > > apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.
>
> > Where did you read that?
>
> See my other post in this thread about Barkingear "Quality". Or read the
> most recent issue of the Pro Audio List.

Where can that be found? A google search for "Pro Audio List" turned up
nothing special?

> Or follow up via the
> ProSoundWeb reviews forum. Look for the author, Mr. Garth D. Wiebe of
> Audiorail.

The Audiorail page has nine links to ADA8000 on Behringers site. I actally
looks like he is an endorser of it. Cudos to him for attempting to make
objective tests of the product. I would love to study some tests of more
expensive converters with the same test equipment.
I am by no means an expert on the subject, but the comments about phase and
ringing did not mention, that this is what can be expected of any converter
due to the delay of the signal and the anti aliasing filters. It also looks
strange that all screen shots of a digital signal.
The hum levels (60 Hz and harmonics) looks extreme to me, even my Sound
Blaster has better figures there...!? Ground pollution, any dimmers nearby?

<flame mode>

> > And how come, that no one on rec.audio.pro that has
> > tested it, has told anything about that "fact" ?
>
> Who on RAP has actually _bench tested the device_?

Who on r.a.p., besides Arny Krueger, benchtests anything and publishes the
results? The people I respect here often repeats that sound is something
that has to be heard and not pretty curves seen on a screen...

Or is it just a bunch
> of pro-Beri ******s easily posting **** about **** they don't know ****
> about?

If you **** actually **** know **** about the **** you **** post, please
tell us ****s excatly where Mr. Garth D. Wiebe's tests contradicts the ****
specs **** of ****ty ADA8000...!?

Please include the differences between dynamic range and S/N ratio, and tell
us why noise figures are usually weighted and not raw RMS readings, and why
noise are usually measured with terminated inputs. I also think you should
make a guess weather Behringer used the line or mic inputs when they
measured their specs.
We allready know that a preamp with an EIN of the theoretical minimum of 130
dB has a noise level of 70 dB at 60 dB gain so you don't have to mention
that.
Please also state the reason that you trust the results of a person that has
only two posts on r.a.p and five on prorec? Do you know him from somewhere
else? Do you know the quality of his measuring environment? Did you just see
a chance to slander some equipment you have never seen or heard as a genuine
opinionated asshole?

If you fail to explain the above, I must conclude that you are an old
anti-Beri geezer, that don't know **** and that only are grumpy because the
cheap new gear outperforms the old stuff that you have bought for a fortune.

> > Who is the lier here?
>
> See the test results and get back to me about issues of manufacturer
> integrity. Hint: don't let the marketing department write your spec
> sheets. They might be full of ****.

For perspective: Here is a link to a random $500, 2 channel 20 bit converter
without preamps that claims a 100 dB dynamic range ...
http://www.mercenary.com/lucidada1000.html
.... and a test that indicates that the dynamic range is 90 dB.
http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/ADA1000/analog24/

So, what converters do you use, how are they spec'ed and how do they measure
in a benchtest?

I have now read the test and studied the curves. I have read the specs of
ADA8000, and I have re-read your posts.in this thread ...
The only conclusion I have come to yet, is that certainly someone is full of
****....

<flame mode off>

Best regards
/Preben Friis

[Analogeezer]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1079095716k@trad>...
> In article > writes:
>
> > How about we all report this to (and maybe
> > and while we're at it) and
> > let the ISP's sort them out.
>
> How about we forget about it and just ignore messages praising
> questionable gear? An ISP won't do anything about it. You're just
> getting yourself worked up over something futile.
>
> Like just about anything else in audio, at some point you have to
> listen to it. Better to do that before you buy, but there's no reason
> to stop someone from trying an amplifier based on the appearance of
> spam in a newsgroup. Let the buyer beware.

Well the thing that kind of sucks about this guy's thread ****ing
everybody off is that the V-Amp Pro is actually pretty good for what
it is.

I'm not gonna suggest that it's good to replace real amps with but I
bought one to have around and the guys that have used it have
commented on it very favorably.

There are times when you want to write more than record, and something
like the V-amp lets you dial in something workable rather than getting
all involved in which mic, which pre, how you gonna mic it, etc.

Some people are really into the "I must capture every moment perfectly
because you never know when magic might hit and I want to make sure I
record it perfectly", but I'm not that anal retentive....the idea is
the key for me, don't let the knob twiddling get in the way of
creativity.

Still I get the impression these trollish posts are either just to get
Ty and ompany in a lather, or someone actually trying to ****
Behringer, I don't think it's "authorized PR" in any case.

I bet if you actually got everybody here to fess up, there'd be a lot
more "B" gear than people will readily admit. It's not usually part of
my "gold signal chain" but some of the stuff is pretty useful...not
even counting the cheapness factor.

Buying Behr gear is a bit like Taco Bell though, you feel like you've
eaten something but you wouldn't want to subsist on it <g>

Analogeezer

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "hank alrich" wrote
>
>>> ****tmann > wrote:
>
>>>> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its
>>>> quality with somebody else here... can't I?
>
>>> I just read about a guy testing his new Behringer ADA8000. The specs
>>> are apparently an outright lie; it'll do all of 80 dB SNR.
>
>> Could be true if the line level inputs go through the mic preamps,
>> which they probably do.
>
> And that ain't worst case. Follow my other post in this thread which
> excerpts quotes from the guy's test results. Enjoy! <g>

Looking at
http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=500&sid=33e4779944cdcb38834bcb087811cf1a ,
I find the following semiconductor compliment:

Alesis Semiconductor AL1101 A/D converters
Alesis Semiconductor AL1201 D/A converters
Alesis Semiconductor AL1402 ADAT optical decoder
Alesis Semiconductor AL1401A ADAT optical encoder
Toshiba TORX176 Toslink receiver
Toshiba TOTX176 Toslink transmitter
ST Microelectronics TL074C and LM339 op amps

Many of these parts are digital interface chips which would be less suspect
in terms of their effect on analog signal quality. I've seen spec sheets for
the Alesis parts, but little else. Therefore they are suspect to me. I don't
have any special problems with TL074s as moderate-impedance, moderate gain,
line level parts. I've got questions about the use of them and LM339s as mic
preamps.

It appears that the genesis of the ADA8000 is that it might be literally the
front end and back end of an ADAT stuffed into a smaller box. While I
understand this when it comes to the digital interface parts, I don't
necessarily understand this as being a requirement or even a good idea when
it comes to the converters and analog interface parts.

I've seen a zillion negative comments about the sound quality of ADATs over
the years, and this may be part of the reason why.

[Keith]

You....**** off!

No really....**** off!!




"Hittmann" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
> in perfect use.
>
> What I use at the moment very often are behringer's small guitar combo
> Firebird GX108 for practising in a small room and V-AMPIRE in a
> rehearsal room. Behringer GX108 seems to be now out of catalogue?? but
> hey, it's awesome. Just plug into it and turn up the volume! The big
> sound direct in the face. EQs are very delicate and you can set the
> various tone with them easily. Tone change is not so soft, but not too
> sharp. Very precise, I'd say. I sometimes add a distortion and delay
> effects in betweend and it also helps to get fun with this small
> combo. I actually didn't expect this combo would sounds sooo good in
> my small room when I just tested it in a store, but I really liked its
> vintage design and the simplicity it has and I bought it. This GX108
> turned out to be a perfect fun-maker for a free-time chopping, you
> know.
>
> I'm also very curious about Behringer's V-Tone GM108. It's also a
> small combo with 15 watt and it looks not so smarty, but its analog
> modeling function sounds very interesting... 70 USD for this small
> thing alone is a bit expensive, but I'll try to test it somewhere if
> possible. It might be a good idea that I buy the behringer v-tone
> guitar pack as the amp is included in this package and give someone
> (maybe my nephew?) as a present. Then I can test it easily, hehe.
>
> About my BEHRINGER V-ampire, I just like it as it is although I myself
> still have some difficulties to figure out how to controll all these
> effects and MIDIs. I don't own any MIDI-footswitches, so I just plug
> my guitar directly into the box and play. I bought it a few weeks ago
> as my friend in Japan told me it sounded awesome when it was presented
> at music fair out there in the last autumn. I didn't have prior
> testings but it was a love at the first glance, I couldn't help myself
> from ordering it right after I checked it out on Behringer website and
> saw the features. The price for these functions are simply
> impossible!! The reason why I'm totally attracted at Behringer's
> products are its price in the first place. Some people are talking bad
> about behringer and I don't know what's happening or has happened to
> them before, but I really don't care such things. The most important
> thing for me is to get good quality products for a fair prices, which
> behringer does. If you own an amp like Vampire, you just can't
> complain anything. As far as I know, Behringer offeres the best
> possible gears for the lowest possible price. I'm more than satisfied
> about my behringer gears and I'm already planning to buy another
> behringer stuffs such as FCB1010 footcontroller or DI box or whatever.
> I'm sure I can share my opinion about behringer gears and its quality
> with somebody else here... can't I?
>
> thanks and bye bye!

[WillStG]

<< (Analogeezer) >>
<< I'm not gonna suggest that it's good to replace real amps with but I
bought one to have around and the guys that have used it have
commented on it very favorably.

There are times when you want to write more than record, and something
like the V-amp lets you dial in something workable rather than getting
all involved in which mic, which pre, how you gonna mic it, etc. >>

Well - you could say the same thing about a Pod, or a Zoom or a Pandora,
or playing with a Digitech Legend 21 through your stereo - all of which are
"workable" when you want to write. Or you could spend your $200 on something
like a Tech 21 Tradmark 10 amp that you can actually record decent guitar
sounds with too, and discourage these BS "reviewers" with appropriate criticism
for their lack of anything of substance to say.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[hank alrich]

Preben Friis wrote:

> Please also state the reason that you trust the results of a person that has
> only two posts on r.a.p and five on prorec?

The Pro Audio List was founded by Gabe Weiner; perhaps you've heard of
him, seeing as how you're RAPping here.

http://www.pgm.com/

The person in question has been participating in a thread on the list,
and I judge him by his discourse therein.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Preben Friis > wrote:

> The only conclusion I have come to yet, is that certainly someone is full of
> ****....

So you pretty much appreciate the sound of the ADA8000. Enjoy!

I prefer something in the mediocre quality area, like MIO and L2. That's
the best I can afford at the moment.

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> Preben Friis > wrote:
>
>> The only conclusion I have come to yet, is that certainly someone is
>> full of ****....

> So you pretty much appreciate the sound of the ADA8000. Enjoy!

I would prefer to reserve judgment on the ADA8000 until we see more data.

I suspect the *real* problem is that all the line inputs are going through
some fairly mediocre mic preamps. That and maybe some problems with the gain
structure.

I suspect that there are a lot of people who would like to throw stones at
the ADA8000, but routinely route *everything* through line inputs on
mid-priced or lower-end or old tech consoles that end up being not a heck of
a lot better.

[Preben Friis]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Preben Friis > wrote:
>
> > The only conclusion I have come to yet, is that certainly someone is
full of
> > ****....
>
> So you pretty much appreciate the sound of the ADA8000. Enjoy!
>
> I prefer something in the mediocre quality area, like MIO and L2. That's
> the best I can afford at the moment.

I haven't head it ... but at least I don't judge something I haven't head.

Since you failed to back your statements about the specs, I can now safely
elevate my theory about you to facts.

/Preben Friis

[Preben Friis]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> It appears that the genesis of the ADA8000 is that it might be literally
the
> front end and back end of an ADAT stuffed into a smaller box. While I
> understand this when it comes to the digital interface parts, I don't
> necessarily understand this as being a requirement or even a good idea
when
> it comes to the converters and analog interface parts.
>
> I've seen a zillion negative comments about the sound quality of ADATs
over
> the years, and this may be part of the reason why.

The 24 bit converters are a few generations newer than the 16 bit converters
in ADAT's. What I guess is, that the ADA8000 uses the same converters as the
Alesis HD24.

Note that the measurements on prorec was, as you suspected, performed
through the mic inputs.

/Preben Friis

[Arny Krueger]

"Preben Friis" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> It appears that the genesis of the ADA8000 is that it might be
>> literally the front end and back end of an ADAT stuffed into a
>> smaller box. While I understand this when it comes to the digital
>> interface parts, I don't necessarily understand this as being a
>> requirement or even a good idea
> when
>> it comes to the converters and analog interface parts.

>> I've seen a zillion negative comments about the sound quality of ADATs
over
>> the years, and this may be part of the reason why.

> The 24 bit converters are a few generations newer than the 16 bit
> converters in ADAT's. What I guess is, that the ADA8000 uses the same
> converters as the Alesis HD24.

> Note that the measurements on prorec was, as you suspected, performed
> through the mic inputs.

Right. And at the price, I expect that the line inputs are attenuated and
then routed through the mic inputs.

Tip-offs:

(1) same range of gain (50 dB).

(2) No input selector switch.

I don't claim this is proof, but it does correlate.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <znr1079133636k@trad>, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>The Audiorail guy has been posting to the Pro Audio list lately, and
>mentioned this converter as a low cost companion to their Ethernet
>snake system. He said it was "OK for PA use" but the response from an
>installer said that if he included a piece of Bearrooger gear in a
>proposal, he might as well toss it (the proposal) directly into the
>trash and save the potential client the trouble. Apparently in the
>sound contracting world, it just isn't taken seriously.

The installed sound guys don't care so much about sound quality, but they
are VERY sensitive to reliability issues. They want gear that is intended
to be as bulletproof as possible, because it costs them a huge amount of
money to come out and replace something that fails under warranty. A couple
service calls can turn a profitable contract into an unprofitable one very
fast. And service calls once the warranty period has expired do not make
customers happy.

Very different than the typical consumer/semi=pro customer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Preben Friis > wrote:
>
>Who on r.a.p., besides Arny Krueger, benchtests anything and publishes the
>results? The people I respect here often repeats that sound is something
>that has to be heard and not pretty curves seen on a screen...

I do. Get the latest Recording magazine. I think Paul Stamler does some
real measurements too.

You need to listen, and you need to measure. If you don't measure, you
don't know why you are hearing what you are hearing. If you don't listen,
you don't know if you are measuring something important or not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Still I get the impression these trollish posts are either just to get
> Ty and ompany in a lather, or someone actually trying to ****
> Behringer, I don't think it's "authorized PR" in any case.

I'm sure it isn't authorized PR, but maybe a dealer has encouraged his
happy customers to tell other people about the amplifier, and what's
"clueless" is that these enthusiasts are telling faceless people with
whom they have no other contact by broadcasting on Usenet newsgroups.

Now, THAT'S "clueless."


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(hank alrich) wrote:
>Excerpted from a report of testing the Berryfinger ADA8000, where you
>probably get your full two hundred dollars worth of "24/96".
>
>** Quotation Begins **
>
><snipitty doo dah's happen - find this on PSW, too, if you've the
>patience or urge>

Additional snippage for teh sake of a slimmer bucket of bits.

>Might as well make "tunafish sandwich filling" out of tuna the kitty
>already passed.
>
>--
>ha

My Dear Mr. Alrich,

To yoy sir, a high-tech MEOW! And thanks for your vigilance.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(Analogeezer) wrote:
>Still I get the impression these trollish posts are either just to get
>Ty and ompany in a lather, or someone actually trying to ****
>Behringer, I don't think it's "authorized PR" in any case.

No lather here. As I mentioned the last time we had a B virus infect this
group. The approach is from a classic page from the Guerilla Marketing
Handbook, regardless as to the acutal source.

Unfortunately, if B ever does make a really good piece of gear and not just
one that's "good for the price", it's acceptance will be a hindered by all
that came before them.

Posting your over the top impressions of the gear and then crying wolf for B
when you get a negative response to your methods may not be helping as much
as you think.

LISTEN (OR READ) THIS NEXT BIT CAREFULLY.

The negative reponse from the members of this group have more to do with the
method and rhetoric used than anything else. The best advice I can offer is
stop with the bull**** rhetoric or get out of town.

The only way B will be able to change the widely held view that they are
underachieving is to suck it up and start doing things right. Then, over
time, after they have paid their dues, they can begin to enjoy an earned
reputation. Of course, that's if they really want it in the first place. If
they are already making enough money from people who don't know any better,
then, if I were them, I'd probably say, "Why bother? It's too hard. It costs
too much and we can't make enough profit because we can't sell enough units
at that price point."

Hey even I eat at McDonalds from time to time. Mostly though, I go to a
little locally owned sub shop because they make an itlaian cold cut sub that
makes my mouth water just to think about it.

I'll make an open offer here. If B REALLY wants to do something about their
image. I'll make myself available as a paid marketing consultant, wade into
that fire and see what can be done. We can discuss rates and strategies or
whatever you like. There. The offer has been made. Please do me the favor of
responding by personal email or to the group. And please know that we ALL
know that this and other B strings are being read by "the company."

Let the healing begin.


Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Preben Friis]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Preben Friis > wrote:
> >
> I do. Get the latest Recording magazine. I think Paul Stamler does some
> real measurements too.

I buy it almost every month even if is harder and harder to find here in
Denmark. My latest issue is from February, but I will buy Marts and April
when they arrive... I enjoy reading the articles from you, Mike Rivers,
Paul Stamler and Monte McGuire.

Right now I can't recall any hard figures in any reviews from Recording Mag,
besides some very wrong impedance and voltage figures in a test of Rolls
ADU6 DI (Dec '02) that Mike Metlay tested with the help of you.

A quote from Mike Metlay in the same issue about Behringer UB1002:
"The new preamplifier is very quiet and clear, obviously designed for
transparency rather than character, and gives a faithful transmission of
whatever signal is being sent to the board." I did, however, not see any
measurements that backed that impression....

Other issues includes specifications directly from the manufacturer, with no
mention of verifications of those numbers.

> You need to listen, and you need to measure. If you don't measure, you
> don't know why you are hearing what you are hearing. If you don't listen,
> you don't know if you are measuring something important or not.

I fully agree, but this also means, that there is no reason behind
slandering a device for some measurements that is not correlated to
anything, especially if it is not backed by the necessary theory and
listening.

/Preben Friis

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> The installed sound guys don't care so much about sound quality, but they
> are VERY sensitive to reliability issues. They want gear that is intended
> to be as bulletproof as possible, because it costs them a huge amount of
> money to come out and replace something that fails under warranty.

Not only that, but their customers don't want to have to call for
service. When Sunday morning comes and they turn that $200K system on,
they want to hear the sound that's going on up front, not the sound of
something frying. They know how to turn it on, but they don't know how
to troubleshoot it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[WillStG]

First you say

<< > Preben Friis > wrote:
>
> > The only conclusion I have come to yet, is that certainly someone is full
of ****.... >>

Then you say

<< I haven't head it ... but at least I don't judge something I haven't head.
>>

<< Since you failed to back your statements about the specs, I can now safely
elevate my theory about you to facts. >>

So how about you back up your talk Prebin, go out and get a Behringer
Ad8000 and compare it to the best converters you own, then come back and tell
us how well you think it compares.
Better micpres than a Mackie? Better converters than a Soundblaster? Tell us
just how great YOU think a cheap box of $200 worth of micpres and converters
really is compared to your best gear. Be sure to measure it with your lab
equipment too, then post in terms we can all understand, like "Behringer Bites"
and "Behringer sucks!" and


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Garth D. Wiebe]

"AudioRail guy" here. I actually didn't notice this embedded ADA8000
discussion in "Behringer guitar amps rule" until just now.

I want to point out a couple of things.

First of all, we do not endorse Behringer beyond citing it as a price
point. For better or worse, it enables the least costly implementation
of our product. Please feel free to spend whatever you want on analog/
digital converters, depending on your best judgment.

Second of all, the review in prosoundweb was not meant to either promote
or disparage the product. A test was done, screen shots captured, and
you have to judge for yourself.

Thirdly, I want to point out that there are some limitations that you
have to keep in mind with the "loopback" test posted. The cables are
connecting line outputs to mic preamps that are cranked to maximum
sensitivity. I pointed out just last night in that thread that a
substantial amount of noise was owed to the the line outputs, and not
the mic. inputs. If you generate a signal that is close to -60 dBFS to
a line output, then amplify that 60 dB on a mic pre, then get -40 dB
noise floor, what does that tell you? It tells you something about the
combined path. But it is a cruel test.

