Behringer DEQ2496 bench test redux

[Ron Capik]

OK, I believe I owe a follow-up post to my odd bench test results
for my Behringer DEQ 2496. After listening to the box I do agree
that it is quite transparent as well as being a veritable audio Swiss
Army knife. In fact I picked up two more units for my venue.

The quick and dirty tests I ran indicated lots of phase problems
and more causing me to start that bench test thread. I eventually
did some listening tests and the listening test didn't support the
bench data. So I re ran the tests with better [USB] inputs and the
new results supported the transparency of the listening tests.

My first tests were done using room noise fed to the
computer's sound card, with a split going through the DEQ.
The test signal was room noise that was a mix of computer fan
noise and the TV into an SM58.

It took some time to track down what I believe to be the source
of error in my first set of tests. After some experimentation I was
able to simulate the anomalous data. The simulated data consisted
of a mix of a bandwidth limited signal plus some uncorrelated
broad band noise.

Long story short, I believe the uncorrelated noise of the sound
card mixed with the bandwidth limited signal created the anomalous
results. [something to the effect of the in band signal having a higher
SNR than the out of band signal] Anyway, it seems the on board
sound card is a lot worse than I thought. It was a dumb oversight
and I really should have known better!

I did kind of enjoy the (somewhat deserved) roast as it caused me
to reevaluate my test procedures, etc.

Enough for now.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Ron Capik wrote:
> OK, I believe I owe a follow-up post to my odd bench test results
> for my Behringer DEQ 2496. After listening to the box I do agree
> that it is quite transparent as well as being a veritable audio Swiss
> Army knife. In fact I picked up two more units for my venue.
>
> The quick and dirty tests I ran indicated lots of phase problems
> and more causing me to start that bench test thread. I eventually
> did some listening tests and the listening test didn't support the
> bench data. So I re ran the tests with better [USB] inputs and the
> new results supported the transparency of the listening tests.
>
> My first tests were done using room noise fed to the
> computer's sound card, with a split going through the DEQ.
> The test signal was room noise that was a mix of computer fan
> noise and the TV into an SM58.
>
> It took some time to track down what I believe to be the source
> of error in my first set of tests. After some experimentation I was
> able to simulate the anomalous data. The simulated data consisted
> of a mix of a bandwidth limited signal plus some uncorrelated
> broad band noise.
>
> Long story short, I believe the uncorrelated noise of the sound
> card mixed with the bandwidth limited signal created the anomalous
> results. [something to the effect of the in band signal having a higher
> SNR than the out of band signal] Anyway, it seems the on board
> sound card is a lot worse than I thought. It was a dumb oversight
> and I really should have known better!
>
> I did kind of enjoy the (somewhat deserved) roast as it caused me
> to reevaluate my test procedures, etc.
>
> Enough for now.
>
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik
> --

We've just got one to evaluate, however the BIG drawback is that there
is no PC setup.
On a related topic, what's your opinion of the DCX2496?

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Ron Capik]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

>
> < .....snip.. >
> >
> > Ron Capik
> > --
>
> We've just got one to evaluate, however the BIG drawback is that there
> is no PC setup.
> On a related topic, what's your opinion of the DCX2496?
>
> --
> Dirk

The old ultracurve had the EQ Designer software but I didn't find
a similar program for the DEQ2496.

What PC setup functions are you looking for?

You can up/down load SysEx files to your PC, and you can do
master/slave control of several units via MIDI.

I started to write a SysEx editor but decided it was too much work
for the amount I'd use it.

For my venue these boxes will be replacing some graphic EQs, so I
used the auto RTA to copy the EQs transfer functions. The RTA
makes an inverse of your EQ settings. Save that to memory, then
use recall minus to re invert. I believe this technique is more
accurate than reading and transcribing the slider values off
the old graphic EQ, and it's probably faster too.

I've never used the DCX2496.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Phil Allison]

"Ron Capik"
>
> My first tests were done using room noise fed to the
> computer's sound card, with a split going through the DEQ.
> The test signal was room noise that was a mix of computer fan
> noise and the TV into an SM58.


** Leeme get this straight.

1. You have a PC but no access to basic audio test equipment like a signal
generator or scope.

2. You did not even consider using tones or square waves a signal from a CD
as a test signal.

2. You have no bloody idea how to do audio testing - at all.



> It took some time to track down what I believe to be the source
> of error in my first set of tests.


** The sources are covered in points 1 to 3 above.


( snip asinine verbal diarrhoea)



> I did kind of enjoy the (somewhat deserved) roast as it caused me
> to reevaluate my test procedures, etc.


** YOU are just another

TROLL & ****ING IDIOT - Capik.


**** OFF.



......... Phil

[George Gleason]

Thanks for the update
it takes a good man to figure out that he had some errors in his tests and
come back to explain them
kudos to you
george

[Gene Sweeny]

Ron Capik wrote:
> So I re ran the tests with better [USB] inputs and the
> new results supported the transparency of the listening tests.

What type of software are you using to measure? Smaart?

[Ron Capik]

Gene Sweeny wrote:

> Ron Capik wrote:
> > So I re ran the tests with better [USB] inputs and the
> > new results supported the transparency of the listening tests.
>
> What type of software are you using to measure? Smaart?

I don't do enough of this to justify the purchase of Smaart or
other such packages, so I wrote a program that uses complex
FFTs, cross power spectrums, etc. to produce things like
transfer functions, Nyquist plots, correlation spectra, and
delay [echogram] plots. On another note, I also wrote a
program like Sonic Foundry's [Sony's] acoustic mirror to
generate impulse responses.

Being semi-retired I do most of this stuff for fun.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Phil Allison]

"Ron Capik"

> I don't do enough of this to justify the purchase of Smaart or
> other such packages, so I wrote a program that uses complex
> FFTs, cross power spectrums, etc. to produce things like
> transfer functions, Nyquist plots, correlation spectra, and
> delay [echogram] plots. On another note, I also wrote a
> program like Sonic Foundry's [Sony's] acoustic mirror to
> generate impulse responses.
>
> Being semi-retired I do most of this stuff for fun.


** Leeme get this straight.


1. You have a PC but no access to basic audio test equipment like a signal
generator or scope.

2. You did not even consider using tones or a square wave signal from a CD
as a test signal.

2. You have no bloody idea how to do audio testing - at all.


> It took some time to track down what I believe to be the source
> of error in my first set of tests.


** The sources are covered in points 1 to 3 above.

( snip nauseating, asinine verbal diarrhoea )


> I did kind of enjoy the (somewhat deserved) roast as it caused me
> to reevaluate my test procedures, etc.


** YOU are just another

PITA TROLL & a ****ING IDIOT - Capik.

**** OFF.




......... Phil

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Ron Capik wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
>> < .....snip.. >
>>> Ron Capik
>>> --
>> We've just got one to evaluate, however the BIG drawback is that there
>> is no PC setup.
>> On a related topic, what's your opinion of the DCX2496?
>>
>> --
>> Dirk
>
> The old ultracurve had the EQ Designer software but I didn't find
> a similar program for the DEQ2496.
>
> What PC setup functions are you looking for?

Mouse control of the filter curves and graphic eq sliders

> You can up/down load SysEx files to your PC, and you can do
> master/slave control of several units via MIDI.
>
> I started to write a SysEx editor but decided it was too much work
> for the amount I'd use it.
>
> For my venue these boxes will be replacing some graphic EQs, so I
> used the auto RTA to copy the EQs transfer functions. The RTA
> makes an inverse of your EQ settings. Save that to memory, then
> use recall minus to re invert. I believe this technique is more
> accurate than reading and transcribing the slider values off
> the old graphic EQ, and it's probably faster too.
>
> I've never used the DCX2496.

We're just getting it set up now, will probably be finished sometime
tomorrow.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Marky A]

Anyone else want to vote Phil as the biggest asshole of all time? just
a thought...

[liquidator]

"Marky A" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Anyone else want to vote Phil as the biggest asshole of all time? just
> a thought...
>

Most impolite, possibly. But don't discount that Phil HAS bothered to learn.

There are many that are more polite than Phil but don't know anything. They
are a lot more dangerous. I'd take Phil anytime over them.