[S O'Neill]

Ty Ford wrote:


> Unfortunately, if B ever does make a really good piece of gear and not just
> one that's "good for the price", it's acceptance will be a hindered by all
> that came before them.

I'm still disgusted at Peavey, don't have a peavus anything. I used to
fix them when they first came out. Beer-can-metal chassis with pop
rivets on the transformers! The channel volume/input atten circuit that
did it all with one pot (=guaranteed mismatch at all settings, =noise,
=difficult to set on high inputs, but also =really "inexpensive"), the
linear 10k pots used everywhere to reduce parts inventory at teh
factory. The really *bad* Folded-line reverb units ("assembled by
beautiful girls..." still didn't help). More crossover distortion than
a Vox Kensington Bass amp.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Preben Friis wrote:
>
> So, what converters do you use, how are they spec'ed and how do they measure
> in a benchtest?

RME ADI-8DS, and it measures within 1 dB of the spec.

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

> Unfortunately, if B ever does make a really good piece of gear and not just
> one that's "good for the price", it's acceptance will be a hindered by all
> that came before them.

Mr. Gleason swears that one of B's digital SR processors is keen, to the
point I think he offed some of his Meyer CEU's in favor of the Beri.
Some AAPLS folks seems to agree with him. There will still be hesitance
regarding quality of mechanical components, but time will tell that
story. Personally, I hope to get hands-on with the device in question to
see if it's handy. But that's not an immediate priority here at
beautiful secret mountain, where today the sun shines gloriously on the
Sierra Nevada.

Beri paid their _don'ts_ by being sleazebag ripoffs copying Mackie,
Aphex and Drawmer. The masses don't care much, but within pro circles
they were seen as coming to the party with turd on their chins. It's too
late for them to rewrite that part of their history, so acceptance in
pro circles will come only from chapters about quality and integrity,
not just price.

We all appreciate good value. Nobobdy appreciates bush leaague
"integrity".

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[hank alrich]

Preben Friis > wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote...

> > Preben Friis:

> > > The only conclusion I have come to yet, is that certainly someone is
> > > full of > > ****....

> > So you pretty much appreciate the sound of the ADA8000. Enjoy!

> > I prefer something in the mediocre quality area, like MIO and L2. That's
> > the best I can afford at the moment.

> I haven't head it ... but at least I don't judge something I haven't head.

> Since you failed to back your statements about the specs, I can now safely
> elevate my theory about you to facts.

If something sounds broken to me, I get out the scope. I got rid of the
bench gear when all my new audio kit routinely outperformed the residual
artifacts of my old HP stuff, stuff that worked well in the context of
the Studer/API etc. level of gear I used for a good while. I have no
personal interest in acquiring new test gear as I prefer to spend time
playing music instead of testing stuff that works satisfactorily.
Perhaps eventually I will get into using the MIO and SpectraFoo Complete
as a new-fangled test rig, but not until the work that pays is done.

As it happens, it appears to me that the old HP rig would have worked
well enough to test the Beri ADA8000 and decide to buy something else.

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[hank alrich]

Preben Friis wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" wrote...

> > Preben Friis > wrote:

> > I do. Get the latest Recording magazine. I think Paul Stamler does some
> > real measurements too.

> I buy it almost every month even if is harder and harder to find here in
> Denmark.

It's actually even getting harder to get it here in the US in a city
like Reno, Nevada, where Barnes & Noble apparently no longer offers it,
but Borders, which didn't used to have it, now does. I buy it now and
then when I see something that'd interest me, always from an author who
posts here.

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The installed sound guys don't care so much about sound quality, but they
> are VERY sensitive to reliability issues. They want gear that is intended
> to be as bulletproof as possible, because it costs them a huge amount of
> money to come out and replace something that fails under warranty. A couple
> service calls can turn a profitable contract into an unprofitable one very
> fast. And service calls once the warranty period has expired do not make
> customers happy.

> Very different than the typical consumer/semi=pro customer.

This morning in the BSW catalog I noted the Crest rackmount mixers
offering a 5-year warranty. That'd appeal to the install guys, if the
kit lives up to the guarantee. And it just might.

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Preben Friis]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Preben Friis wrote:
> > > Preben Friis > wrote:
>
> > I buy it almost every month even if is harder and harder to find here in
> > Denmark.
>
> It's actually even getting harder to get it here in the US in a city
> like Reno, Nevada, where Barnes & Noble apparently no longer offers it,
> but Borders, which didn't used to have it, now does. I buy it now and
> then when I see something that'd interest me, always from an author who
> posts here.

Yes, I naively thought that I could buy it when I was in L.A. in October,
but found out that it actually is easier to locate at home. The newpaper
shop on the main railroad station in Copenhagen, always carry it. Actually,
I ought to get a subscription instead. It is around $12 over here... !

/Preben Friis

[Preben Friis]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message
...
<snippage>

> Second of all, the review in prosoundweb was not meant to either promote
> or disparage the product. A test was done, screen shots captured, and
> you have to judge for yourself.

Obvously it was too tempting just to read the numbers you measured, and
conclude that the unit is 20 dB worse than it's specs.. - and quote it
completely out of context.

> Thirdly, I want to point out that there are some limitations that you
> have to keep in mind with the "loopback" test posted. The cables are
> connecting line outputs to mic preamps that are cranked to maximum
> sensitivity. I pointed out just last night in that thread that a
> substantial amount of noise was owed to the the line outputs, and not
> the mic. inputs. If you generate a signal that is close to -60 dBFS to
> a line output, then amplify that 60 dB on a mic pre, then get -40 dB
> noise floor, what does that tell you? It tells you something about the
> combined path. But it is a cruel test.

Well... subtracting 60 dB from the -40 dB noise floor actually gets -100 dB
wich is consistent with 100 dB dynamic range specified.

What program are you using for the FFT curves? I have never seen output from
a program that could display that high resolution in the low frequency area
before. I'd like to see if I can make some comparative results myself, using
other converters and if/when I buy a ADA8000 myself.

As Arny suggested, can you try RMAA on the same setup? That will almost
instantly create loop back measurements that can be compared to a lot of
other converters.

And thanks for joining this thread ... :)

/Preben Friis

[Paul Stamler]

Ty Ford > wrote in message
...

> The only way B will be able to change the widely held view that they are
> underachieving is to suck it up and start doing things right. Then, over
> time, after they have paid their dues, they can begin to enjoy an earned
> reputation.

And then it'll continue to be mixed. See Peavey -- they made a couple of
pieces of gear universally acknowledged to be excellent (the tubed mike
preamp and compressor), so we know they can really do it when they want to.
But we also know that, most of the time, they don't want to.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

Scott Dorsey > wrote in message
...
> Preben Friis > wrote:
> >
> >Who on r.a.p., besides Arny Krueger, benchtests anything and publishes
the
> >results? The people I respect here often repeats that sound is something
> >that has to be heard and not pretty curves seen on a screen...
>
> I do. Get the latest Recording magazine. I think Paul Stamler does some
> real measurements too.

Yep. Sometimes jury-rigged, as in shock sensitivity tests (fingernail on the
boom, anyone?) but I do test things and publish the results -- for example,
screen shots of ringing on SM81 microphone vs. M930 in the current review.
For things like mike pres I do IM and THD tests, look at noise, etc.

> You need to listen, and you need to measure. If you don't measure, you
> don't know why you are hearing what you are hearing. If you don't listen,
> you don't know if you are measuring something important or not.

Words of true wisdom.

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

S O'Neill > wrote:

> I'm still disgusted at Peavey, don't have a peavus anything.

VMP2; VCL2 + different critters from normal Peavus.

--
ha

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:29:25 GMT, "Garth D. Wiebe"
> wrote:

>Thirdly, I want to point out that there are some limitations that you
>have to keep in mind with the "loopback" test posted. The cables are
>connecting line outputs to mic preamps that are cranked to maximum
>sensitivity. I pointed out just last night in that thread that a
>substantial amount of noise was owed to the the line outputs, and not
>the mic. inputs. If you generate a signal that is close to -60 dBFS to
>a line output, then amplify that 60 dB on a mic pre, then get -40 dB
>noise floor, what does that tell you? It tells you something about the
>combined path. But it is a cruel test.

And, if I understand you right, pretty meaningless. Why not
use an attenuator between the line out and mic input? Or am
I misunderstanding the test setup?

Chris Hornbeck

"Second star to the right,
Then straight on 'til morning."

[Geoff Wood]

Hittmann wrote:
> Hi, guys, I'm also using Behringer gears for years and they are still
> in perfect use.

Dear ****tman, your English sounds a bit foreighn to me. German maybe ?

> thanks and bye bye!

Hopefully.

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

Preben Friis wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Preben Friis > wrote:
>>>
>> I do. Get the latest Recording magazine. I think Paul Stamler does
>> some real measurements too.
>
> I buy it almost every month even if is harder and harder to find here
> in Denmark. My latest issue is from February, but I will buy Marts
> and April when they arrive... I enjoy reading the articles from you,
> Mike Rivers, Paul Stamler and Monte McGuire.
>

Subscribe - it's cheaper and quicker and more reliable that way !

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> A quote from Mike Metlay in the same issue about Behringer UB1002:
> "The new preamplifier is very quiet and clear, obviously designed for
> transparency rather than character, and gives a faithful transmission of
> whatever signal is being sent to the board." I did, however, not see any
> measurements that backed that impression....

Sometimes we measure when we hear something that we don't like, to try
to figure out why we don't like it. If there's no reason to be
suspicious, there's no reason to make measurements to confirm that
nothing is wrong. When I measure something, I almost always explain
how I measured it, particularly if it's a measurement that a
typically-equipped reader can perform at home, possibly on a different
piece of equipment.

I'll measure the input impedance of a mic preamp just because it isn't
often included in the product's published specs and because it's one
of those things that can make a preamp sound different with different
mics, so it's a good excuse if a user doesn't agree with my
assessment. But for example, when I thought that the Instrument input
on the US-122 that I reviewed sounded dull when plugging in an
electric guitar, I measured it and found that it was substantially
lower than both the published spec (which would have been fine) and
low enough to explain the loss of high frequency response. I didn't,
however, measure the frequency response when fed from a high impedance
source. "Sounded dull" was sufficient.

> Other issues includes specifications directly from the manufacturer, with no
> mention of verifications of those numbers.

I have seen some reviews in Mix in which product data was probably
quoted without a good understanding of what was quoted (or with a
sufficiently skimpy length budget to translate). For instance, in a
recent review of a compressor, I read: "All of the op-amps and line
drivers are DC-coupled Analog Devices OP275 chips with high-quality
coupling capacitors."

First, "DC" in this context doesn't mean "direct current", it means
"direct coupled" so there's a redundant word in there. Second, if it's
direct coupled, what do the high quality coupling capacitors do? If
the internals are all direct coupled (no capacitors) and there are
capacitors at the input and output for DC blocking, I'd say that.

> I fully agree, but this also means, that there is no reason behind
> slandering a device for some measurements that is not correlated to
> anything, especially if it is not backed by the necessary theory and
> listening.

Most reviewers (in print anyway) don't slander devices, for several
reasons. However it's typical for newsgroup posters to "review" a
device with the simple "It's horrible."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Preben Friis]

"Preben Friis" > wrote in message
...

> What program are you using for the FFT curves? I have never seen output
from
> a program that could display that high resolution in the low frequency
area
> before.

Never mind that question.. now I recognize Cool Edit Pro ... :)

/Preben Friis

[Preben Friis]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079194004k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> I'll measure the input impedance of a mic preamp just because it isn't
> often included in the product's published specs and because it's one
> of those things that can make a preamp sound different with different
> mics, so it's a good excuse if a user doesn't agree with my
> assessment. But for example, when I thought that the Instrument input
> on the US-122 that I reviewed sounded dull when plugging in an
> electric guitar, I measured it and found that it was substantially
> lower than both the published spec (which would have been fine) and
> low enough to explain the loss of high frequency response. I didn't,
> however, measure the frequency response when fed from a high impedance
> source. "Sounded dull" was sufficient.

The test in Recording I referred to earlier, states that the Rolls DI has a
input impedance of around 100k but the schematic shows a 10 pot to ground
_before_ the input. This means that this DI is completely unsuitable for
passive instruments! Major mistake. Same review stated that the circuit was
able to run with 2 Volt supply, when in fact it will distort very much even
at 4 volt supply!

> I have seen some reviews in Mix in which product data was probably
> quoted without a good understanding of what was quoted (or with a
> sufficiently skimpy length budget to translate). For instance, in a
> recent review of a compressor, I read: "All of the op-amps and line
> drivers are DC-coupled Analog Devices OP275 chips with high-quality
> coupling capacitors."
>
> First, "DC" in this context doesn't mean "direct current", it means
> "direct coupled" so there's a redundant word in there. Second, if it's
> direct coupled, what do the high quality coupling capacitors do? If
> the internals are all direct coupled (no capacitors) and there are
> capacitors at the input and output for DC blocking, I'd say that.

I quickly paged through a stack of old Recoding issues and could not find
any measurements besides some response charts from Scott Dorsey, and a
direct copy of some manufacturer spec sheet. I don't expect anal
measurements and plots for every thinkable parameter to be in Recording.
That would be too boring for most readers.

> > I fully agree, but this also means, that there is no reason behind
> > slandering a device for some measurements that is not correlated to
> > anything, especially if it is not backed by the necessary theory and
> > listening.
>
> Most reviewers (in print anyway) don't slander devices, for several
> reasons. However it's typical for newsgroup posters to "review" a
> device with the simple "It's horrible."

Yes, they will gladly tell you that it's horrible, it's crappy, it sucks
..... about something that they have never heard. That is what I am
attempting to fight here.

/Preben Friis

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Preben Friis wrote:
> "Preben Friis" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> What program are you using for the FFT curves? I have never seen output
>> from a program that could display that high resolution in the low
>> frequency area before.
>
> Never mind that question.. now I recognize Cool Edit Pro ... :)
>
> /Preben Friis

Yes, Adobe Audition. RMAA doesn't seem to work on this particular machine.

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:29:25 GMT, "Garth D. Wiebe"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Thirdly, I want to point out that there are some limitations that you
>>have to keep in mind with the "loopback" test posted. The cables are
>>connecting line outputs to mic preamps that are cranked to maximum
>>sensitivity. I pointed out just last night in that thread that a
>>substantial amount of noise was owed to the the line outputs, and not
>>the mic. inputs. If you generate a signal that is close to -60 dBFS to
>>a line output, then amplify that 60 dB on a mic pre, then get -40 dB
>>noise floor, what does that tell you? It tells you something about the
>>combined path. But it is a cruel test.
>
>
> And, if I understand you right, pretty meaningless. Why not
> use an attenuator between the line out and mic input? Or am
> I misunderstanding the test setup?
>
> Chris Hornbeck

Not "meaningless", but definitely limited. I did point out last night
in that thread that the level drops to -60 dBFS when you replace the
loopback cable with a dynamic mic. (E/V 767). And it drops down into
the -70s when there is no cable connected, which you can see from the
"immunity" tests in response to jethro's post (file
"ADA8000_FFT_mic_nc.bmp").

Repeating the test with a passive attenuator would be a good idea. You
have to be careful there, as well. I would want to make sure the
attenuator doesn't present an unfair or unrealistic element either, and
is properly constructed. If I can find the time to get back to this,
maybe I can rig up a balanced attenuator that will be appropriately low
Z into the microphone inputs. I don't have a decent attenuator on hand.
Ideally, I should have eight of them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message

> Preben Friis wrote:
> > "Preben Friis" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> What program are you using for the FFT curves? I have never seen
> output >> from a program that could display that high resolution in
> the low >> frequency area before.

> > Never mind that question.. now I recognize Cool Edit Pro ... :)

There are other tools that work with much larger FFTs like Spectra Lab.
Spectra does megapoint FFTs, while Audition is limted to a mere 64K points.

> I recognize Adobe Audition. RMAA doesn't seem to work on this particular
machine.

If Audition works, RMAA works, albeit indirectly. RMAA will create a test
file. You re-record it with Audition and then use RMAA analyze the file you
recorded.

I used a variation of this procedure in my recent tests of a Apex DVD player
reading a test CD. The test CD was burned from a 16/44 test file that was
created by RMAA. The output of the DVD player was captured at 24/96 with a
LunxTWO and Audition, and saved as a wav file. RMAA was used to analyze the
..wav file. The only slightly tricky part is the fact that RMAA likes its 24
bit .wav files to be saved as "4 byte PCM(Type 1, 32 bit)".

[Geoff Wood]

Preben Friis wrote:
> The test in Recording I referred to earlier, states that the Rolls DI
> has a input impedance of around 100k but the schematic shows a 10 pot
> to ground _before_ the input.

I'd say the schematic was in error , assuming you meant 10K (bloody
proof-readers !)

> I don't expect anal
> measurements and plots

That's a relief ....

geoff

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>> Adobe Audition. RMAA doesn't seem to work on this particular machine.
>
> If Audition works, RMAA works, albeit indirectly. RMAA will create a test
> file. You re-record it with Audition and then use RMAA analyze the file you
> recorded.
>
> I used a variation of this procedure in my recent tests of a Apex DVD player
> reading a test CD. The test CD was burned from a 16/44 test file that was
> created by RMAA. The output of the DVD player was captured at 24/96 with a
> LunxTWO and Audition, and saved as a wav file. RMAA was used to analyze the
> .wav file. The only slightly tricky part is the fact that RMAA likes its 24
> bit .wav files to be saved as "4 byte PCM(Type 1, 32 bit)".

I did not know you could do it indirectly like that.

Here are the results:

http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000_RMAA_test.zip (387 KB)

Thanks for the tip. Having RMAA work will be helpful!

[TonyP]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> > And that ain't worst case.

And it aint the best case either!
People here just don't seem to understand the correlation between gain, and
S/N ratio.


> Looking at
>
http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=500&sid=33e4779944cdcb38834bc
b087811cf1a ,
> I find the following semiconductor compliment:
>
> Alesis Semiconductor AL1101 A/D converters
> Alesis Semiconductor AL1201 D/A converters
> Alesis Semiconductor AL1402 ADAT optical decoder
> Alesis Semiconductor AL1401A ADAT optical encoder
> Toshiba TORX176 Toslink receiver
> Toshiba TOTX176 Toslink transmitter
> ST Microelectronics TL074C and LM339 op amps
>
> Many of these parts are digital interface chips which would be less
suspect
> in terms of their effect on analog signal quality. I've seen spec sheets
for
> the Alesis parts, but little else. Therefore they are suspect to me. I
don't
> have any special problems with TL074s as moderate-impedance, moderate
gain,
> line level parts. I've got questions about the use of them and LM339s as
mic
> preamps.


I would be very surprised if the ADA8000 didn't use 4580 op-amps for the mic
pre's like all their other mixers.

Remember the thing is designed to go with their DDX3216 digi mixer. For line
level inputs only, they should add a mic-pre bypass switch.
If they want to sell these things to accompany the new BCA2000 for multi
channel recording, then I recommend they do a new version with that feature.

TonyP.

[TonyP]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> When outputs were muted and 10 second recording was made with input
> trims at ***maximum***, noise was white with peaks of -36 dBFS and RMS
power
> of -47 dB referenced to RMS full scale sine wave.

Which equates to -97dB RMS without the extra 50 dB of gain.
Which is actually pretty close to spec if you remember this is for both
input and output noise.

TonyP.

[Arny Krueger]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message


> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> If Audition works, RMAA works, albeit indirectly. RMAA will create a
>> test file. You re-record it with Audition and then use RMAA analyze
>> the file you recorded.

>> I used a variation of this procedure in my recent tests of a Apex
>> DVD player reading a test CD. The test CD was burned from a 16/44
>> test file that was created by RMAA. The output of the DVD player was
>> captured at 24/96 with a LunxTWO and Audition, and saved as a wav
>> file. RMAA was used to analyze the .wav file. The only slightly
>> tricky part is the fact that RMAA likes its 24 bit .wav files to be
>> saved as "4 byte PCM(Type 1, 32 bit)".

> I did not know you could do it indirectly like that.

Pretty cute how the RMAA author opened the door for this approach, no?

> Here are the results:

> http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000_RMAA_test.zip (387 KB)

Thanks!

I can duplicate these test results pretty closely by amplifying a 16 bit
RMAA test signal by about 0.2 dB past digital full scale with about 1% of FS
worth DC bias present. A little slightly asymmetrical clipping and voila -
distortion just about like what these results show.

> Thanks for the tip. Having RMAA work will be helpful!

Always pleased to help.

Any chance of a retest with peak recorded levels say 3 dB below FS?

Another tip - you can make RMAA synch up with test signals that were run
well below FS by normalizing the output .wav file after capture and prior to
analysis.

RMAA's analysis function is very intolerant of files with signals whose
amplitude is too low or files that are too short.

Both issues can be fixed with a little editing in Audition after capturing
the output signal. Fix levels by normalizing to say, -1 dB, and fix length
issues by generating a second or two of silence at the end of the file you
captured.

[Arny Krueger]

"TonyP" > wrote in message
u

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> .. .

>> When outputs were muted and 10 second recording was made with input
>> trims at ***maximum***, noise was white with peaks of -36 dBFS and
>> RMS power of -47 dB referenced to RMS full scale sine wave.

> Which equates to -97dB RMS without the extra 50 dB of gain.
> Which is actually pretty close to spec if you remember this is for
> both input and output noise.

Prieben's first RMAA results show SNR and dynamic range around 94 dB. This
is not bad.

The measured frequency response his RMAA tests show is within about 0.2 dB
or better from 20 to about 20 KHz. This is also not bad.

The RMAA tests also show a pattern of nonlinear distortion that is similar
to that which one gets with very slight asymmetrical clipping.

[TonyP]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Prieben's first RMAA results show SNR and dynamic range around 94 dB.
This
> is not bad.

Considering that's about as good as you can expect from the Behringer mic
pre's, I'd say it's pretty good.
A direct line in switch would be nice though.

> The measured frequency response his RMAA tests show is within about 0.2 dB
> or better from 20 to about 20 KHz. This is also not bad.

Pretty good in fact.

> The RMAA tests also show a pattern of nonlinear distortion that is similar
> to that which one gets with very slight asymmetrical clipping.

But is it the box or the test procedure?

TonyP.

[Arny Krueger]

"TonyP" > wrote in message
u

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Prieben's first RMAA results show SNR and dynamic range around 94
>> dB. This is not bad.
>
> Considering that's about as good as you can expect from the Behringer
> mic pre's, I'd say it's pretty good.

> A direct line in switch would be nice though.

It would be nice. With the existing good enough SNR it is not absolutely
needed. Another approach would be a closed circuit line input jack so you
bypassed the mic pre when you plugged in a line input.

>> The measured frequency response his RMAA tests show is within about
>> 0.2 dB or better from 20 to about 20 KHz. This is also not bad.

> Pretty good in fact.

Agreed. No complaints here.

>> The RMAA tests also show a pattern of nonlinear distortion that is
>> similar to that which one gets with very slight asymmetrical
>> clipping.

> But is it the box or the test procedure?

Good question. Prieben seems to hold the answers at the moment. If he runs
into trouble completing the retest, I may have an alternative. I met with a
friend last night who lives way 'cross town. He just happened to mention
that he has 3 ADA 8000s that he uses with the Behr digital mixer. He's happy
as a claim with the real world performance.

[Preben Friis]

"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote in message
...
> Preben Friis wrote:
> > The test in Recording I referred to earlier, states that the Rolls DI
> > has a input impedance of around 100k but the schematic shows a 10 pot
> > to ground _before_ the input.
>
> I'd say the schematic was in error , assuming you meant 10K (bloody
> proof-readers !)

I meant 10 k. Well, actually it not the only error in that schematic, but
Recording chose to reprint the shematic directly from the manual.

Take a look at: http://www.rolls.com/data/adi6man.pdf

/Preben Friis

[TonyP]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> I met with a
> friend last night who lives way 'cross town. He just happened to mention
> that he has 3 ADA 8000s that he uses with the Behr digital mixer. He's
happy
> as a claim with the real world performance.

Doesn't surprise me at all, but some people do love to hate Behringer :-)

How do you use 3 ADA8000's with one 3216 though?

TonyP.

[Preben Friis]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

> Good question. Prieben seems to hold the answers at the moment. If he runs
> into trouble completing the retest, I may have an alternative. I met with
a
> friend last night who lives way 'cross town. He just happened to mention
> that he has 3 ADA 8000s that he uses with the Behr digital mixer. He's
happy
> as a claim with the real world performance.

You have got our names mixed up. I'm Preben (without an i) and I'm the
foolish Dane that dares comment on the emperors clothes... Garth is the one
performing the tests for now... ;)

It would be nice, if you added the ADA8000 to your library of test results.
That would make this subject moot in the future..

/Preben Friis

[Arny Krueger]

"Preben Friis" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Good question. Prieben seems to hold the answers at the moment. If
>> he runs into trouble completing the retest, I may have an
>> alternative. I met with a
>> friend last night who lives way 'cross town. He just happened to
>> mention that he has 3 ADA 8000s that he uses with the Behr digital
>> mixer. He's happy as a claim with the real world performance.

> You have got our names mixed up. I'm Preben (without an i) and I'm the
> foolish Dane that dares comment on the emperors clothes... Garth is
> the one performing the tests for now... ;)

Thanks for the corrections.

I'm sorry, sorry, sorry gentlemen.

> It would be nice, if you added the ADA8000 to your library of test
> results. That would make this subject moot in the future.

I hear you.

[Arny Krueger]

"TonyP" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I met with a
>> friend last night who lives way 'cross town. He just happened to
>> mention that he has 3 ADA 8000s that he uses with the Behr digital
>> mixer. He's happy as a clam with the real world performance.

> Doesn't surprise me at all, but some people do love to hate Behringer
> :-)

> How do you use 3 ADA8000's with one 3216 though?

Good question. The 3216 isn't the only ADAT-interface hardware that he uses.

He has a pair of AudioRails. Delighted to death with 'em. He has this odd
idea that CAT-5 is easier to manage than a 24 channel recording snake. He
has both, so I guess we should believe him. ;-)

He also has a 24 track ADAT-interface recorder.

Maybe the AudioRail folks should also point out the synergy between 3216s
and AudioRails if they haven't..

This seems to be a mongo-high tech solution for live sound and location
recording on a tiny budget.

[Mike Rivers]

Ty Ford wrote:

> Unfortunately, if B ever does make a really good piece of gear and not just
> one that's "good for the price", it's acceptance will be a hindered by all
> that came before them.

That's their core business. I don't expect them to be anything else.
There are a lot of times when "good for the money" is as good is t
needs to be, and that's where Behringer's products get my money. This
price/quality point should be, of course, an individual judgement.




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Sander]

Preben Friis wrote:

> Take a look at: http://www.rolls.com/data/adi6man.pdf

I can see how the placement of text in that schematic confuses you but
it says:

R1: 10K
Attenuator: P100K FX

Sander

[Preben Friis]

"Sander" > wrote in message
news:5YX4c.4773$EV2.34823@amstwist00...
> Preben Friis wrote:
>
> > Take a look at: http://www.rolls.com/data/adi6man.pdf
>
> I can see how the placement of text in that schematic confuses you but
> it says:
>
> R1: 10K
> Attenuator: P100K FX

Oh... my bad. I just remembered how I calculated that the impedance was
wrong, but did not remember why so I took a too quick look on the schematic
and noted the wrong value.

Using a 100k pot instead, parallel with R3 (100k) parallel with the input
impedance of the actual amplifier, can you get to 100k total impedance?

/Preben Friis

[Sander]

Preben Friis wrote:


> Oh... my bad. I just remembered how I calculated that the impedance was
> wrong, but did not remember why so I took a too quick look on the schematic
> and noted the wrong value.
>
> Using a 100k pot instead, parallel with R3 (100k) parallel with the input
> impedance of the actual amplifier, can you get to 100k total impedance?
>
> /Preben Friis

First you encounter 10k (R1 or R2) in series with the rest of the circuit.

After that you have the attenuator (100K) and R3(100K).
the resistance of this combination depends on the slider position of the
pot and is somewhere between 50K (least attenuation) and 100K (max
attenuation) for a total imput impedance of somewhere between 60 and 110
K. That will make up the main part.

Then in parallel with R3 we still have the rest of the circuit; mainly
C1, R4 and R6 which is where we are starting to go into frequency
dependant behaviour in comparison with the (at least theoretically)
purely resistive parts up to here.

Sander

[Preben Friis]

"Sander" > wrote in message
news:4eZ4c.4793$EV2.34799@amstwist00...
> First you encounter 10k (R1 or R2) in series with the rest of the circuit.
>
> After that you have the attenuator (100K) and R3(100K).
> the resistance of this combination depends on the slider position of the
> pot and is somewhere between 50K (least attenuation) and 100K (max
> attenuation) for a total imput impedance of somewhere between 60 and 110
> K. That will make up the main part.

Right... but at 110k you will have eliminated the signal. When using a DI
with passive transducers it is not likely that the attentuator is used at
all.

> Then in parallel with R3 we still have the rest of the circuit; mainly
> C1, R4 and R6 which is where we are starting to go into frequency
> dependant behaviour in comparison with the (at least theoretically)
> purely resistive parts up to here.

Yes... and that will lower the impedance even more. I suspect that R4 and R8
is not 3k3 as shown.

Actually the more I look at that shematic, the more confused I get. It looks
like a long tailed pair, but instead of having the emitters connected to a
constant current source it has the collectors connected to a LED wich
delivers is constant voltage drop. Without ground lift, Q2 will never
generate any signal, so the output signal is not balanced. The voltage to
the output is sourced by 4k7 resistors, so this will effectively limit the
output impedance to a point higher than that. Connect the output to a low
impedance mic input and it will distort pretty much.

The result is a box with a low input impedance, high output impedance, it
dampens the signal, distorts and does not balance it. Not what I would
expect from an "Active DI" that according to Recording Mag has "clean
sound".

This can't be true. Please, someone... tell me where I went wrong ...

/Preben Friis

[WillStG]

<< "Preben Friis" >>
<< Yes, they will gladly tell you that it's horrible, it's crappy, it sucks
..... about something that they have never heard. That is what I am
attempting to fight here. >>

Preben - look at the title of this thread. Behringer amps clearly do
not "Rule", nothing at any low price point does actually, it's that kind of
"Behringer Rules" sales hyperbole that I find objectionable. People who are
not group regulars appear here from time to time with little to say except to
shill Behringer gear in this manner, and I think probably gear is being handed
out to guys if they will help spread some positive "buzz" and we're just lucky
enough to be on the "list".

But you've been having a nice substantive discussion on the specs of the
ADA8000 and no one has a problem with that, there are many other examples, no
one says "all Behringer gear is horrible, is crappy" as a blanket response to
real evaluations of gear.

I think if Behringer really cared what the RAP community strata of users
thought they'd wise up and have someone like Ty Ford or Harvey Gerst evaluate
some of their gear. But it appears they don't really care what we think, ok
fine. Except that when they have minions drop in postings full of juvenile
"Behringer Rules" tripe from time to time, that's a bit insulting really. And
that does suck...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Kurt Albershardt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> He has a pair of AudioRails. Delighted to death with 'em. He has this odd
> idea that CAT-5 is easier to manage than a 24 channel recording snake. He
> has both, so I guess we should believe him. ;-)
>
> He also has a 24 track ADAT-interface recorder.
>
> Maybe the AudioRail folks should also point out the synergy between 3216s
> and AudioRails if they haven't..
>
> This seems to be a mongo-high tech solution for live sound and location
> recording on a tiny budget.

As long as you need 24 tracks or less, I think it's the price leader. Now how about a PC card that will turn that RJ45 into an ASIO driver? Or maybe he can hack up a driver for some existing Ethernet card? Dunno what sort of signaling he's using but I doubt it's Ethernet.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> He has a pair of AudioRails. Delighted to death with 'em. He has
>> this odd idea that CAT-5 is easier to manage than a 24 channel
>> recording snake. He has both, so I guess we should believe him. ;-)
>
>> He also has a 24 track ADAT-interface recorder.
>
>> Maybe the AudioRail folks should also point out the synergy between
>> 3216s and AudioRails if they haven't..

Note to myself: They did. There's a diagram on the site that has ADA8000s,
3216s and other stuff on it.

>> This seems to be a mongo-high tech solution for live sound and
>> location recording on a tiny budget.

> As long as you need 24 tracks or less, I think it's the price leader.

OK, I would like to be educated. What happens at 24 tracks?

> Now how about a PC card that will turn that RJ45 into an ASIO driver?

Seems feasible, doesn't it?

It seems like the ADAT interface might live longer than the ADAT.

> Or maybe he can hack up a driver for some existing Ethernet card?
> Dunno what sort of signaling he's using but I doubt it's Ethernet.

The web site just about says that it is not Ethernet in so many words

[Kurt Albershardt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> This seems to be a mongo-high tech solution for live sound and
>>> location recording on a tiny budget.
>
>> As long as you need 24 tracks or less, I think it's the price leader.
>
> OK, I would like to be educated. What happens at 24 tracks?

Nothing, now that the € has annihilated our poor Dollar. The RME ADI-648 used to run around $1200 for 64 channels.





>> maybe he can hack up a driver for some existing Ethernet card?
>> Dunno what sort of signaling he's using but I doubt it's Ethernet.
>
> The web site just about says that it is not Ethernet in so many words

Just maybe he's using the Ethernet PHY layer (as Sony does,) in which case there might be hope.

[hank alrich]

TonyP wrote:

> People here just don't seem to understand the correlation between gain, and
> S/N ratio.

Give a listen to the Gordon preamp at any gain setting...

--
ha

[Preben Friis]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> Preben - look at the title of this thread. Behringer amps clearly
do
> not "Rule", nothing at any low price point does actually, it's that kind
of
> "Behringer Rules" sales hyperbole that I find objectionable. People who
are
> not group regulars appear here from time to time with little to say except
to
> shill Behringer gear in this manner, and I think probably gear is being
handed
> out to guys if they will help spread some positive "buzz" and we're just
lucky
> enough to be on the "list".

I totally agree, those posts suck. They look like the work of
overenthusiastic teenagers. I really can't figure out why you are so worked
up about those. Actually they do more harm than good to the products they
describe.

> But you've been having a nice substantive discussion on the specs of
the
> ADA8000 and no one has a problem with that, there are many other examples,
no
> one says "all Behringer gear is horrible, is crappy" as a blanket response
to
> real evaluations of gear.

I've seen countless opinions about Behringer stuff here, that was never
based on any evaluations. I bet if someone asked if "Is Behringer XX6000
Ultra good for me" someone would reply "It sucks and it is copied from
someone else" even if that product didn't exist.
You yourself wrote another post in this thread, that I chose not to respond
to, since you also took the low road and drew conclusions of a product you
have never tried.

Quote from that post:

>Be sure to measure it with your lab
>equipment too, then post in terms we can all understand, like "Behringer
Bites"
> and "Behringer sucks!" and

As the RMAA test proved, the dynamic range is close to the 100 dB
specification, which is more than what can be expected for the cheapest 8
channel ADA currently on the market. Actually it has better specs than the
best analog tape recorders, haven't it? So no, it does not suck, it does not
bite, but is sure stings that with cheap modern technology you can make
stuff that kicks ass to anything that was made ten years ago. (Now I'm
starting to sound like a commercial, so I'll stop here.)

> I think if Behringer really cared what the RAP community strata of
users
> thought they'd wise up and have someone like Ty Ford or Harvey Gerst
evaluate
> some of their gear. But it appears they don't really care what we think,
ok
> fine. Except that when they have minions drop in postings full of
juvenile
> "Behringer Rules" tripe from time to time, that's a bit insulting really.
And
> that does suck...

You mean the same Ty Ford, that responded with "To yoy sir, a high-tech
MEOW! And thanks for your vigilance." to a post that compared the ADA8000 to
digested tuna without hearing it? That would surely be an objective test ...
or not.

Yes... the "rules" posts suck... but I bet your newsreader has a block
function. I do think that they do care for constructive criticism, but as if
there are no reasonable way to respond to "Will Miho is an asshole", there
are no point for Behringer to respond to every "Behringer sucks" post. That
would just create an endless flamewar.
Have you ever seen an AKG representative respond to a S-x000 sucks post?
Have you seen Digidesign people respond to the criticism here? How did it go
with the Bombfactory guy? We don't see a lot of him around here any more....

Enough for now....

/Preben Friis

[Garth D. Wiebe]

http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000_RMAA_test.zip (406 KB)

Just getting back to this. The THD and IMD numbers and spectrals were
suspicious, so I looked at the waveforms, and they were clipped, even
though at -1 dBFS. I don't know whether this is the Behringer or RMAA.

Do you have any ideas on this, Arny?

The new files re-posted above are of waveforms that pretty closely match
the output waveform amplitude with the RMAA test file waveform
amplitude, which is now at about -3 dBFS, as you suggested. This cleans
up the THD and IMD results.

Check this over.

[Roger W. Norman]

Well, if it's the XR line of rackmount mixers, I've almost got 3 years on
mine (10/29/01) and there's only been excellent sound coming out of it. A
well thought out design that seems to not mind if it's moved around, even
though they are ideally for install work. I'm quite pleased that I didn't
go for the Venice.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > The installed sound guys don't care so much about sound quality, but
they
> > are VERY sensitive to reliability issues. They want gear that is
intended
> > to be as bulletproof as possible, because it costs them a huge amount of
> > money to come out and replace something that fails under warranty. A
couple
> > service calls can turn a profitable contract into an unprofitable one
very
> > fast. And service calls once the warranty period has expired do not
make
> > customers happy.
>
> > Very different than the typical consumer/semi=pro customer.
>
> This morning in the BSW catalog I noted the Crest rackmount mixers
> offering a 5-year warranty. That'd appeal to the install guys, if the
> kit lives up to the guarantee. And it just might.
>
> --
> hank alrich * secret__mountain
> audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
> "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Roger W. Norman]

I saw, although have not researched, that Whirlwind has a cat5 system
similar to the AudioRail. I believe it's called the ESnake, but I doubt
it's a $500 64 channel solution.

Yep, just found it at http://www.whirlwindusa.com/esnake.html. Looks a
little high-end. And so what if the snake is only 7 pounds for 330 feet.
The unit looks like it makes up the difference! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "TonyP" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> I met with a
> >> friend last night who lives way 'cross town. He just happened to
> >> mention that he has 3 ADA 8000s that he uses with the Behr digital
> >> mixer. He's happy as a clam with the real world performance.
>
> > Doesn't surprise me at all, but some people do love to hate Behringer
> > :-)
>
> > How do you use 3 ADA8000's with one 3216 though?
>
> Good question. The 3216 isn't the only ADAT-interface hardware that he
uses.
>
> He has a pair of AudioRails. Delighted to death with 'em. He has this odd
> idea that CAT-5 is easier to manage than a 24 channel recording snake. He
> has both, so I guess we should believe him. ;-)
>
> He also has a 24 track ADAT-interface recorder.
>
> Maybe the AudioRail folks should also point out the synergy between 3216s
> and AudioRails if they haven't..
>
> This seems to be a mongo-high tech solution for live sound and location
> recording on a tiny budget.
>
>

[George]

In article >,
"Roger W. Norman" > wrote:

> Well, if it's the XR line of rackmount mixers, I've almost got 3 years on
> mine (10/29/01) and there's only been excellent sound coming out of it. A
> well thought out design that seems to not mind if it's moved around, even
> though they are ideally for install work. I'm quite pleased that I didn't
> go for the Venice.
>
> > This morning in the BSW catalog I noted the Crest rackmount mixers
> > offering a 5-year warranty. That'd appeal to the install guys, if the
> > kit lives up to the guarantee. And it just might.
> >
I would instal the Crest, I will not instal A&H gl series
George

[Roger W. Norman]

George" > wrote in message
...
> I would instal the Crest, I will not instal A&H gl series

Oh, I'd damned sure install the Crest. No two ways about it. But I've just
as often thought about buying one more and using the bus multiplexer for
some of the gigs I do. I could always use 24 mono pres like these with 16
more stereo channels (8 more mono) that could be bussed to a recorder. I'm
not afraid to pre-mix! <g> I've been quite happy. JohnnyV and I did a gig
today and with 6 female a cappella going through SM57s, it was marvelous
(well, they did use a djembe, so I guess it wasn't totally without
instrument).