Phil is Phil. He's always been that way and always will be. Don't like him
just ignore him, but you may miss learning something.

Real easy to just Block Sender.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Marky A]

Impolite is not saying thank you. Going out of your way to spout that
bile is socio/psychopathic.


liquidator wrote:
> "Marky A" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Anyone else want to vote Phil as the biggest asshole of all time? just
> > a thought...
> >
>
> Most impolite, possibly. But don't discount that Phil HAS bothered to learn.
>
> There are many that are more polite than Phil but don't know anything. They
> are a lot more dangerous. I'd take Phil anytime over them.
>
> Phil is Phil. He's always been that way and always will be. Don't like him
> just ignore him, but you may miss learning something.
>
> Real easy to just Block Sender.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[liquidator]

"Marky A" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Impolite is not saying thank you. Going out of your way to spout that
> bile is socio/psychopathic.
>
>
Quite possibly true.

I read Phil's posts- if he goes off too deep I just quit reading and move
on.

If they bother you that much just quit reading them.

I did for a while.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Phil Allison]

"Marky A" > wrote in message
oups.com...


** Groper Half-Wit Alert !!


> Impolite is not saying thank you.


** Laughably stupid remark.


> Going out of your way to spout that
> bile is socio/psychopathic.


** Like this recent post for example:

" Anyone else want to vote Phil as the biggest asshole of all time? just
a thought "

What kind of hate filled, twisted psychopath posts garbage like that, I
wonder ???

Not you - Narky ???






........ Phil

[MD]

Ron Capik wrote:
> OK, I believe I owe a follow-up post to my odd bench test results
> for my Behringer DEQ 2496. After listening to the box I do agree
> that it is quite transparent as well as being a veritable audio Swiss
> Army knife. In fact I picked up two more units for my venue.
>
> The quick and dirty tests I ran indicated lots of phase problems
> and more causing me to start that bench test thread. I eventually
> did some listening tests and the listening test didn't support the
> bench data. So I re ran the tests with better [USB] inputs and the
> new results supported the transparency of the listening tests.
>
> My first tests were done using room noise fed to the
> computer's sound card, with a split going through the DEQ.
> The test signal was room noise that was a mix of computer fan
> noise and the TV into an SM58.
>
> It took some time to track down what I believe to be the source
> of error in my first set of tests. After some experimentation I was
> able to simulate the anomalous data. The simulated data consisted
> of a mix of a bandwidth limited signal plus some uncorrelated
> broad band noise.
>
> Long story short, I believe the uncorrelated noise of the sound
> card mixed with the bandwidth limited signal created the anomalous
> results. [something to the effect of the in band signal having a higher
> SNR than the out of band signal] Anyway, it seems the on board
> sound card is a lot worse than I thought. It was a dumb oversight
> and I really should have known better!
>
> I did kind of enjoy the (somewhat deserved) roast as it caused me
> to reevaluate my test procedures, etc.
>
> Enough for now.
>
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik
> --
>
>
I own the unit. It does add a trace of noise

[hank alrich]

liquidator wrote:

> "Marky A" wrote...
> > Anyone else want to vote Phil as the biggest asshole of all time? just
> > a thought...

> Most impolite, possibly. But don't discount that Phil HAS bothered to learn.

> There are many that are more polite than Phil but don't know anything. They
> are a lot more dangerous. I'd take Phil anytime over them.

> Phil is Phil. He's always been that way and always will be. Don't like him
> just ignore him, but you may miss learning something.

> Real easy to just Block Sender.


Amen.