And with 57s. There's not a product in most lines under the quality of
Harrisons, Soundcrafts and others of that ilk that I've heard present 57s on
vocals pristinely. About where I would put it is somewhat shy of a John
Hardy with a 57, but not much, and that's saying a lot. You ought to hear
this baby with a Neumann KMS 105! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"> In article >,
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote:
>
> > Well, if it's the XR line of rackmount mixers, I've almost got 3 years
on
> > mine (10/29/01) and there's only been excellent sound coming out of it.
A
> > well thought out design that seems to not mind if it's moved around,
even
> > though they are ideally for install work. I'm quite pleased that I
didn't
> > go for the Venice.
> >
> > > This morning in the BSW catalog I noted the Crest rackmount mixers
> > > offering a 5-year warranty. That'd appeal to the install guys, if the
> > > kit lives up to the guarantee. And it just might.
> > >
> George

[George]

while it's routing and sound can't be faulted
your a better man than I am gung-a-din
never going to buy another desk with back mounted patch points(at least
not analouge patch points)
my gl totally frustrated me and the conversion (to standard desk style
patching)was a real PITA
George

[Roger W. Norman]

Well, for a rack mount you simply have to improvise, but I got an idea from
a TLA unit that was straight 8 inputs and sat in a box angled on the top
with a slot on the bottom to accomodate cabling. You can easily pull the
box upright to affix cables, lay it down and mix. It's definitely a PITA
with the GigRig, but I use that for festivals and not with day setups and
I've found full peacefulness and being "Gung-a-din", I am a better man! <g>

There must be a reason that every job JohnnyV and I do needs to have the
Crest involved, along with the Mackie 1530s, although I know you don't like
them all that much. Hey, he choses these over his Klipsch and for the jobs
we do, the Mackies work just fine. I certainly won't think about putting
them down at the Kennedy Center if I get that job this year, but for crowds
of 300 to 500 they work. I have yet to push the Crest and the Mackies run
nice and cool. That's probably something that can't be said of others using
the Mackies and a Mackie 1604. Calm, cool and quiet. John came over today
and asked me if I'd heard distortion on some of the vocals and I had to look
at him like he just wasn't thinking. I don't believe I've ever been
involved with a local situation where the sound guys got so much notice and
an onstage thanks for the job.

You and I will have to talk about these Servodrives later, which is what I'm
planning on putting up at the Kennedy Center.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"George" > wrote in message
...
> while it's routing and sound can't be faulted
> your a better man than I am gung-a-din
> never going to buy another desk with back mounted patch points(at least
> not analouge patch points)
> my gl totally frustrated me and the conversion (to standard desk style
> patching)was a real PITA
> George

[George]

In article >,
"Roger W. Norman" > wrote:

> Well, for a rack mount you simply have to improvise, but I got an idea from
> a TLA unit that was straight 8 inputs and sat in a box angled on the top
> with a slot on the bottom to accomodate cabling. You can easily pull the
> box upright to affix cables, lay it down and mix. It's definitely a PITA
> with the GigRig, but I use that for festivals and not with day setups and
> I've found full peacefulness and being "Gung-a-din", I am a better man! <g>
>
>
my solution to the gl2 was to build a desk stand with a dupilcate of the
patch panel, every connector.
while I was at it I paralled a multipin for the snake to the xlrs
all this mounted on the rear of the desk stand
George

[TonyP]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> It seems like the ADAT interface might live longer than the ADAT.

Already the case isn't it :-)

TonyP.

[TonyP]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> TonyP wrote:
>
> > People here just don't seem to understand the correlation between gain,
and
> > S/N ratio.

> Give a listen to the Gordon preamp at any gain setting...

I'm sorry I'm not sure what your point is? Have they discovered a way to
defy the laws of physics in some way I'm not aware of?
Or does it use cryogenic cooling perhaps? Or maybe it just has very low
gain?

TonyP.

[Arny Krueger]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message


> http://www.audiorail.com/ADA8000_RMAA_test.zip (406 KB)

> Just getting back to this. The THD and IMD numbers and spectrals were
> suspicious, so I looked at the waveforms, and they were clipped, even
> though at -1 dBFS. I don't know whether this is the Behringer or
> RMAA.

RMAA AFAIK just doesn't do this. You can do a virtual loop-back test with
RMAA by making a test file and immediately analyzing it without re-recording
it. This would show any errors in RMAA. I've done this and found no
problems.

> Do you have any ideas on this, Arny?

I've seen this before. There's probably some minor gain-staging errors
inside the ADA8000. I suggested this before based on your much earlier
reports. This is not unusual.

Just another chapter from my book called "Don't record so %$#!! close to FS"

> The new files re-posted above are of waveforms that pretty closely
> match the output waveform amplitude with the RMAA test file waveform
> amplitude, which is now at about -3 dBFS, as you suggested. This
> cleans up the THD and IMD results.

And that's pretty much that. If you use RMAA in real-time mode, it sets the
peak level for the THD and IM tests so they max out around -3 dB FS. AFAIK,
this is consistent with AES recommendations for testing sound cards.

Some more tips about RMAA. It will automatically generate HTML of a web page
that if nothing else, is a good starting point for editing up one that meets
your own preferences. RMAA will save each test plot as a .PNG file which is
highly-compressed and should be displayable by anybody with a modern web
browser. You can mix and match these two facilities to quickly build a nice
customized online report. You can also save the test in a format that lets
any RMAA user modify his view of the data to suit including magnifying
certain ranges, as you have done. Saved test files can also be used to
compare products, or plot the performance of a product over a range of
operating conditions.

Finally, I prefer to run the IM test as a two-tone high frequency test
composed of 18 and 20 KHz if possible. There is an option in RMAA to modify
the test tones over a goodly range.

Here's my first shot at putting a RMAA test online:

http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/boostaroo/

> Check this over.

Thanks for the new report.

Obviously, the actual clipping point is someplace between -3 dB and FS which
you can determine by experimentation. Here is an example of this kind of
test that I did and posted:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/LynxTWO/DR-vs-level.gif

I think this last retest clarifies *everything* or at least LOTS.

The Behringer spec sheet might be a tad optimistic, but it is close.

A set of tests at various levels between - 3 DB FS and FS could nail down
the actual clipping point. This might add a dB or two to the measured SNR
and DR performance, further closing the gap.

However, we should probably add about 3 dB to the DR & SNR performance
because it is a loopback test in order to estimate the performance of the
input or output side of the ADA 8000 when taken all by itself.

This makes the spec versus actual distance even smaller.

I don't see any reason to apologize for recommending the ADA8000.

IMO the ADA8000 measures well enough to be considered for critical
professional applications, based on just measurements. Perceived sound
quality is always the final test, but people I respect say it sounds very
good.

Really bad measurements IMO can disqualify a product for critical use. If it
sounds good when you use it, that should be enough. If it sounds really bad,
the problem is most likely someplace else than the ADA8000.

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Garth D. Wiebe wrote:

> suspicious, so I looked at the waveforms, and they were clipped, even
> though at -1 dBFS. I don't know whether this is the Behringer or RMAA.
>
> Do you have any ideas on this, Arny?

Just answering my own question, of course it could not be RMAA, because
it is the raw output from the ADA8000. Also, the clipping is not
perfectly digitally flat. So the ADA8000 must simply not be able to
drive all the way to 0 dBFS.

[Garth D. Wiebe]

We were obviously sitting composing our posts at the same time.

Thanks again, Arny, for the additional pointers on the RMAA test.

I will add these to the post back at the ProSoundWeb review forum.

[Arny Krueger]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message

> Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>
>> suspicious, so I looked at the waveforms, and they were clipped, even
>> though at -1 dBFS. I don't know whether this is the Behringer or
>> RMAA.
>>
>> Do you have any ideas on this, Arny?
>
> Just answering my own question, of course it could not be RMAA,
> because it is the raw output from the ADA8000. Also, the clipping is
> not perfectly digitally flat. So the ADA8000 must simply not be able
> to drive all the way to 0 dBFS.

Not an unusual situation. There was some minor error in gain-staging. Or
perhaps the mismatch was intentional to force clipping into the analog
domain where the particular parts used would produce cleaner clipping. I've
definitely seen analog-to-digital converters that were great until they
clipped and then went crazy. Clean clipping in an earlier stage can make a
part like this more practically usable, by never letting it go where it gets
into trouble.

[Roger W. Norman]

I believe I had talked about doing just that in the Gig Rig, but I would
have done it on a 130 pin multi-connector, or two smaller connectors, one
running to a second rack, and it would have run about $1k, so I decided to
forget that idea! <g> Most of my stuff is kinda "mini" install where I have
the whole shebang loaded in for 4 or 5 days, so that works kinda well. But
for quick and easy, the box works just fine.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"George" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote:
>
> > Well, for a rack mount you simply have to improvise, but I got an idea
from
> > a TLA unit that was straight 8 inputs and sat in a box angled on the top
> > with a slot on the bottom to accomodate cabling. You can easily pull
the
> > box upright to affix cables, lay it down and mix. It's definitely a
PITA
> > with the GigRig, but I use that for festivals and not with day setups
and
> > I've found full peacefulness and being "Gung-a-din", I am a better man!
<g>
> >
> >
> my solution to the gl2 was to build a desk stand with a dupilcate of the
> patch panel, every connector.
> while I was at it I paralled a multipin for the snake to the xlrs
> all this mounted on the rear of the desk stand
> George

[Arny Krueger]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message


> I saw, although have not researched, that Whirlwind has a cat5 system
> similar to the AudioRail. I believe it's called the ESnake, but I
> doubt it's a $500 64 channel solution.

> Yep, just found it at http://www.whirlwindusa.com/esnake.html . Looks
> a little high-end. And so what if the snake is only 7 pounds for 330
> feet. The unit looks like it makes up the difference! <g>

In all seriousness, I think you've scored a number of significant points
against the eSnake.

There doesn't seem to be a price for the eSnake *anyplace* on the web. That
big heavy full-o-parts box won't sell for no piddlin' $500.

I'm looking at preliminary design parameters for a rebuild of my church's
sanctuary. I can think of only a few reasons why there wouldn't be an
AudioRail system in it. They run along the lines of AudioRail going wheels
up before I get to the stage where we start buying stuff (still several
years down the road).

IOW, AudioRail looks like the total bomb for a room of any reasonable size
and complexity.

Of course I'm a gear slut and anything new excites me, especially if it's
affordable enough so I think I can buy some.

;-)

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Garth D. Wiebe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>suspicious, so I looked at the waveforms, and they were clipped, even
>>>though at -1 dBFS. I don't know whether this is the Behringer or
>>>RMAA.
>>>
>>>Do you have any ideas on this, Arny?
>>
>>Just answering my own question, of course it could not be RMAA,
>>because it is the raw output from the ADA8000. Also, the clipping is
>>not perfectly digitally flat. So the ADA8000 must simply not be able
>>to drive all the way to 0 dBFS.
>
>
> Not an unusual situation. There was some minor error in gain-staging. Or
> perhaps the mismatch was intentional to force clipping into the analog
> domain where the particular parts used would produce cleaner clipping. I've
> definitely seen analog-to-digital converters that were great until they
> clipped and then went crazy. Clean clipping in an earlier stage can make a
> part like this more practically usable, by never letting it go where it gets
> into trouble.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. The waveform edge corners are
nicely rounded, and if you look at the old THD spectral plots, the peaks
are down below -27 dBFS. Audible, to be sure, but I would expect worse
from a perfect digital clip, especially in the higher end of the spectrum.

[Arny Krueger]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> "Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message
>>

>>> So the ADA8000 must simply not be
>>> able to drive all the way to 0 dBFS.

>> Not an unusual situation. There was some minor error in
>> gain-staging. Or perhaps the mismatch was intentional to force
>> clipping into the analog domain where the particular parts used
>> would produce cleaner clipping. I've definitely seen
>> analog-to-digital converters that were great until they clipped and
>> then went crazy. Clean clipping in an earlier stage can make a part
>> like this more practically usable, by never letting it go where it
>> gets into trouble.

> Yes, I was thinking the same thing. The waveform edge corners are
> nicely rounded,

You've got the advantage on me, I haven't seen the actual test waves.

>and if you look at the old THD spectral plots, the
> peaks are down below -27 dBFS.

That would be a consequence of the amount being clipped off being pretty
small. I estimated the mismatch as being on the order of 0.2 dB. This is
very typical. Only the finest ADCs can, IME go the last 0.2 dB without some
excess distortion. And you know what, it really shouldn't matter. In a
well-designed system, the expected peaks should be at least 10 dB below
peak. That leaves room for the *unexpected* peaks! ;-)

>Audible, to be sure, but I would
> expect worse from a perfect digital clip, especially in the higher
> end of the spectrum.

Again, its not unusual for the clipping point to be different at various
frequencies, and lower at the highest frequencies.

This can come from a number of things. In a modern ADC there's a digital
filter. It's not unusual for there to be clipping in the digital filter. The
digital filter has more parameters being summed at high frequencies as a
rule, with complex timing that causes the signals being summed to be either
in-phase or out-of-phase or someplace in-between. At frequencies where a lot
of the signals being summed in the digital filter tend to be in-phase, the
probability of dynamic range problems is increased.

The *solution* is to build digital filters with accumulators and parameters
with lots of bits. This eats up silicon. Designing really-pretty-good
digital filters has been greatly facilitated by tools like Matlab. But, the
costs of implementing them ultimately comes down to square inches of
silicon.

The harmonics from a perfect digital clip roll off at 6 dB per octave. My
simulations of slight amounts of digital clipping with bias showed this
roll-off.

[Roger W. Norman]

It strikes me, though, that sometime last night I read on the AudioRail site
that a full 64 channels (32/32) would run some $2.6 k, but then I was
talking to JohnnyV yesterday during a job about the unit and I could only
come up with having seen the $500 figure, sans converters. Now I'm confused
and haven't had enough coffee to do research today! <g>

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I saw, although have not researched, that Whirlwind has a cat5 system
> > similar to the AudioRail. I believe it's called the ESnake, but I
> > doubt it's a $500 64 channel solution.
>
> > Yep, just found it at http://www.whirlwindusa.com/esnake.html . Looks
> > a little high-end. And so what if the snake is only 7 pounds for 330
> > feet. The unit looks like it makes up the difference! <g>
>
> In all seriousness, I think you've scored a number of significant points
> against the eSnake.
>
> There doesn't seem to be a price for the eSnake *anyplace* on the web.
That
> big heavy full-o-parts box won't sell for no piddlin' $500.
>
> I'm looking at preliminary design parameters for a rebuild of my church's
> sanctuary. I can think of only a few reasons why there wouldn't be an
> AudioRail system in it. They run along the lines of AudioRail going wheels
> up before I get to the stage where we start buying stuff (still several
> years down the road).
>
> IOW, AudioRail looks like the total bomb for a room of any reasonable size
> and complexity.
>
> Of course I'm a gear slut and anything new excites me, especially if it's
> affordable enough so I think I can buy some.
>
> ;-)
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message


> It strikes me, though, that sometime last night I read on the
> AudioRail site that a full 64 channels (32/32) would run some $2.6 k,

I was under that impression for a while, too.

> but then I was talking to JohnnyV yesterday during a job about the
> unit and I could only come up with having seen the $500 figure, sans
> converters. Now I'm confused and haven't had enough coffee to do
> research today! <g>

The guy I know who actually has a working AudioRail setup said last Saturday
night that he bought two $500 boxes from them to have a working setup. I
think we were each only one beer down the line at the time, and this was my
one and only for the night, so this is probably a pretty good number.

;-)

The picture on the AudioRail site also seems to say that two $500 boxes are
needed. I'm convinced!

[Andy Cullen]

Dear Tony,

the mic preamps in the ADA8000 do not use op-amps - they are based on
a low noise conjugate-pair transistor pre-amp circuit similar to that
used in our mixing consoles.
We do utilise TL074 op-amps in the line-level circuitry, and the LM339
is used in its intended role as a comparator.

Best regards,

Andy Cullen
Customer Support
BEHRINGER Spezielle Studiotechnik GmbH






"TonyP" > wrote in message >...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > And that ain't worst case.
>
> And it aint the best case either!
> People here just don't seem to understand the correlation between gain, and
> S/N ratio.
>
>
> > Looking at
> >
> http://srforum.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=500&sid=33e4779944cdcb38834bc
> b087811cf1a ,
> > I find the following semiconductor compliment:
> >
> > Alesis Semiconductor AL1101 A/D converters
> > Alesis Semiconductor AL1201 D/A converters
> > Alesis Semiconductor AL1402 ADAT optical decoder
> > Alesis Semiconductor AL1401A ADAT optical encoder
> > Toshiba TORX176 Toslink receiver
> > Toshiba TOTX176 Toslink transmitter
> > ST Microelectronics TL074C and LM339 op amps
> >
> > Many of these parts are digital interface chips which would be less
> suspect
> > in terms of their effect on analog signal quality. I've seen spec sheets
> for
> > the Alesis parts, but little else. Therefore they are suspect to me. I
> don't
> > have any special problems with TL074s as moderate-impedance, moderate
> gain,
> > line level parts. I've got questions about the use of them and LM339s as
> mic
> > preamps.
>
>
> I would be very surprised if the ADA8000 didn't use 4580 op-amps for the mic
> pre's like all their other mixers.
>
> Remember the thing is designed to go with their DDX3216 digi mixer. For line
> level inputs only, they should add a mic-pre bypass switch.
> If they want to sell these things to accompany the new BCA2000 for multi
> channel recording, then I recommend they do a new version with that feature.
>
> TonyP.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andy Cullen" > wrote in message
om
> Dear Tony,
>
> the mic preamps in the ADA8000 do not use op-amps - they are based on
> a low noise conjugate-pair transistor pre-amp circuit similar to that
> used in our mixing consoles.
> We do utilise TL074 op-amps in the line-level circuitry, and the LM339
> is used in its intended role as a comparator.

Thanks for the clarification. Based on the latest tech test results,
whatever you're doing, it is reasonably effective.

[Kurt Albershardt]

TonyP wrote:

> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> TonyP wrote:
>>
>>
>>> People here just don't seem to understand the correlation between gain,
>>> and S/N ratio.
>
>
>> Give a listen to the Gordon preamp at any gain setting...
>
>
> I'm sorry I'm not sure what your point is? Have they discovered a way to
> defy the laws of physics in some way I'm not aware of?
> Or does it use cryogenic cooling perhaps? Or maybe it just has very low
> gain?


It uses no feedback--changing gain dynamically reconfigures the circuit. The net result is an EIN that remains nearly constant at gain settings from 35 dB to 70 dB.

Gain still affects the S/N, but the realworld performance is excellent under a wide range of conditions.

http://www.gordonaudio.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message


> It uses no feedback--changing gain dynamically reconfigures the
> circuit. The net result is an EIN that remains nearly constant at
> gain settings from 35 dB to 70 dB.

> Gain still affects the S/N, but the realworld performance is
> excellent under a wide range of conditions.

> http://www.gordonaudio.com/

I dunno. As a rule, any claim of "no feedback" in a real-world audio amp is
a false claim.

If they said that they don't vary gain by varying feedback, that could be
true.

If they said that there was no loop feedback, that could be true as well.

However, it's exceedingly hard to build a real world amplifier without some
kind of local or loop feedback, usually both.

I've also got problems with the claim that "The primary source of distortion
in any preamplifier is gain.". Conventional wisdom is that the primary
source of distortion is signal amplitude. Obviously the two are related,
but that involves another independent variable - input signal level.

Hey, the amps might be great, but the advertising seems a tad weak.

[hank alrich]

TonyP wrote:

> > Give a listen to the Gordon preamp at any gain setting...

> I'm sorry I'm not sure what your point is? Have they discovered a way to
> defy the laws of physics in some way I'm not aware of?
> Or does it use cryogenic cooling perhaps?

No, that'd lose all the "warmth". <g>

> Or maybe it just has very low
> gain?

Different topology, no feedback. Gives quite a different result.