--
ha

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Ron Capik wrote:
>> OK, I believe I owe a follow-up post to my odd bench test results
>> for my Behringer DEQ 2496. After listening to the box I do agree
>> that it is quite transparent as well as being a veritable audio Swiss
>> Army knife. In fact I picked up two more units for my venue.
>>
>> The quick and dirty tests I ran indicated lots of phase problems
>> and more causing me to start that bench test thread. I eventually
>> did some listening tests and the listening test didn't support the
>> bench data. So I re ran the tests with better [USB] inputs and the
>> new results supported the transparency of the listening tests.
>>
>> My first tests were done using room noise fed to the
>> computer's sound card, with a split going through the DEQ.
>> The test signal was room noise that was a mix of computer fan
>> noise and the TV into an SM58.
>>
>> It took some time to track down what I believe to be the source
>> of error in my first set of tests. After some experimentation I was
>> able to simulate the anomalous data. The simulated data consisted
>> of a mix of a bandwidth limited signal plus some uncorrelated
>> broad band noise.
>>
>> Long story short, I believe the uncorrelated noise of the sound
>> card mixed with the bandwidth limited signal created the anomalous
>> results. [something to the effect of the in band signal having a higher
>> SNR than the out of band signal] Anyway, it seems the on board
>> sound card is a lot worse than I thought. It was a dumb oversight
>> and I really should have known better!
>>
>> I did kind of enjoy the (somewhat deserved) roast as it caused me
>> to reevaluate my test procedures, etc.
>>
>> Enough for now.
>>
>> Later...
>>
>> Ron Capik
>> --
>
> We've just got one to evaluate, however the BIG drawback is that there
> is no PC setup.
> On a related topic, what's your opinion of the DCX2496?

My first impressions of the DCX2496... very good.
*Less* noisy than the Soundweb 9088, 1/20 the price of the XTA 428 and
almost as good for what I want. Not as nice to program as either - not
as flexible as the Soundweb, but not much different from the XTA. The
actual sound is comparable to both.

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[mackerr]

Ron Capik wrote:
>
> I don't do enough of this to justify the purchase of Smaart or
> other such packages, so I wrote a program that uses complex
> FFTs, cross power spectrums, etc. to produce things like
> transfer functions, Nyquist plots, correlation spectra, and
> delay [echogram] plots. On another note, I also wrote a
> program like Sonic Foundry's [Sony's] acoustic mirror to
> generate impulse responses.
>

If you did have Smaart, and access to a couple of different firmware
versions for the DEQ2496, you might have found the source of the
problem in all these discussions. Here is a link to a thread with some
Smaart screenshots showing the polarity with firmware v1.2b and 1.4.
These are on the same physical device with the same test conditions.
Version 1.2b inverts the polarity, v1.4 does not. Since he only tested
those 2 firmware versions it is impossible to know what other firmware
versions might have done.

http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/147990/377/#msg_147990

Mac

[[email protected]]

mackerr wrote:
> Ron Capik wrote:
> >
> > I don't do enough of this to justify the purchase of Smaart or
> > other such packages, so I wrote a program that uses complex
> > FFTs, cross power spectrums, etc. to produce things like
> > transfer functions, Nyquist plots, correlation spectra, and
> > delay [echogram] plots. On another note, I also wrote a
> > program like Sonic Foundry's [Sony's] acoustic mirror to
> > generate impulse responses.
> >
>
> If you did have Smaart, and access to a couple of different firmware
> versions for the DEQ2496, you might have found the source of the
> problem in all these discussions. Here is a link to a thread with some
> Smaart screenshots showing the polarity with firmware v1.2b and 1.4.
> These are on the same physical device with the same test conditions.
> Version 1.2b inverts the polarity, v1.4 does not. Since he only tested
> those 2 firmware versions it is impossible to know what other firmware
> versions might have done.
>
> http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/147990/377/#msg_147990

Actually, that unit I tested came with v1.3 firmware. I had posted a
test with that version in a different thread. I didn't find it
necessary to repost there.

Here's the original test of the v1.3 firmware (though I didn't state
it).

http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/147488/13962/0///0/#msg_147488

[RyanL]

mackerr wrote:
> Ron Capik wrote:
> >
> > I don't do enough of this to justify the purchase of Smaart or
> > other such packages, so I wrote a program that uses complex
> > FFTs, cross power spectrums, etc. to produce things like
> > transfer functions, Nyquist plots, correlation spectra, and
> > delay [echogram] plots. On another note, I also wrote a
> > program like Sonic Foundry's [Sony's] acoustic mirror to
> > generate impulse responses.
> >
>
> If you did have Smaart, and access to a couple of different firmware
> versions for the DEQ2496, you might have found the source of the
> problem in all these discussions. Here is a link to a thread with some
> Smaart screenshots showing the polarity with firmware v1.2b and 1.4.
> These are on the same physical device with the same test conditions.
> Version 1.2b inverts the polarity, v1.4 does not. Since he only tested
> those 2 firmware versions it is impossible to know what other firmware
> versions might have done.
>
> http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/147990/377/#msg_147990

Actually, that unit I tested came with v1.3 firmware. I had posted a
test with that version in a different thread. I didn't find it
necessary to repost there.