You'd probably enjoy a look at:

http://www.gordonaudio.com/

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Kurt Albershardt" wrote

> > It uses no feedback--changing gain dynamically reconfigures the
> > circuit. The net result is an EIN that remains nearly constant at
> > gain settings from 35 dB to 70 dB.

> > Gain still affects the S/N, but the realworld performance is
> > excellent under a wide range of conditions.

> > http://www.gordonaudio.com/

> I dunno. As a rule, any claim of "no feedback" in a real-world audio amp is
> a false claim.

> If they said that they don't vary gain by varying feedback, that could be
> true.

> If they said that there was no loop feedback, that could be true as well.

> However, it's exceedingly hard to build a real world amplifier without some
> kind of local or loop feedback, usually both.

> I've also got problems with the claim that "The primary source of distortion
> in any preamplifier is gain.". Conventional wisdom is that the primary
> source of distortion is signal amplitude. Obviously the two are related,
> but that involves another independent variable - input signal level.

> Hey, the amps might be great, but the advertising seems a tad weak.

Arny, this Grant Carpenter guy is no lightweight; he has some history of
interesting design work. That preamp sounds unlike any other pre I have
ever auditioned, compared in the context of GR, Millennia and Grace. I
think in the context of this thing I'd avoid any fall-backs to "as a
rule". It costs a lot to build a pre the way Grant does, but I'm saying
people ought to hear this thing. Call him up; he's no recluse. He'll
talk about it. He's way into _something else_ judging only by what I
heard.

--
ha

[Kurt Albershardt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> http://www.gordonaudio.com/
>
> I dunno. As a rule, any claim of "no feedback" in a real-world audio amp is
> a false claim.

I'll defer to Grant on this one since I know just a little about his circuit topology.


> If they said that they don't vary gain by varying feedback, that could be
> true.
>
> If they said that there was no loop feedback, that could be true as well.

AFAIK both of these are true. I know that the gain is controlled in each of the two stages by some rather elaborate re-biasing among other things.




> I've also got problems with the claim that "The primary source of distortion
> in any preamplifier is gain.". Conventional wisdom is that the primary
> source of distortion is signal amplitude. Obviously the two are related,
> but that involves another independent variable - input signal level.

Yes, Grant mentioned that getting decent performance out of the lower gain settings (and higher input levels) required phenomenal voltage swing capability.

[Arny Krueger]

"Preben Friis" > wrote in message


> Take a look at: http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3preinta.jpg

> Judging from the component count alone, they might have built an
> amplifier for each gain step and then switches between them instead
> of varying the gain of a single amplifier.

The block diagram at http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3block.gif might
confirm that. By using two cascaded amps each with a limited number of gain
steps (3 or 4), they can get a goodly number of different gains (12 if
http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3gc2chb.jpg can be taken at face value)
without a humungeous amount of circuitry. dBs add.

[WillStG]

>"Preben Friis"
>Quote from that post:
>
>>Be sure to measure it with your lab
>>equipment too, then post in terms we can all understand, like "Behringer
>Bites"
>> and "Behringer sucks!" and

I was being facetious Preben. You rushed in to defend Behringer without
consideration of the BS disrespect of this forum implicit in the many postings
of the ilk of "Behringer Rules!". My point was if you want have a serious
discussion, that is fine, but the sales hype postings have got to go, and you
were implicitly defending that type of BS.

>. Actually it has better specs than the
>best analog tape recorders, haven't it? So no, it does not suck, it does not
>bite, but is sure stings that with cheap modern technology you can make
>stuff that kicks ass to anything that was made ten years ago.

So F'n what! Maybe it's something I can use, maybe it's not, but the RAP
faq states this group shall not be used as a mass marketing sales forum. That
should be plain enough on the face of it.

>You mean the same Ty Ford, that responded with "To yoy sir, a high-tech
>MEOW! And thanks for your vigilance." to a post that compared the ADA8000 to
>digested tuna without hearing it? That would surely be an objective test ...
>or not.

Yes, that Ty Ford who is a consultant for equipment manufacturers and who
has written and reviewed a plethora of pro audio gear. Perhpas you are unaware
that Ty is as well respected and as qualified and objective in this regard as
they come.

His point like mine, since you seem to have had a cognitive dissonance on
this point, is he also does not appreciated this forum being the object of a
spam campaign, as we have seen in the past in exactly in the same manner as has
just been occuring. We're supposed to beleive a bunch of guys who are not
members of the group appear one day to tell us all how great B's gear is, and
it's not part of a marketing campaign of some sort? Wanna buy a bridge?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Kurt Albershardt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3block.gif
> By using two cascaded amps each with a limited number of gain
> steps (3 or 4), they can get a goodly number of different gains (12 if
> http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3gc2chb.jpg can be taken at face value)
> without a humungeous amount of circuitry.

Gain is adjustable from 10 dB to 70 dB in the Model 3 (13 steps of 5 dB each.)

[Arny Krueger]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3block.gif
>> By using two cascaded amps each with a limited number of gain
>> steps (3 or 4), they can get a goodly number of different gains (12
>> if http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3gc2chb.jpg can be taken at
>> face value) without a humongous amount of circuitry.
>
> Gain is adjustable from 10 dB to 70 dB in the Model 3 (13 steps of 5
> dB each.)

The circuit board picture seems to show two groups of amplifiers, with 4
elements each. That could give up to 16 steps, no?

http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3preinta.jpg

Warning, my ability to analyze pictures of circuit cards has already been
questioned already once this week!

;-)

[hank alrich]

Preben Friis wrote:

> Take a look at: http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3preinta.jpg

> Judging from the component count alone, they might have built an amplifier
> for each gain step and then switches between them instead of varying the
> gain of a single amplifier.

Correct.

--
ha

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I'm looking at preliminary design parameters for a rebuild of my church's
> sanctuary. I can think of only a few reasons why there wouldn't be an
> AudioRail system in it.

One important thing I can think of is risk. If it goes down, there
goes all your mic lines in one swell foop. Also there's the issue of
maintenance several years down the road. You can put in a multi-pair
cable and it will last 50 years. You can't say that about a piece of
digital equipment.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George Gleason]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079389882k@trad...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > I'm looking at preliminary design parameters for a rebuild of my
church's
> > sanctuary. I can think of only a few reasons why there wouldn't be an
> > AudioRail system in it.
>
> One important thing I can think of is risk. If it goes down, there
> goes all your mic lines in one swell foop. Also there's the issue of
> maintenance several years down the road. You can put in a multi-pair
> cable and it will last 50 years. You can't say that about a piece of
> digital equipment.
>

the average handyman can run a cat 5 cable
can't say that about a installed snake
(that usually has to be terminated on site, , quite a job even for 8
channels, and almost weeks work for 64 channels)
also 50 years is VERY optimistic for snakes,
15 -20and the insulation is turning to dust
I will be considering the emerging digital products very closely with each
new design I take on.
George



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 3/11/2004

[hank alrich]

Preben Friis wrote:

> is sure stings that with cheap modern technology you can make
> stuff that kicks ass to anything that was made ten years ago. (Now I'm
> starting to sound like a commercial, so I'll stop here.)

Technology has advanced, yes, but the current "cheapness" comes from
developed countries employing labor in undeveloped countries where labor
costs a comparative pittance and environmental consideration is still
sleeping unaware.

I know a man who set up a small factory to build string instruments in
China. He picked the best makers from the Chinese factories he was
visiting while consulting for importers who have the Chinese build
really cheap and generally awful sounding fiddles for the student
market. He _greatly_ increased the craftsmen's wages to the equivalent
of thirty US dollars _per month_.

--
ha

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message
>
>

[original discussion of using RMAA to test the Behringer ADA8000]

One thing that is less than optimal in the RMAA test of the ADA8000 that
has been bothering me from the start is that it is the same 2-track test
file is used (or at least, that is how I ran the test) on four pairs of
channels, and I am driving them out to all channels synchronized down to
the sample by using a multitrack PC application.

If you look at the original test previous to RMAA, there are eight
different source waveforms. From those FFT scans, you can see that a
lot of the major peaks are due to channel to channel crosstalk.

I know that you can opt to change the source test files for RMAA, and
you yourself already mentioned your preference to using different points
for the intermodulation test.

I'm wondering if it is worth retesting using RMAA with different
simultaneous frequencies, and perhaps skewing the files from each other
in time a little bit, to see what this does to the results.

[Arny Krueger]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>
> [original discussion of using RMAA to test the Behringer ADA8000]
>
> One thing that is less than optimal in the RMAA test of the ADA8000
> that has been bothering me from the start is that it is the same
> 2-track test file is used (or at least, that is how I ran the test)
> on four pairs of channels, and I am driving them out to all channels
> synchronized down to the sample by using a multitrack PC application.
>
> If you look at the original test previous to RMAA, there are eight
> different source waveforms. From those FFT scans, you can see that a
> lot of the major peaks are due to channel to channel crosstalk.
>
> I know that you can opt to change the source test files for RMAA, and
> you yourself already mentioned your preference to using different
> points for the intermodulation test.
>
> I'm wondering if it is worth retesting using RMAA with different
> simultaneous frequencies, and perhaps skewing the files from each
> other in time a little bit, to see what this does to the results.

There's a formal test in RMAA for interdependency of channels - the channel
separation test. However, this test can be considered to be reasonably
thorough in just the analog domain. Given that your product is a large-scale
digital channel multiplexer, it might be appropriate to perform other kinds
of tests.

It seems to me that if there were problems with data from one channel
getting mixed as data with data from other channels, having the channels
synchronized at the sample level could mask it. Therefore, time-shifting the
tests in the various channels would make sense. This raises the issue of
re-establishing the time base for data analyzed by RMAA, since it requires
that the data appear at certain approximate times. It can re-synchronize
data within limits.

I use 1-sample impulses to resynchronize RMAA data that I embed in larger
files.. I put a 1-sample wide marker at each end of the RMAA test file when
I imbed it in a larger file. The complete marker is composed of the one
sample -1 dB impulse in the middle of a 20 millisecond block of silence. It
is a simple matter to edit the RMAA data out of the larger data file for
analysis. The 20 millisecond block of silence around the impulse deals with
any pre-ringing or post-ringing that might take place.

Another kind of channel interdependency could be jitter. There might be a
case where data in one channel causes short-term variations of the sample
rate of data in another channel, leading to FM distortion. The traditional
way to measure jitter is to record a sine wave, usually at some frequency in
the 1 to 5 KHz range, and then analyze the signal played back for sidebands.
Proper analysis of jitter requires looking for sidebands that are within a
few Hz or even a fraction of a Hz of the carrier. This requires large FFTs
and software that can provide a magnified display of the frequency spectrum.
Audition fails on both counts. I find that Spectra Lab is an ideal tool for
this because it supports very large FFTs, and also very large magnifications
of the spectral display.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079389882k@trad
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> I'm looking at preliminary design parameters for a rebuild of my
>> church's sanctuary. I can think of only a few reasons why there
>> wouldn't be an AudioRail system in it.

> One important thing I can think of is risk. If it goes down, there
> goes all your mic lines in one swell foop. Also there's the issue of
> maintenance several years down the road. You can put in a multi-pair
> cable and it will last 50 years. You can't say that about a piece of
> digital equipment.

All true. However, multiplexing audio between the stage to the control panel
is becoming more common in installed sound setups. I'm beginning to wonder
why.

The argument for minimizing the cable's thickness is strongest with
temporary setups.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message


> the average handyman can run a cat 5 cable

It's also pretty cheap wire.

> can't say that about a installed snake

Been there, done that last summer. A 16 shielded pair snake is not an easy
pull, even if there is a 2" conduit in place. It's especially ugly if the
snake is prefabbed with connectors or a box. The summer job was through
random construction under a floor with very limited access. The job was a
more than a little ugly at times and there was superficial damage at the
pre-terminated end despite efforts to protect it.

> (that usually has to be terminated on site, , quite a job even for 8
> channels, and almost weeks work for 64 channels)

Point taken. I just re-terminated 6 pairs a few weeks ago, and after setuip,
take down, and testing, several hours had disappeared. A week still seems
like a lot for 64 pairs unless there are special considerations. But, I
could see 3 days go bye-bye for a cable that large. It's mind-numbing work,
getting the labels, layers of heat-shrink tubing and soldering all right.
BTW I aced it - all lines tested perfect with zero rework. Of course it was
just 6 pair and 6 shields. A couple of days later I was doing some other
work and found that I had blown one connection in a stereo (two pair)
XLR-RCA cable that I made a few years ago....

> also 50 years is VERY optimistic for snakes, 15 -20 and the insulation is
turning to dust

Well, unless the environment is severe, all that is happening is that the
insulation is getting a little stiff. I live in a 70 year-old house and even
the crude insulation of the 1930's is lasting surprisingly well except
around heat sources like light fixtures. I've been doing some work at church
with 50 year old vinyl insulated power wiring, and ditto. BTW, the 6 pair
cable I re-terminated a few weeks ago was installed in the 60s so it is
pushing 40.

> I will be considering the emerging digital products very closely with
> each new design I take on.

For a temporary setup that is even a bit complex, it looks like the real
ticket. The cost crossover for AudioRAIL at current prices seems to be
someplace between 32 and 64 pair depending on length. The profit is in the
set up and take down. If the console is digital particularly ADAT interface
based, then things start to be very compelling. It takes time to simply plug
in a bunch of XLRs at the console end.

I could see Behringer buying the AudioRail's technology and packaging it
with their existing gear. I mean, they wouldn't make their versions of the
AudioRail boxes cost MORE than $500 each if you catch my drift. All of a
sudden the snake business takes a hit based purely on purchase price.

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> There's a formal test in RMAA for interdependency of channels - the channel
> separation test. However, this test can be considered to be reasonably
> thorough in just the analog domain. Given that your product is a large-scale
> digital channel multiplexer, it might be appropriate to perform other kinds
> of tests.

I'm a bit confused about this reference to "our product". You do
realize that all this testing on the ADA8000 that we have been talking
about did not employ AudioRail in any way shape or form, right?

> It seems to me that if there were problems with data from one channel
> getting mixed as data with data from other channels, having the channels
> synchronized at the sample level could mask it. Therefore, time-shifting the
> tests in the various channels would make sense. This raises the issue of
> re-establishing the time base for data analyzed by RMAA, since it requires
> that the data appear at certain approximate times. It can re-synchronize
> data within limits.

Again, I am a bit confused by your comment. My assumption is that the
crosstalk seen between channels in the ADA8000 is entirely in the analog
domain, due to simple passive coupling effects happening on the board.
The ADAT protocol does not lend itself to accidentally and subtly mixing
"data" from one channel to the next. The ADA8000 also uses eight
separate A/D and D/A converter chips.

> I use 1-sample impulses to resynchronize RMAA data that I embed in larger
> files.. I put a 1-sample wide marker at each end of the RMAA test file when
> I imbed it in a larger file. The complete marker is composed of the one
> sample -1 dB impulse in the middle of a 20 millisecond block of silence. It
> is a simple matter to edit the RMAA data out of the larger data file for
> analysis. The 20 millisecond block of silence around the impulse deals with
> any pre-ringing or post-ringing that might take place.

This touches upon why I did not originally assume right off the top of
my head that I could legitimately run RMAA indirectly on files
pre-generated and then later post-processed. I assumed that it had to
be driven real time. Obviously, that was an assumption based on
ignorance, and is not the case. But I want to ask to make sure: Please
confirm that RMAA is able to figure out the results from the destination
file, even though there may be a tiny bit of extra padding at the
beginning or end of the file, file is ever so slightly too long, or
whatever. I remember you suggesting adding a bit of padding at the end
at one point, so I think you have indirectly answered this, but just
wanted to make sure.

> Another kind of channel interdependency could be jitter. There might be a
> case where data in one channel causes short-term variations of the sample
> rate of data in another channel, leading to FM distortion.

Again, unlikely in this case, because the ADAT Lightpipe protocol is
just one "channel" of data with individual data corresponding to each
audio channel time division multiplexed within that. The entire ADAT
data stream is PLL locked as a whole. Then the data is inserted or
extracted from that to or from the discrete analog converters.

> The traditional
> way to measure jitter is to record a sine wave, usually at some frequency in
> the 1 to 5 KHz range, and then analyze the signal played back for sidebands.
> Proper analysis of jitter requires looking for sidebands that are within a
> few Hz or even a fraction of a Hz of the carrier. This requires large FFTs
> and software that can provide a magnified display of the frequency spectrum.
> Audition fails on both counts. I find that Spectra Lab is an ideal tool for
> this because it supports very large FFTs, and also very large magnifications
> of the spectral display.

How large of an FFT are you suggesting here?

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>news:znr1079389882k@trad
>> In article >
>> writes:
>>
>>> I'm looking at preliminary design parameters for a rebuild of my
>>> church's sanctuary. I can think of only a few reasons why there
>>> wouldn't be an AudioRail system in it.
>
>> One important thing I can think of is risk. If it goes down, there
>> goes all your mic lines in one swell foop. Also there's the issue of
>> maintenance several years down the road. You can put in a multi-pair
>> cable and it will last 50 years. You can't say that about a piece of
>> digital equipment.
>
>All true. However, multiplexing audio between the stage to the control panel
>is becoming more common in installed sound setups. I'm beginning to wonder
>why.

Because people are tired of carrying around a couple hundred pounds of snake
cables in the back of the truck.

I agree that digital snakes give me the willies... but then so do digital
consoles where everything is all controlled by one processor. And if you
are going to have one, why not just have a snake card in the console that
talks to a remote processing box? Or why not have several with redundancy
like the Neve Capricorn does?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> There's a formal test in RMAA for interdependency of channels - the
>> channel separation test. However, this test can be considered to be
>> reasonably thorough in just the analog domain. Given that your
>> product is a large-scale digital channel multiplexer, it might be
>> appropriate to perform other kinds of tests.
>
> I'm a bit confused about this reference to "our product". You do
> realize that all this testing on the ADA8000 that we have been talking
> about did not employ AudioRail in any way shape or form, right?

Absolutely. You are AudioRail and Behringer is an engineering/marketing firm
in Germany that produces lots of audio gear in China.

>> It seems to me that if there were problems with data from one channel
>> getting mixed as data with data from other channels, having the
>> channels synchronized at the sample level could mask it. Therefore,
>> time-shifting the tests in the various channels would make sense.
>> This raises the issue of re-establishing the time base for data
>> analyzed by RMAA, since it requires that the data appear at certain
>> approximate times. It can re-synchronize data within limits.

> Again, I am a bit confused by your comment. My assumption is that the
> crosstalk seen between channels in the ADA8000 is entirely in the
> analog domain, due to simple passive coupling effects happening on
> the board. The ADAT protocol does not lend itself to accidentally and
> subtly mixing "data" from one channel to the next. The ADA8000 also
> uses eight separate A/D and D/A converter chips.

>> I use 1-sample impulses to resynchronize RMAA data that I embed in
>> larger files.. I put a 1-sample wide marker at each end of the RMAA
>> test file when I imbed it in a larger file. The complete marker is
>> composed of the one sample -1 dB impulse in the middle of a 20
>> millisecond block of silence. It is a simple matter to edit the
>> RMAA data out of the larger data file for analysis. The 20
>> millisecond block of silence around the impulse deals with any
>> pre-ringing or post-ringing that might take place.

> This touches upon why I did not originally assume right off the top of
> my head that I could legitimately run RMAA indirectly on files
> pre-generated and then later post-processed. I assumed that it had to
> be driven real time. Obviously, that was an assumption based on
> ignorance, and is not the case. But I want to ask to make sure:

> Please confirm that RMAA is able to figure out the results from the
> destination file, even though there may be a tiny bit of extra
> padding at the beginning or end of the file, file is ever so slightly
> too long, or whatever.

Yes, RMAA will synchronize itself to imperfect data within limits. It's
fairly tolerant of excess blank leader and extremely tolerant of excess
blank file at the end. It also tolerates level mismatches over an
approximate 6 dB range. As a rule, it will give an error message when it is
a little unhappy, and it will give an error message and abandon the job if
it is very unhappy.

> I remember you suggesting adding a bit of
> padding at the end at one point, so I think you have indirectly
> answered this, but just wanted to make sure.

Yes, padding at the end seems to be tolerated very well. OTOH, not enough
padding after the last block of signal is not tolerated at all.

>> Another kind of channel interdependency could be jitter. There might
>> be a case where data in one channel causes short-term variations of
>> the sample rate of data in another channel, leading to FM distortion.

> Again, unlikely in this case, because the ADAT Lightpipe protocol is
> just one "channel" of data with individual data corresponding to each
> audio channel time division multiplexed within that. The entire ADAT
> data stream is PLL locked as a whole. Then the data is inserted or
> extracted from that to or from the discrete analog converters.

Yes, and strictly speaking, it is the role of any digital receiver or DAC to
either recover a perfect signal or not work at all.

>> The
>> traditional way to measure jitter is to record a sine wave, usually
>> at some frequency in the 1 to 5 KHz range, and then analyze the
>> signal played back for sidebands. Proper analysis of jitter requires
>> looking for sidebands that are within a few Hz or even a fraction of
>> a Hz of the carrier. This requires large FFTs and software that can
>> provide a magnified display of the frequency spectrum. Audition
>> fails on both counts. I find that Spectra Lab is an ideal tool for
>> this because it supports very large FFTs, and also very large
>> magnifications of the spectral display.

> How large of an FFT are you suggesting here?

Quarter million points or so. Because of the impreciseness introduced by
windowing and other issues, you generally have to overkill the number of
points in a FFT to get a good-enough picture of sidebands that are close to
the carrier (or low frequency response) One nasty thing about measuring FM
distortion is that it is highly audible at very low modulating frequencies,
even below 1 Hz.

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I could see Behringer buying the AudioRail's technology and packaging it
> with their existing gear.

You mean like they bought or licensed tech from Aphex, Drawmer, Mackie?
<lol>

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> I could see Behringer buying the AudioRail's technology and
>> packaging it with their existing gear.
>
> You mean like they bought or licensed tech from Aphex, Drawmer,
> Mackie? <lol>

OK, they have a pretty good feel for what's an enforcable patent and what's
not.

;-)

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> the average handyman can run a cat 5 cable
> can't say that about a installed snake
> (that usually has to be terminated on site, , quite a job even for 8
> channels, and almost weeks work for 64 channels)

OK, so that's one for installation cost. On the other hand, if you
can't charge a client for your labor, the only way you can make money
is with markup on equipment. And you don't make much money on the
markup on a $500 box or $20 worth of Cat 5 cable.

> also 50 years is VERY optimistic for snakes,
> 15 -20and the insulation is turning to dust

I don't think I have any snakes that are 50 years old, but I have
three that are more than 20 years old and the insulation is just fine.
They don't use rubber any more.

> I will be considering the emerging digital products very closely with each
> new design I take on.

No reason not to consider them, but think about what the client will
have to do a few years down the road and you're gone.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George Gleason]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > I could see Behringer buying the AudioRail's technology and packaging it
> > with their existing gear.
>
> You mean like they bought or licensed tech from Aphex, Drawmer, Mackie?
> <lol>
>

why the lame attemt to continue the urban legend ?
Behringer has been cleared and is undeserving of your innuendo
if you have any facts
post them
if you just post this **** to try to be cute, you failed
if you in fact can document this
please do so
but it really is getting old haveing to deal with this pack of lies spread
by people who don't understand business, law or what actually happened
george


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 3/11/2004

[George Gleason]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079438972k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > the average handyman can run a cat 5 cable
> > can't say that about a installed snake
> > (that usually has to be terminated on site, , quite a job even for 8
> > channels, and almost weeks work for 64 channels)
>
> OK, so that's one for installation cost. On the other hand, if you
> can't charge a client for your labor, the only way you can make money
> is with markup on equipment. And you don't make much money on the
> markup on a $500 box or $20 worth of Cat 5 cable.
>
> > also 50 years is VERY optimistic for snakes,
> > 15 -20and the insulation is turning to dust
>
> I don't think I have any snakes that are 50 years old, but I have
> three that are more than 20 years old and the insulation is just fine.
> They don't use rubber any more.
>
> > I will be considering the emerging digital products very closely with
each
> > new design I take on.
>
> No reason not to consider them, but think about what the client will
> have to do a few years down the road and you're gone.
>

Digital is not going away, if anything in a few years the most to digital
todaywill be seen as excellent forsight
and I hope I have more than a "few" years left LOL


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 3/11/2004

[Roger W. Norman]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> I agree that digital snakes give me the willies... but then so do digital
> consoles where everything is all controlled by one processor. And if you
> are going to have one, why not just have a snake card in the console that
> talks to a remote processing box? Or why not have several with redundancy
> like the Neve Capricorn does?

One word. Expense.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[Scott Dorsey]

George Gleason > wrote:
>
>Digital is not going away, if anything in a few years the most to digital
>todaywill be seen as excellent forsight
>and I hope I have more than a "few" years left LOL

No, but today's digital gear IS going away. This is a problem... if the
equipment can't pay for itself in two years, it's not a good investment.
On the other hand, you can amortize that Ampex on a 15-year schedule.

This is combined with that retraining issue, which increases cost of ownership
even more.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Roger W. Norman > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> I agree that digital snakes give me the willies... but then so do digital
>> consoles where everything is all controlled by one processor. And if you
>> are going to have one, why not just have a snake card in the console that
>> talks to a remote processing box? Or why not have several with redundancy
>> like the Neve Capricorn does?
>
>One word. Expense.

Gear that doesn't fail easily is expensive.
Gear that fails easily is even more expensive in the long run.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kurt Albershardt]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> digital snakes give me the willies... but then so do digital
> consoles where everything is all controlled by one processor. And if you
> are going to have one, why not just have a snake card in the console that
> talks to a remote processing box?

http://www.innovason.com/

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> All true. However, multiplexing audio between the stage to the control panel
> is becoming more common in installed sound setups. I'm beginning to wonder
> why.

Probaby because of lower initial cost and the thought that the
installer won't be around to service the system in the somewhat
distant future. Early deaths aren't a large problem, but having to
replace one end or the other ten years after installation may be a
problem if technology has changed from Ethernet to something else.
Analog interfacing and XLR connectors have a proven legacy. Digital
interfacing is doing its best to prove that it believes advancement is
more important than long term stability.

> The argument for minimizing the cable's thickness is strongest with
> temporary setups.

This would be great for carry-in PA systems, particularly since the
system owner could easily (at least at AudioRail's price point) carry
spare heads and tails. George does have a good point about lower
installation cost, but that doesn't make money for the installation
contractor who's trying to make a living at this.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George]

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> George Gleason > wrote:
> >
> >Digital is not going away, if anything in a few years the most to digital
> >todaywill be seen as excellent forsight
> >and I hope I have more than a "few" years left LOL
>
> No, but today's digital gear IS going away. This is a problem... if the
> equipment can't pay for itself in two years, it's not a good investment.
> On the other hand, you can amortize that Ampex on a 15-year schedule.
>
> This is combined with that retraining issue, which increases cost of ownership
> even more.
> --scott

why would one need to put a thousand dollar purchase on a 15 year
schedule, or even a 5 year schedule
I believe it can be ritten off your taxes completely the second you pay
for it
and us oldsters who suffered the transition to digital are quickly going
aay
there is a entire generation coming in that can't understand why one
needs 400 lbs or capacitors , pots and steel to accomplish what a few
thousand lines of code does better, cheaper, faster, and more reliabily
George

[james]

In article >,
hank alrich > wrote:

>Beri paid their _don'ts_ by being sleazebag ripoffs copying Mackie,
>Aphex and Drawmer.

It doesn't seem to occur to Behringer's detractors, that people just
plain don't *care* whether they "copied" anybody, to the extent that
they even believe the allegations. I personally don't care, any more
than I care whether one shampoo company copied another by making their
hair conditioner white, or a car company copied another by making their
cars out of steel, get it?

I personally bought a Behringer mixer because it was the only thing in
the world that meets my needs for under $300.00. And another one, a
4-channel one for my TV basically, for which I never saw an alternative
at *ANY* price.

So they supposedly "copied" something from somebody? This is supposed
to be my problem, why? I'm supposed to be upset enough about it that I
will increase my budget, why?

The few pieces of Behringer gear that I've owned have worked perfectly
for my needs. And they do not look to me like they are a copy of
anything else I've seen in the marketplace. Well, they ALL use little
round knobs for channel params and narrow vertical faders and the main
control is on the right hand side and the I/O is toward the top and/or
back. Looks like they're ALL copies of an ANCIENT basic design, and
that design is a consequence of human proportions and common sense.

But if you want to spend more money because you want a different brand
that's fine. And if you want a different brand because you don't agree
with someone's business practices, that's fine. And if you want to
criticize the company, that's fine too. But I am weary of the
implication that people choose to criticize ME for MY choice to buy a
Behringer mixer, etc., because that's personal, inappropriate, and is a
complete waste of time.

[james]

In article >,
Paul Stamler > wrote:

>See Peavey -- they made a couple of
>pieces of gear universally acknowledged to be excellent

If I didn't have my two PC-1600x MIDI controllers, I'd be lost.

[WillStG]

> (james)

>It doesn't seem to occur to Behringer's detractors, that people just
>plain don't *care* whether they "copied" anybody, to the extent that
>they even believe the allegations. I personally don't care, any more
>than I care whether one shampoo company copied another by making their
>hair conditioner white, or a car company copied another by making their
>cars out of steel, get it?

Oh yeah, I think so anyway. I mean James aren't you a self described
"longtime Internet activist and Hacker"? I think you said that in a post in an
abuse complaint once, please correct me if I am wrong. So as a hacker, it
wouldn't be surprising that you would not care much about intellectual
property rights, now would it? Of course cheaper is better whether stolen
designs or not, just like "free" hacked software, yes?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[james]

In article >,
WillStG > wrote:

> Oh yeah, I think so anyway. I mean James aren't you a self described
>"longtime Internet activist and Hacker"?

Probably, but you're stepping into ad-hominem territory.

I'm leaning toward, "you owe me an apology." Yeah, I used to complain
HARD about spam, in the old days. What of it...

Could you explain to me what that has to do with Behringer?

I don't think we share the same definition of the word "hacker", by the way.
I define hacker as someone who modifies his own electronic gear,
cars, etc. Your definition seems to be more along the lines of "thief."
So I'm a criminal because I make my own musical instruments and effects,
or write my own computer software, or modify the airflow characteristics
of my car engine?

>abuse complaint once, please correct me if I am wrong. So as a hacker, it
>wouldn't be surprising that you would not care much about intellectual
>property rights, now would it?

Whoa there, turbo!

It's never been established to my satisfaction or creidibility that any
intellectual property rights were violated by Behringer. I sure as hell
don't buy the notion that anything was literally stolen. You'd better
not be suggesting there's anything illegal about my mixer!

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Digital is not going away, if anything in a few years the most to digital
> todaywill be seen as excellent forsight
> and I hope I have more than a "few" years left LOL

I never intened to suggest that "digital" is going away, but the
hardware will evolve, interfaces will change, and that piece of
Ethernet cable will no longer transmit the data because the next
generation won't use it.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[WillStG]

>: (james)

>> Willstg>> I mean James aren't you a self described "longtime Internet
activist and Hacker"? >>

>Probably, but you're stepping into ad-hominem territory.
>
>I'm leaning toward, "you owe me an apology." Yeah, I used to complain
>HARD about spam, in the old days. What of it...

>I don't think we share the same definition of the word "hacker", by the
way.
>I define hacker as someone who modifies his own electronic gear,
>cars, etc. Your definition seems to be more along the lines of "thief."

Like I said correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying
you're not a *software* "hacker"?

>Could you explain to me what that has to do with Behringer?

The issue is respect of intellectual property rights. Software hackers do
not respect them, and Behringer similarly has had to settle cases dealing with
it's infringments on Intellectual property rights. If you did mean you were a
*software* Hacker when you told a guy who sent a spam offer to you it was a
mistake because you were a hacker, than it would seem natural that you would
care more about what a product costs you than whether someone was being hosed
in terms of Intellectual property by your purchase.

>It's never been established to my satisfaction or creidibility that any
>intellectual property rights were violated by Behringer. I sure as hell
>don't buy the notion that anything was literally stolen. You'd better
>not be suggesting there's anything illegal about my mixer!

If you google it you can find references to "B" settling out of court
with Aphex, there used to be links to the press releases. And even in cases
where Internationally it might be difficult to win a court case on a matter,
one can morally have shown a good deal of disrespect for other people in the
business by obviously reverse engineering their products and putting out cheap
copies, whether the copyright is enforcable or not it's just plain
disrespectful. That kind of disrespect breeds contempt.

And in this group, where there are/once were a lot of people around who
design gear or program for a living, that is kind of a sensitive subject.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Hal Laurent]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079470779k@trad...
>
> I never intened to suggest that "digital" is going away, but the
> hardware will evolve, interfaces will change, and that piece of
> Ethernet cable will no longer transmit the data because the next
> generation won't use it.

Yeah, I've got a bunch of old Thinwire ethernet cable gathering dust
in the basement. I can't even use it for word clock cables, 'cause the
impedance is wrong. :-)

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

[Scott Dorsey]

Hal Laurent > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>news:znr1079470779k@trad...
>>
>> I never intened to suggest that "digital" is going away, but the
>> hardware will evolve, interfaces will change, and that piece of
>> Ethernet cable will no longer transmit the data because the next
>> generation won't use it.
>
>Yeah, I've got a bunch of old Thinwire ethernet cable gathering dust
>in the basement. I can't even use it for word clock cables, 'cause the
>impedance is wrong. :-)

No, but it's fine for unbalanced audio links.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[james]

In article >,
WillStG > wrote:

V>>Probably, but you're stepping into ad-hominem territory.

> Like I said correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying
>you're not a *software* "hacker"?

I am a hardware hacker. I'm also a software hacker, an automotive
hacker, and a social hacker. I dabbled in blacksmithing at one point in
my life, at that time I was also a hacker of steel.

>>Could you explain to me what that has to do with Behringer?

> The issue is respect of intellectual property rights.

The question has not been settled to my satisfaction that there were any
intellectual property rights to be respected. Were patents violated?
Were trade secrets stolen or otherwise misapproprated? Was a copyright
infringed? I believe the answer to these questions was "no".

Again, since I do not sit on the board of directors at Behringer or
Mackie, and since I don't own stock in either of those companies or have
any other interest, it would not be my problem even if the allegations
had merit.

>Software hackers do
>not respect them

I still don't think we share the same definition of that word.

Software hackers are problem solvers. I suppose a better word would be
"engineer." But we only call them "hackers" when they are very
enlightened, and extremely skilled at solving problems. I don't know
what you call "hackers" but it appears to have some sort of negative
connotations that I don't follow. When I say "doctor" do you hear
"butcher?" When I say "musician" do you hear "bass player?"

>and Behringer similarly has had to settle cases dealing with
>it's infringments on Intellectual property rights.

When I examined the facts of the matter, it appears that Behringer was
dragged into court and the final word on the case was that there was no
merit. Does a mere accusation equal guilt in your world?

>If you did mean you were a
>*software* Hacker when you told a guy who sent a spam offer to you it was a
>mistake because you were a hacker

I was ready to draw blood and sever limbs. Instead I probably merely
blocked an address space. I found the email you were referring to. I
stand by it -- my business was experiencing a severe denial of service
and was incurring some expenses due to the Cantor and Siegal scam. I'm
not sure that either of those individuals would have all their body
parts after meeting me in person, even today!

> If you google it you can find references to "B" settling out of court
>with Aphex, there used to be links to the press releases.

By your logic, I shouldn't do business with IBM if they settle with SCO.
I'm a consumer, and a disinterested party. A lawsuit that was never
even tried, half a decade ago, should not enter into consideration.

My take on it is that people like you have a personal issue of some sort
with Behringer, and for some reason you do not like the idea of people
buying their equipment. The fact that there was once a legal question
about one of their products just adds colour to the chip that's already
on your shoulder. Maybe you guys feel threatened by the mere existence
of consumer audio gear that's "pretty good". Or maybe you don't like
matte silver finishes. Or maybe you don't like Germany. Or maybe it
really, truly bothers you that there was once a legal argument, or maybe
it bothers you that the legal argument didn't go anywhere. It seems to
bother you that I once complained HARD about Cantor and Siegel, but I
find it hard to believe that we'd be on different sides of THAT
equation!

I see no reason why a person shouldn't be able to audition a piece of
Behringer gear, decide it's good enough and a good value for the money,
and say so without having people come down on them, even going so far as
to try to dig up some personal item from their distant past, pulling
ad-hominem attacks, and other tactics that speak to a personal bias more
than anything.

It's okay that I have a Behringer mixer. Don't treat me like I have a
pirated copy of Cubase or like I stole Jimi Hendrix's guitar off the
wall at the Hard Rock Cafe.

>business by obviously reverse engineering their products and putting out cheap
>copies, whether the copyright is enforcable or not it's just plain
>disrespectful.

It may be obvious to you. It is far from obvious to me. If I use a
LM317 in my power supply or ALPS faders on a board, does that make me a
copycat, or am I just being sensible?

Copyrights are meant to protect works of art. Patents are meant to
protect inventions of apparatus. You can't patent a novel, and you
can't copyright a machine.

[George]

In article <znr1079470779k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article >
> writes:
>
> > Digital is not going away, if anything in a few years the most to digital
> > todaywill be seen as excellent forsight
> > and I hope I have more than a "few" years left LOL
>
> I never intened to suggest that "digital" is going away, but the
> hardware will evolve, interfaces will change, and that piece of
> Ethernet cable will no longer transmit the data because the next
> generation won't use it.
>
>
ethernet is much more deeply entrenched in technology than our
little puddle of spit, it is here for the forseeable future
if I had to bet on what is going to be outdated in 10/20/50 years I
would have to bet against analouge data transmission
George

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>There's a formal test in RMAA for interdependency of channels - the
>>>channel separation test. However, this test can be considered to be
>>>reasonably thorough in just the analog domain. Given that your
>>>product is a large-scale digital channel multiplexer, it might be
>>>appropriate to perform other kinds of tests.
>>
>>I'm a bit confused about this reference to "our product". You do
>>realize that all this testing on the ADA8000 that we have been talking
>>about did not employ AudioRail in any way shape or form, right?
>
> Absolutely. You are AudioRail and Behringer is an engineering/marketing firm
> in Germany that produces lots of audio gear in China.

I'm sure I'm just misunderstanding you in some way. I know that you
know that AudioRail and Behringer have no affiliation with each other.
But it sounded like you were implying that somehow AudioRail hardware
was in the ADA8000 test, which was not the case. The ADA8000 was
connected directly to a PC using PC sound cards with ADAT Toslink cables.

[Richard Freeman]

"George" > wrote in message
...
> In article <znr1079470779k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
> > In article >
> > writes:
> >
> > > Digital is not going away, if anything in a few years the most to
digital
> > > todaywill be seen as excellent forsight
> > > and I hope I have more than a "few" years left LOL
> >
> > I never intened to suggest that "digital" is going away, but the
> > hardware will evolve, interfaces will change, and that piece of
> > Ethernet cable will no longer transmit the data because the next
> > generation won't use it.
> >
> >
> ethernet is much more deeply entrenched in technology than our
> little puddle of spit, it is here for the forseeable future
> if I had to bet on what is going to be outdated in 10/20/50 years I
> would have to bet against analouge data transmission
> George

Sorry but umm who uses Analogue Data Transmission any more ?

;-)

Regards
Richard Freeman

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> why would one need to put a thousand dollar purchase on a 15 year
> schedule, or even a 5 year schedule
> I believe it can be ritten off your taxes completely the second you pay
> for it

You're right about that, but I thought we were talking about
installations. Churches that pay to have a sound system installed
write the expens off their taxes immediately, but don't consider it to
be a source of income, so if it has to be replaced in five years
(particularly if three interconnected pieces have to be replaced
because one failed and can't be repaired or directlly replaced) they
see that as an unplanned and unpleasant expense.

When you're making an investment in a piece of equipment that you
expect will make you money, that's a different story.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Kurt Albershardt]

WillStG wrote:

>>: (james)
>
>
>>> I mean James aren't you a self described "longtime Internet
>>> activist and Hacker"? >>
>>
>> I don't think we share the same definition of the word "hacker",
>> by the way.
>
>> I define hacker as someone who modifies his own electronic gear,
>> cars, etc. Your definition seems to be more along the lines of "thief."
>
>
> Like I said correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying
> you're not a *software* "hacker"?

Sure you're not confusing hacker with cracker here?




>> Could you explain to me what that has to do with Behringer?
>
> The issue is respect of intellectual property rights. Software hackers do
> not respect them

You're generalizing here--and tarring a whole bunch of very talented coders I know with a brush that they *really* don't deserve.

[George]

>
> When you're making an investment in a piece of equipment that you
> expect will make you money, that's a different story.
>
>
I still don't get your point
I am investing close to 10K$ dumping my copper snake(radial convertible)
dumping my lexicon efx, eq's, 24 space floater drive/efx rack,700$
custom patch snake and possibly my lx7/24
to goto a all digital preamps on stage cat 5 snake(or coax,or glass
fibre not sure yet) to a Dm1K
as my main money making rig
I expect it to reduce truck pack possibly allowing me to move out of a
cdl truck
reduce set-up time and errors, reduce personell needed , increase my
control, take commands from my MacFoh via wireless show control software
in effect work smarter not harder
earn more money and deliver a better product for my customers
making me able to charge more while actually doing less physical work
and supporting a smaller overhead
George

[Geoff Wood]

james wrote:
> In article >,
>
> So they supposedly "copied" something from somebody? This is supposed
> to be my problem, why? I'm supposed to be upset enough about it that
> I will increase my budget, why?

Because the dude who took teh trouble to invent, design, or develop the
copied product go out of business and in the end there is nobody left in the
business with any clues. And we are all worse of for that.

geoff

[WillStG]

<< (james) >>


<< WillStG > wrote:
> Like I said correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying
>you're not a *software* "hacker"? >>

<< I am a hardware hacker. I'm also a software hacker, an automotive hacker,
and a social hacker >> snip

<< Software hackers are problem solvers. I suppose a better word would be
"engineer." But we only call them "hackers" when they are very
enlightened, and extremely skilled at solving problems. I don't know
what you call "hackers" but it appears to have some sort of negative
connotations that I don't follow. When I say "doctor" do you hear
"butcher?" When I say "musician" do you hear "bass player?" >>

James - why be so demure? Are you a guy who takes copy protected software
and finds a way to disable the copy protection or not? A simple yes or no would
suffice. If you are, many in the pro audio community consider that
disrespectful of the intellectual property of others. And many similarly
consider Behringer's past practices to have also been disrespectful of other
designers and manufacturers.

<< When I examined the facts of the matter, it appears that Behringer was
dragged into court and the final word on the case was that there was no
merit. Does a mere accusation equal guilt in your world? >>

They made an out of court settlement. And in other instances, disrespect
doesn't *have* to be illegal to be offensive. The less you appreciate the
intellectual works of others, the less you will have the capacity to understand
that I suppose.

<< My take on it is that people like you have a personal issue of some sort
with Behringer, and for some reason you do not like the idea of people buying
their equipment. >

Bzzzt - wrong - I have advocated their ECM 8000 mics here, Next.

<< The fact that there was once a legal question about one of their products
just adds colour to the chip that's already on your shoulder. Maybe you guys
feel threatened by the mere existence of consumer audio gear that's "pretty
good". >>

Bzzzt - wrong again. But their amp simulators clearly do not "ruie", and
postings by first timers here to that effect, in the past as now, are obvious
BS marketing hype intended to give people internet "hits" when they do a
Behringer search. That's a violation of the groups charter; as one who claims
to *hate* spam I would think you could understand the sentiment. Genuine
discussion of their products is fine.

<< Or maybe you don't like
matte silver finishes. >>

Well no, I don't actually.

<<Or maybe you don't like Germany. >>

That is insulting bull****, considering that I have advocated and that I
own a lot of German gear, including racked pairs of Teklefunken V672 micpres.

<< I see no reason why a person shouldn't be able to audition a piece of
Behringer gear, decide it's good enough and a good value for the money,
and say so without having people come down on them, even going so far as
to try to dig up some personal item from their distant past, pulling
ad-hominem attacks, and other tactics that speak to a personal bias more
than anything. >>

If you wish to put your professional reputation on the line discussing how
fine you thing a piece of gear is, Behringer or otherwise, please feel free to
do so. I have done that here, I advocated the Oktava MC012 mics h when
Fletcher was saying they sounded like hamster dick, and I have done the same
thing for the Behringer ECM8000 omnis (so they're a bit noisy, they have a high
output and sound good on loud sources.)

But I don't appreciate the Behringer spam. And whether their marketing
director in America is aware of it's source or not, or if it's personal friends
of Uri Behringer or sales geeks at a European Slaes company who are being given
freebies for "spreading buzz", these postings are as disrespectful of this
forum as the "Cantor and Siegal" spam was in your other groups.

<< It's okay that I have a Behringer mixer. Don't treat me like I have a
pirated copy of Cubase or like I stole Jimi Hendrix's guitar off the wall at
the Hard Rock Cafe. >>

Nobody has problem with you owning a crappy mixer. Or a good one. That is
not and has not been the issue. But then I'm thinking for some reason you
already knew that.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[George]

In article >,
"Geoff Wood" -nospam> wrote:

> james wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > So they supposedly "copied" something from somebody? This is supposed
> > to be my problem, why? I'm supposed to be upset enough about it that
> > I will increase my budget, why?
>
> Because the dude who took teh trouble to invent, design, or develop the
> copied product go out of business and in the end there is nobody left in the
> business with any clues. And we are all worse of for that.
>
and what as copied, who copied it and who is out of business beacuse of
it?
George

[james]

In article >,
WillStG > wrote:

> James - why be so demure? Are you a guy who takes copy protected software
>and finds a way to disable the copy protection or not?

I am not. I still don't understand where you got that idea, or what it
has to do with audio equipment.

>Behringer's past practices to have also been disrespectful of other
>designers and manufacturers.

Again, it's a position of prejudice that appears to be based on an
altogether fictitious premise. The law of the land says there was no
problem. If that doesn't jibe with your opinion, you are entitled to
that.

Since when do we think corporations operate from a position of "respect"
anyway? How much "respect" do you think YOU will get if you show up at
the club where the execs of ANY of these corporations play golf? Think
you'll get a lot of respect at the door?

> They made an out of court settlement.

They settled the case without disclosing any details at all to you or to
me. So it's a legal and ethical nonissue.

><< My take on it is that people like you have a personal issue of some sort
>with Behringer, and for some reason you do not like the idea of people buying
>their equipment. >
>
> Bzzzt - wrong - I have advocated their ECM 8000 mics here, Next.

Next what? What? Then why the hell are we having this conversation in
the first place?

>Genuine discussion of their products is fine.

Says the guy who thought it was appropriate to imply that I am some sort
of criminal or that it's due to my disrespect for the property of
others that I buy Behringer gear? The only reason I'm still in the
discussion at all is because I am hoping for an apology from you.

> If you wish to put your professional reputation on the line discussing how
>fine you thing a piece of gear is, Behringer or otherwise, please feel free to
>do so.

Ok. I'm a semi-professional musician. For $300.00 there's not a better
20 channel mixer than Behringer. It's far quieter than anything I had
in the 70's or 80's, that's for damn sure. I don't think that's going
to sully my reputation any.

><< It's okay that I have a Behringer mixer. Don't treat me like I have a
>pirated copy of Cubase or like I stole Jimi Hendrix's guitar off the wall at
>the Hard Rock Cafe. >>

> Nobody has problem with you owning a crappy mixer. Or a good one. That is
> not and has not been the issue. But then I'm thinking for some reason you
> already knew that.

If that's true, then why all the hot air about "respect for
intellectual property" or "hacker == criminal" and all the other
personal crap you threw at me?

[james]

In article >,
pH > wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:00:42 GMT, (james) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>WillStG > wrote:

>I can't help but find it kinda difficult to believe that you're unaware
>of the... "re-definition" of that term; it's none too recent.

Of course, but I could hardly have made it more clear that the usage in
the archive post that he dug up, from almost 10 years ago, is totally
out of context, and it was completely inappropriate to post that, or the
sort of accusations and innuendo that followed, here.

I'm quite offended by it, but I also have a pretty thick skin, and I
don't really care. The whole thing just reinforces my opinion that
there are people who have chosen to be "anti-behringer" and will
apparently seize any opportunity to spread negativity against the
company; in this case, even going as far as a personal attack against
me. That's not reasonable at all!

>I dunno, but... hey, I've been an assembly language coder for twenty
>years, and never referred to myself as a hacker. Ya just... don't hear
>it used that way, because the majority of folks aren't aware of the term's
>original definition.

I'm a *hardware* hacker. I do my magic with *solder* and power tools.
I started calling myself that sometime around 1975.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079479202k@trad


> You're right about that, but I thought we were talking about
> installations. Churches that pay to have a sound system installed
> write the expense off their taxes immediately,

Churches are non-profit corporations as a rule, and therefore pay no taxes.

>but don't consider it to
> be a source of income, so if it has to be replaced in five years
> (particularly if three interconnected pieces have to be replaced
> because one failed and can't be repaired or directly replaced) they
> see that as an unplanned and unpleasant expense.

First off, since they are non-profit organizations, church accounting is
largely conceptually different from a business. I'm not an accountant, but
basically the idea of equipment as a source of income is pretty strange in a
church. The main income source in a church is contributions. Some churches
sell some tangible products, but as a rule the bulk of the money comes from
so-called free-will gifts and offerings.

Churches are so varied that it's unreasonable to make generalizations about
how a church perceives equipment failure.

> When you're making an investment in a piece of equipment that you
> expect will make you money, that's a different story.

There is generally no concept of equipment making money for a church. At
best, there might be a concept of equipment as something that avoids an
expense.

Churches have been historically been proprietors of long-lasting equipment,
but since church offices generally have modern business machines, they have
some familiarity with equipment that degrades pretty rapidly.

[Arny Krueger]

"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a formal test in RMAA for interdependency of channels - the
>>>> channel separation test. However, this test can be considered to be
>>>> reasonably thorough in just the analog domain. Given that your
>>>> product is a large-scale digital channel multiplexer, it might be
>>>> appropriate to perform other kinds of tests.

>>> I'm a bit confused about this reference to "our product". You do
>>> realize that all this testing on the ADA8000 that we have been
>>> talking about did not employ AudioRail in any way shape or form,
>>> right?
>>
>> Absolutely. You are AudioRail and Behringer is an
>> engineering/marketing firm in Germany that produces lots of audio
>> gear in China.
>
> I'm sure I'm just misunderstanding you in some way. I know that you
> know that AudioRail and Behringer have no affiliation with each other.

> But it sounded like you were implying that somehow AudioRail hardware
> was in the ADA8000 test, which was not the case. The ADA8000 was
> connected directly to a PC using PC sound cards with ADAT Toslink
> cables.

I presumed that you did those tests the simplest way, which would be to
leave the AudioRail out of the picture.

Howeer, speaking about something you might do in the future, you might want
to do end-to-end tests with ADA 8000s at the ends and AudioRail in the
middle. I'm willing to stipulate that the AudioRail is for all practical
purposes a transparent medium for digital audio, but not everybody might be
as convinced about the goodness of digital and AudioRail as I am.

[Garth D. Wiebe]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"Garth D. Wiebe" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There's a formal test in RMAA for interdependency of channels - the
>>>>>channel separation test. However, this test can be considered to be
>>>>>reasonably thorough in just the analog domain. Given that your
>>>>>product is a large-scale digital channel multiplexer, it might be
>>>>>appropriate to perform other kinds of tests.
>>>>
>
>>>>I'm a bit confused about this reference to "our product". You do
>>>>realize that all this testing on the ADA8000 that we have been
>>>>talking about did not employ AudioRail in any way shape or form,
>>>>right?
>>>
>>>Absolutely. You are AudioRail and Behringer is an
>>>engineering/marketing firm in Germany that produces lots of audio
>>>gear in China.
>>
>>I'm sure I'm just misunderstanding you in some way. I know that you
>>know that AudioRail and Behringer have no affiliation with each other.
>
>
>>But it sounded like you were implying that somehow AudioRail hardware
>>was in the ADA8000 test, which was not the case. The ADA8000 was
>>connected directly to a PC using PC sound cards with ADAT Toslink
>>cables.
>
>
> I presumed that you did those tests the simplest way, which would be to
> leave the AudioRail out of the picture.
>
> Howeer, speaking about something you might do in the future, you might want
> to do end-to-end tests with ADA 8000s at the ends and AudioRail in the
> middle. I'm willing to stipulate that the AudioRail is for all practical
> purposes a transparent medium for digital audio, but not everybody might be
> as convinced about the goodness of digital and AudioRail as I am.

Now I see what you are driving at.

Yes, we have posted "with vs. without" tests on the website to
demonstrate the transparency of AudioRail in other test configurations,
but not specifically this one with the ADA8000 loopback. Might be an
additional data point to add.

[WillStG]

<< (james >>

<< WillStG > wrote:
> James - why be so demure? Are you a guy who takes copy protected software
>and finds a way to disable the copy protection or not?

<<I am not. I still don't understand where you got that idea, or what it has
to do with audio equipment. >>

It has been suggested that I have been using the terms "cracker" and
"hacker interchangibly, my bad. But it's the same question whether one is a
Hacker or a cracker actually, hacking other people's systems would be a
tendency to disrepect the property of others, wouldn't it?

What it has to do with audio isn't personal either, I was making a point
about why one have a certain slant on the value of IP rights and so far, you
have said zip that "I think Intellectual property should be respected and
designers and companies deserve respect", in fact you have come off as being
kinda evasive in that regard.

<< Says the guy who thought it was appropriate to imply that I am some sort of
criminal or that it's due to my disrespect for the property of others that I
buy Behringer gear? The only reason I'm still in the
discussion at all is because I am hoping for an apology from you. >>

Show me where I actually said that and I _will_ apologize. What I
actually said was that it wouldn't be surprising if a person who is involved in
activities that are disrespectful of the IP of others only cared about the cost
of a piece of gear. I used the terms cracker and hacker interchangibly, but
hacking into other people's computer systems is as bad as cracking software.
And you have indicated I have a right to not like company for their business
practices - just as you expressed your innate disdain for audio companies when
you said

"Since when do we think corporations operate from a position of "respect"
anyway? How much "respect" do you think YOU will get if you show up at the
club where the execs of ANY of these corporations play golf? "

<<WillStG > Nobody has problem with you owning a crappy mixer. Or a good one.
That is not and has not been the issue. >

<<If that's true, then why all the hot air about "respect for
intellectual property" or "hacker == criminal" and all the other personal crap
you threw at me? >>

Is breaking into other people's computer systems a good thing now? And
you said price was your only concern, well hey, you can buy CD full of cracked
software pretty cheap too. What I suggested was you might be inclined, if you
were indeed a "hacker" as you have publically claimed, to have less respect for
the IP of others than some would. If that's personal, well one should be
willing to stand up for one's own words I think.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > When you're making an investment in a piece of equipment that you
> > expect will make you money, that's a different story.
> >
> >
> I still don't get your point
> I am investing close to 10K$ dumping my copper snake(radial convertible)
> dumping my lexicon efx, eq's, 24 space floater drive/efx rack,700$
> custom patch snake and possibly my lx7/24
> to goto a all digital preamps on stage cat 5 snake(or coax,or glass
> fibre not sure yet) to a Dm1K
> as my main money making rig

My point is that I'm not talking about you, who takes your equipment
out several times a week and gets some money back. It's important to
your business to own equipment that makes your work easier, better,
and less costly. Once you've paid back the cost of a new piece of
equipment, every time you use it after that, it's making you money,
and if replacing it can make your life better, you're ahead of the
game to do so. So I'm not arguing with you there.

I'm talking about a church who pays someone once to install a sound
system which isn't going to bring them any income, and they don't ever
expect to have to spend any more money on sound equipment until the
next flood washes the church away. It will probably work just fine for
several years with no maintenance, and unless there's some smartass
kid "running" the system, nobody will convince them to spend any more
money on audio equipment.

Then one Sunday morning five years later the janitor comes in, turns
on "the sound" and it doesn't work. So next week they try to find the
guy who installed it (it must still be "under warranty," eh?) and he's
no longer around. So they get out the Yellow Pages, call a sound
contractor who comes in, looks it over, and says "Well, this Ethernet
interface at the console end has gone on the fritz. They don't make it
any more so I can't get another one. There are new interfaces that use
the same Ethernet cable that you have here, but I have to get one for
each end. They're better than the ones you have here, but it will cost
you $1500 for the new equipment plus I'll have to recalibrate the
levels since they work differently now. That's not what the customer
was expecting.

The "analog" version of this scenario is "Oh, this connector has a
broken wire. I'll just resolder it. That will be $35."


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> There is generally no concept of equipment making money for a church. At
> best, there might be a concept of equipment as something that avoids an
> expense.

This is exactly my point. Taxes and accounting are irrelevant. It may
be changing because they're getting new computers and printers every
couple of years, but those are things that the people who use and
purchase them can understand because they're the same as what they
have at home. Sound equipment is still strange. I doubt that there are
a significnant number of people in any church who routinely change out
their home audio system every couple of years. And as far as equipment
failures go, they're accustomed to the kind of reliability that lets
them give their parents' stereo to their kids and it stays in service
until it no longer looks cool.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[hank alrich]

WillStG wrote:

> It has been suggested that I have been using the terms "cracker" and
> "hacker interchangibly, my bad. But it's the same question whether one is a
> Hacker or a cracker actually, hacking other people's systems would be a
> tendency to disrepect the property of others, wouldn't it?

No actually, and that's the key disticntion, Will; a cracker is a thief;
a hacker is someone who can fix an app or a system that is delivered
broken, who can work around delivered bugs or shortcomings to get the
job done, and who often writes stuff that is useful to many people.

That said, like categories of humans, a hacker can go wrong, like a
Catholic priest can go wrong. But we musst be careful with the big brush
and not be tarring the innocent.

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079531144k@trad

> In article >
> writes:

>> There is generally no concept of equipment making money for a
>> church. At best, there might be a concept of equipment as something
>> that avoids an expense.

> This is exactly my point. Taxes and accounting are irrelevant. It may
> be changing because they're getting new computers and printers every
> couple of years, but those are things that the people who use and
> purchase them can understand because they're the same as what they
> have at home. Sound equipment is still strange.

Agreed. The only people I would expect to have a feel for this issue would
be the musos, but it seems like most traditional types are still fighting
against the use of audio, as opposed to seeing it as a tool for getting the
word out.

Now, the churches with contemporary music programs should be different, and
IME they are.

> I doubt that there are
> a significant number of people in any church who routinely change out
> their home audio system every couple of years.

Perhaps, but in my context I see a tremendous disconnect between how they
run their own lives and how they run the church. Furthermore, most who have
audio systems of significance have their bucks tied up in HT systems which
furthers the disconnect.

>And as far as equipment
> failures go, they're accustomed to the kind of reliability that lets
> them give their parents' stereo to their kids and it stays in service
> until it no longer looks cool.

Some traditional types seem to hate audio so much they would probably see a
total equipment failure as a plus. Many of them have been performing in the
front of the room so long, so often that they really have no idea what
happens at the back. Interestingly enough, when they sit in the
congregation, they usually sit in front.

[james]

In article >,
WillStG > wrote:

> It has been suggested that I have been using the terms "cracker" and
>"hacker interchangibly, my bad.

Incorrect. Your error began when you decided it was appropriate to
launch a personal insult against me. The whole subject about me being a
"hacker" really has nothing to do with the discussion on this newsgroup.

To be fair, I don't think anyone considers Behringer to be anything
but consumer audio gear, and this is a pro-audio newsgroup. On the
other hand, not all of us musicians and so on are exactly rolling in
dough, so when consumer gear is worth considering, well, then it is.

>But it's the same question whether one is a
>Hacker or a cracker actually, hacking other people's systems would be a
>tendency to disrepect the property of others, wouldn't it?

Whatever you say. Please get over this notion of yours.

> What it has to do with audio isn't personal either

Maybe it's not personal to YOU. You certainly came straight out with
the personal attack against ME, and you owe me a serious apology for
that! Don't you dare try to weasel out of that by claiming it's not
personal! You started in with the ad-hominem attack on me: A pig's ear
didn't do that, YOU did. Now it's too late to say "it's not personal".

You know what, save the apology, because it won't get past my kill file anyway.
I'm insulted. I don't really care if you're the founding member of this
group, or if you're the most respected sound guy in New York, or if it
means I'll never work in TV because I've crossed paths with you...
Can't imagine that a person in your position really has time to play
around with the likes of me anyway.

>"I think Intellectual property should be respected and
>designers and companies deserve respect", in fact you have come off as being
>kinda evasive in that regard.

I don't think it's disrespectful to Mayonaise if I put Mustard on my
sandwich, and I don't think it's disrespectful to anybody at all if I
use a Behringer mixer or if I say to a colleague, "hey, if you need a
low-cost mixer use one of these." It's okay that I don't care about
some alleged contraversy that was settled before it even really became a
legal question in the first place, 5 years ago. Perfectly ok. Not a
question of respect or intellectual property or anything else of that
nature.

If I had to make every buying decision based on whether a given company
had a 100% record of being PERCEIVED as having some measure of "respect"
for every other company, I'm afraid the list of corporations with whom I
could do business would grow rather short.

> Show me where I actually said that and I _will_ apologize.

What you needed to apologize for, when you had the opportunity, was
using a 10-year-old email to the abuse desk of, who was it, AOL or
Internet Direct?, something absolutely unrelated to audio discussion,
and tried in a very stupid and abusive way to leverage something I said
there so as to imply that I am some sort of criminal.

This has nothing to do with audio gear, nothing to do with Behringer,
and everything to do with personal abuse toward me, by you.

I asked you to apologize, and you declined the opportunity. That's the
end of the story as far as I am concerned.


>What I
>actually said was that it wouldn't be surprising if a person who is involved in
>activities that are disrespectful of the IP of others only cared about the cost
>of a piece of gear.


What you meant was, because you assume that I am a sociopath or a
criminal, then that is the reason I don't care about anything besides
quality for price. But that's really not the whole story. There's the
very important fact that I believe the whole premise of the argument
against Behringer is based on an exaggeration at best, and an outright
falsehood at worst. In other words, there is no reason whatsoever to
consider anything except construction, quality and price. I certainly
don't want to let "contraversy" colour my opinions.

>I used the terms cracker and hacker interchangibly, but
>hacking into other people's computer systems is as bad as cracking software.
>And you have indicated I have a right to not like company for their business
>practices

Yes. All kinds of things that are "good" and "bad" are worthy of
consideration. Do they have anything at all to do with audio? Or are
you still trying to get the last word in your line of insulting,
personally offensive remarks toward me?


> Is breaking into other people's computer systems a good thing now?

Okay, you brought that up again. I'm insulted AGAIN.

NOBODY is breaking into computer systems. Why do you insist on
repeating this nonsense? And why don't you see how entirely
inappropriate it is?

>What I suggested was you might be inclined, if you
>were indeed a "hacker" as you have publically claimed.

Good lord, man. I called myself a hacker because I design my own amps
and eq's, work with TTL circuits, car fuel systems, I make my own
musical instruments, and I even do some software. Where, oh where,
did you get the idea that I am a thief, vandal, or any of the other
things that you suggest? When did anybody say anything about breaking
into computer systems, copying software or music or video inappropriately,
or anything of that nature that leads to your argument that *I* lack
respect for copyrights or patents?

>And
>you said price was your only concern, well hey, you can buy CD full of cracked
>software pretty cheap too.

You crossed the line, again. I have a solid complaint against your abusive
behavior in this forum. Please desist and cease.


Regards,

James M.
Electronic Musician, Hardware Hacker, and Shiftless Layabout

[WillStG]

>: (james)
> Your error began when you decided it was appropriate to
>launch a personal insult against me. The whole subject about me being a
>"hacker" really has nothing to do with the discussion on this newsgroup.

You have yet to show me exactly what the personal insult was. Do that and
maybe we can get somewhere. And I didn't even say you were a hacker, I asked
you if *you* hadn't claimed to be one publically.

>
>Maybe it's not personal to YOU. You certainly came straight out with
>the personal attack against ME, and you owe me a serious apology for
>that! Don't you dare try to weasel out of that by claiming it's not
>personal! You started in with the ad-hominem attack on me: A pig's ear
>didn't do that, YOU did. Now it's too late to say "it's not personal".

Again, for the upteenth time, quote the personal insult.
>What you needed to apologize for, when you had the opportunity, was
>using a 10-year-old email to the abuse desk of, who was it, AOL or
>Internet Direct?, something absolutely unrelated to audio discussion,
>and tried in a very stupid and abusive way to leverage something I said
>there so as to imply that I am some sort of criminal.

Criminal? Not at all. I said that it would not be surprising if a person
who is involved in activities that are disrespectful of the IP of others
wouldn't care much about the behavior of a company in that regard. **** man,
people get ****ed in the music business when other people cop their guitar
licks, their song ideas and so forth, why can't you accept that a creative
designer might feel similarly about a compressor or effects unit they designed?
That's my point.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Kurt Albershardt]

WillStG wrote:

> << (james >>
>
> << WillStG > wrote:
>
>>> James - why be so demure? Are you a guy who takes copy protected software
>>> and finds a way to disable the copy protection or not?
>>
>>
>> I am not. I still don't understand where you got that idea, or what it has
>> to do with audio equipment.
>
> It has been suggested that I have been using the terms "cracker" and
> "hacker interchangibly, my bad.

Thanks for acknowledging that.


> But it's the same question whether one is a
> Hacker or a cracker actually, hacking other people's systems would be a
> tendency to disrepect the property of others, wouldn't it?

Hacking someone else's system without their permission would be cracking.

[WillStG]

> (hank alrich)

>No actually, and that's the key disticntion, Will; a cracker is a thief;
>a hacker is someone who can fix an app or a system that is delivered
>broken, who can work around delivered bugs or shortcomings to get the
>job done, and who often writes stuff that is useful to many people.

Well, a hacker in the context that Mark claimed to be was clearly a threat
he might screw up a spammer's computer system. But if he want's to disavow
that implication fine, I *asked* him if it was the case, I didn't tell him it
was the case. And while I can sympathize with his sentiment towards spammers,
one would think that bent would engender a little sympathy for the idea that
this group shouldn't be the object of marketing ad campaigns, but apparently
not.

>That said, like categories of humans, a hacker can go wrong, like a
>Catholic priest can go wrong. But we musst be careful with the big brush
>and not be tarring the innocent.

Agreed. l apologize if I have besmirched the rep of any who say they are
hackers, who don't actually break into other people's computer systems or
reverse engineer software, and for whom "hacking" is limited to the creation of
divots on the Golf course and bad swings on the driving range...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Now, the churches with contemporary music programs should be different, and
> IME they are.

Agreed. Those are the ones who spend a quarter of a million dollars on
a sound and video system, and have someone in a real staff position to
operate, maintain, and update it. My dealer calls a couple of those
"good customers."


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Yuri T.]

Maybe for studio gear. I certainly know of thier PA gear being rugged
as hell and reasonably priced. Hey it doesn't sound like an EAW but it
works at every gig even after the beer is spilled in it!


>
> And then it'll continue to be mixed. See Peavey -- they made a couple of
> pieces of gear universally acknowledged to be excellent (the tubed mike
> preamp and compressor), so we know they can really do it when they want to.
> But we also know that, most of the time, they don't want to.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

[WillStG]

>Kurt Albershardt

>Hacking someone else's system without their permission would be cracking.

Or hacking - Hack (v) "to gain access to a computer illegally "...
(Webster's.)


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079546991k@trad

> In article >
> writes:

>> Now, the churches with contemporary music programs should be
>> different, and IME they are.

> Agreed. Those are the ones who spend a quarter of a million dollars on
> a sound and video system, and have someone in a real staff position to
> operate, maintain, and update it. My dealer calls a couple of those
> "good customers."

It takes some kind of super church with thousands of members to require and
support an effort like that. A typical large metro area probably has less
than a dozen churches that large. I can think of a few candidate churches on
my side of Detroit.

The average church in the US has somewhat more than 100 members.

[Ryan]

(hank alrich) wrote in message >...
> WillStG wrote:
>
> > It has been suggested that I have been using the terms "cracker" and
> > "hacker interchangibly, my bad. But it's the same question whether one is a
> > Hacker or a cracker actually, hacking other people's systems would be a
> > tendency to disrepect the property of others, wouldn't it?
>
> No actually, and that's the key disticntion, Will; a cracker is a thief;
> a hacker is someone who can fix an app or a system that is delivered
> broken, who can work around delivered bugs or shortcomings to get the
> job done, and who often writes stuff that is useful to many people.
>
> That said, like categories of humans, a hacker can go wrong, like a
> Catholic priest can go wrong. But we musst be careful with the big brush
> and not be tarring the innocent.


I thought a cracker was a racist white guy. <g>

[TonyP]

"Andy Cullen" > wrote in message
om...
> Dear Tony,
>
> the mic preamps in the ADA8000 do not use op-amps - they are based on
> a low noise conjugate-pair transistor pre-amp circuit similar to that
> used in our mixing consoles.
> We do utilise TL074 op-amps in the line-level circuitry, and the LM339
> is used in its intended role as a comparator.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm ready to buy one when the BCA2000 is
released :-)

TonyP.

[TonyP]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> It uses no feedback--changing gain dynamically reconfigures the circuit.
The net result is an EIN that remains nearly constant at gain settings from
35 dB to 70 dB.

Actually the EIN will remain nearly constant in a feedback controlled amp
too.

> Gain still affects the S/N, but the realworld performance is excellent
under a wide range of conditions.

I have no doubt it is a great pre-amp, but it's amazing how many pre-amps
are nearing the theoretical limits. The differences are getting increasingly
smaller IMO.
Of course I can see other benefits too, which have nothing to do with the
current topic though.

TonyP.

[hank alrich]

TonyP wrote:

> I have no doubt it is a great pre-amp, but it's amazing how many pre-amps
> are nearing the theoretical limits. The differences are getting increasingly
> smaller IMO.
> Of course I can see other benefits too, which have nothing to do with the
> current topic though.

Numbers aside, the Gordon preamp captures sources with startling
reality, and that is in comparison to some other very, very fine pres. I
urge anyone interested in mic preamps to give it a listen if they get
the opportunity.

--
ha

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:21:23 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Numbers aside, the Gordon preamp captures sources with startling
>reality, and that is in comparison to some other very, very fine pres. I
>urge anyone interested in mic preamps to give it a listen if they get
>the opportunity.

There's a school of thought in tweakdom that maintains that loop
feedback has some inherent effect on sound. I'd admit to almost
subscribing to it, except I don't pick fights.

Chris Hornbeck

"This life has been a test. If this had been an actual life,
you would have received instructions on where to go and what to do."
- Angela Chase (Claire Danes)

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck > wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:21:23 GMT, (hank alrich)
>wrote:
>
>>Numbers aside, the Gordon preamp captures sources with startling
>>reality, and that is in comparison to some other very, very fine pres. I
>>urge anyone interested in mic preamps to give it a listen if they get
>>the opportunity.
>
>There's a school of thought in tweakdom that maintains that loop
>feedback has some inherent effect on sound. I'd admit to almost
>subscribing to it, except I don't pick fights.

There is a good discussion on bad feedback loop designs in some of Marshall
Leach's early articles in Audio in the seventies. He goes into some detail
about what high feedback levels around an amplifier due to alter various
distortion modes in the amplifier.

I don't think global feedback is a bad thing in any way, but I think that
people who just use huge amounts of global feedback to make the continuous
signal distortion specifications look good rather than actually improving
the linearity of the individual stages should probably be put in jail.

Right now, in part because of this sort of thing, there is a big reaction
against global feedback in the high end audio world and everybody is big on
amplifier circuits that use no global feedback loops. I think that is throwing
the baby out with the bathwater, but still some of them sound good. That's
what counts, anyway.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:21:23 GMT, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
>> Numbers aside, the Gordon preamp captures sources with startling
>> reality, and that is in comparison to some other very, very fine
>> pres. I urge anyone interested in mic preamps to give it a listen if
>> they get the opportunity.
>
> There's a school of thought in tweakdom that maintains that loop
> feedback has some inherent effect on sound. I'd admit to almost
> subscribing to it, except I don't pick fights.

I subscribe fully to the school of thought that loop inverse feedback has
some inherent effect on sound. Engineered with reasonable levels of
competency, loop inverse feedback gives equipment a higher probability of
sounding good, and doing under a wider range of build and operating
conditions.

[Grant Carpenter]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Kurt Albershardt" wrote
>
> > > It uses no feedback--changing gain dynamically reconfigures the
> > > circuit. The net result is an EIN that remains nearly constant at
> > > gain settings from 35 dB to 70 dB.
>
> > > Gain still affects the S/N, but the realworld performance is
> > > excellent under a wide range of conditions.
>
> > > http://www.gordonaudio.com/
>
> > I dunno. As a rule, any claim of "no feedback" in a real-world audio amp is
> > a false claim.
>
> > If they said that they don't vary gain by varying feedback, that could be
> > true.
>
> > If they said that there was no loop feedback, that could be true as well.
>
> > However, it's exceedingly hard to build a real world amplifier without some
> > kind of local or loop feedback, usually both.

I agree. In most (er, many, some, a few?) circles, "no feedback" in
the context of audio product description implies ac negative loop
feedback. I assume "ac negative loop" gets dropped for brevity at the
risk of sloppy terminology, although "loop feedback" is mentioned in
the text - I'll talk to Marketing. Anyway, the Gordon uses two
variable-gain, open-loop (again, ac loop) amplifier stages with the
second stage switched out at the lower gain settings. Loop feedback
is used throughout the pre, but only dc loop and local feedback are
used around the audio path.

> > I've also got problems with the claim that "The primary source of distortion
> > in any preamplifier is gain.". Conventional wisdom is that the primary
> > source of distortion is signal amplitude. Obviously the two are related,
> > but that involves another independent variable - input signal level.

I would suggest that distortion increasing with signal amplitude is a
characteristic of gain with gain being the root cause. Minimizing the
open-loop gain mitigates this characteristic.

> > Hey, the amps might be great, but the advertising seems a tad weak.

Please, don't listen to me, listen to the preamp.

Grant Carpenter
Gordon Instruments

[Grant Carpenter]

> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3block.gif
> >> By using two cascaded amps each with a limited number of gain
> >> steps (3 or 4), they can get a goodly number of different gains (12
> >> if http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3gc2chb.jpg can be taken at
> >> face value) without a humongous amount of circuitry.
> >
> > Gain is adjustable from 10 dB to 70 dB in the Model 3 (13 steps of 5
> > dB each.)
>
> The circuit board picture seems to show two groups of amplifiers, with 4
> elements each. That could give up to 16 steps, no?
>
> http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3preinta.jpg
>
> Warning, my ability to analyze pictures of circuit cards has already been
> questioned already once this week!
>
> ;-)

There are only two stages, each with six steps from 10-35dB, for
thirteen steps from 10-70dB, with the second stage cutting in at 40dB.
Each step can be calibrated and is "gain staged" to optimize dynamic
range and distortion. Most of the circuitry in the photo is for
support functions, primarily: closed-loop voltage and current
regulators for each stage, ten discrete closed-loop supply regulators
per channel, output load compensation, and gain control.

Grant Carpenter
Gordon Instruments

[Grant Carpenter]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
> Chris Hornbeck > wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:21:23 GMT, (hank alrich)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Numbers aside, the Gordon preamp captures sources with startling
> >>reality, and that is in comparison to some other very, very fine pres. I
> >>urge anyone interested in mic preamps to give it a listen if they get
> >>the opportunity.
> >
> >There's a school of thought in tweakdom that maintains that loop
> >feedback has some inherent effect on sound. I'd admit to almost
> >subscribing to it, except I don't pick fights.
>
> There is a good discussion on bad feedback loop designs in some of Marshall
> Leach's early articles in Audio in the seventies. He goes into some detail
> about what high feedback levels around an amplifier due to alter various
> distortion modes in the amplifier.
>
> I don't think global feedback is a bad thing in any way, but I think that
> people who just use huge amounts of global feedback to make the continuous
> signal distortion specifications look good rather than actually improving
> the linearity of the individual stages should probably be put in jail.
>
> Right now, in part because of this sort of thing, there is a big reaction
> against global feedback in the high end audio world and everybody is big on
> amplifier circuits that use no global feedback loops. I think that is throwing
> the baby out with the bathwater, but still some of them sound good. That's
> what counts, anyway.
> --scott

Questions of my sanity aside (ref: a previous thread), I agree with
you, although I went the "no feedback" route over twenty-five years
ago based on my own research (and people thought I was nuts then,
too).

Grant Carpenter
Gordon Instruments

[hank alrich]

Grant Carpenter wrote:

> Please, don't listen to me, listen to the preamp.

Been there and done that, and now I'm looking into bank robbery.

<It's a joke, people.>

Bitchin' preamp, Grant. Never heard anything like it.

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[mr.gefell]

>
> Numbers aside, the Gordon preamp captures sources with startling
> reality, and that is in comparison to some other very, very fine pres. I
> urge anyone interested in mic preamps to give it a listen if they get
> the opportunity.

ditto.the resolution is spectacular....


--muj

[[email protected]]

Lines: 68
Message-ID: >
X-Trace: bhmkggakljkaanefdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbodi defnlogpdjddgnalcpdfdfhdacgfjaihikgmcidbgnlbncbppi ejolejcelckfoeeifleajbajgfpimpnkkbjepilmaknmjcinkb kbgoimmfac
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:53:59 EST
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:53:59 GMT
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.audio.pro:1052295


On 2004-03-17 said:
>I'm talking about a church who pays someone once to install a sound
>system which isn't going to bring them any income, and they don't
>ever expect to have to spend any more money on sound equipment
<snip>
>Then one Sunday morning five years later the janitor comes in, turns
>on "the sound" and it doesn't work. So next week they try to find
>the guy who installed it (it must still be "under warranty," eh?)
>and he's no longer around. So they get out the Yellow Pages, call a
>sound contractor who comes in, looks it over, and says "Well, this
>Ethernet interface at the console end has gone on the fritz. They
>don't make it any more so I can't get another one. There are new
>interfaces that use the same Ethernet cable that you have here, but
>I have to get one for each end. They're better than the ones you
>have here, but it will cost you $1500 for the new equipment plus
>I'll have to recalibrate the levels since they work differently now.
>That's not what the customer was expecting.
>The "analog" version of this scenario is "Oh, this connector has a
>broken wire. I'll just resolder it. That will be $35."
>--
And has one who's been on both ends in a church, as one of the board
of the church and also the guy who was responsible for the sound
upgrade I would have never argued to go with a digital anything for my
church.

My first consideration is just as Mike described it. I'm going to be
gone someday and when something goes wrong God only knows who's going
to get the call to make it work again. Xlr connectors can be
resoldered; it's familiar technology to a lot of us old farts. We can
make it work again.

AS one who was both responsible for the sound system and a member of
the board I wanted this system to provide them many years of service
because I knew that until somebody else died and gave them a bequedst
to do it it wouldn't get done. A lady's bequest was specifically for
a better system so that many of our elderly members with hearing
difficulties could hear better. IF that church is still surviving
twenty years from now I expect when I go back to my old boyhood home
to visit I'll find that same system still in operation no matter how
far it's deteriorated. I'd been fighting the put out small fires
with their sound systems for years. FIrst there was total junk, then
marginally usable then we finally got something installed which met
their needs and could truly be expected to do the required job.


FOr my part I'd probably be awhile before I went with a digital snake
for any system I expected to operate as I haven't seen a digital board
I liked to operate yet. I like my analog interface, each channel has
knobs switches buttons and faders with no menu selecting necessary.

IN fact I went with the ubiquitous DBx 2231's for my graphics in my
foh and monitor rigs because I'm leery of something like the Driverack
systems and their menus. THis old blind man can ring out a system by
grabbing the appropriate controls on the analog graphic. THat could
be interesting if I should lose my place in those menus while trying
to quickly ring out a system.



Richard Webb
Electric Spider Productions
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--