Here's the original test of the v1.3 firmware (though I didn't state
it).

http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/147488/13962/0///0/#msg_147488

[RyanL]

Ron Capik wrote:
> OK, I believe I owe a follow-up post to my odd bench test results
> for my Behringer DEQ 2496. After listening to the box I do agree
> that it is quite transparent as well as being a veritable audio Swiss
> Army knife. In fact I picked up two more units for my venue.

They are an impressive package and great sounding EQ.

> The quick and dirty tests I ran indicated lots of phase problems
> and more causing me to start that bench test thread. I eventually
> did some listening tests and the listening test didn't support the
> bench data. So I re ran the tests with better [USB] inputs and the
> new results supported the transparency of the listening tests.

Exaclty what kind of phase problems did you see?

> My first tests were done using room noise fed to the
> computer's sound card, with a split going through the DEQ.
> The test signal was room noise that was a mix of computer fan
> noise and the TV into an SM58.

Why not pink noise?

> It took some time to track down what I believe to be the source
> of error in my first set of tests. After some experimentation I was
> able to simulate the anomalous data. The simulated data consisted
> of a mix of a bandwidth limited signal plus some uncorrelated
> broad band noise.
>
> Long story short, I believe the uncorrelated noise of the sound
> card mixed with the bandwidth limited signal created the anomalous
> results. [something to the effect of the in band signal having a higher
> SNR than the out of band signal] Anyway, it seems the on board
> sound card is a lot worse than I thought. It was a dumb oversight
> and I really should have known better!
>
> I did kind of enjoy the (somewhat deserved) roast as it caused me
> to reevaluate my test procedures, etc.

I don't understand your test methodology. It seems to me that
listening tests combined with analysis of some kind of FFT software
like Smaart would have been completely acceptable.

[Phil Allison]

"RyanL"

> I don't understand your test methodology.


** Nor did the OP.


> It seems to me that
> listening tests combined with analysis of some kind of FFT software
> like Smaart would have been completely acceptable.


** So you too have no idea how to use a simple square wave test to check on
relative phase shift ?

Yawn - another digital puke.





.......... Phil

[Ron Capik]

RyanL wrote:

> Ron Capik wrote:
> < ...snip.. >
> it is quite transparent as well as being a veritable audio Swiss
> > Army knife. In fact I picked up two more units for my venue.

In the previous thread (a few weeks ago) I said I saw some odd
stuff and asked if others had noticed anything odd. In this
follow-up thread I state that my previous measurements were
flawed and go on to explain the flaws below. I thought the
explanation might help others recognize measurement pitfalls.
....or maybe not.

>
> They are an impressive package and great sounding EQ.

Yes, the graphic EQ in the true response mode is impressive. As
a test I set the "sliders" alternating between +9 and 0 and the
transfer function looked like a graph of the slider settings within
~0.5 dB or so, with a slight exaggeration at the high end. Thus
you can use nearly the full range of cut and boost for each band.
The same setup on a dbx 1231 only shows a swing from +9 to +6.

>
> > The quick and dirty tests I ran indicated lots of phase problems
> <...snip.. >
>
> Exaclty what kind of phase problems did you see?

Hmmm, maybe I should have called the thread:
Behringer DEQ2496 bench test errata

As I attempted to indicate, further testing indicated that my "quick
and dirty" tests might be flawed. So I did the tests again on a
better test setup and found that the first set of measurements were
in fact flawed.

Thus the problems I had first reported don't matter, the data was bad
and no valid conclusions about the unit could be drawn from that data.
It turns out that there were noise sources I wasn't aware of that
corrupted the measurements.

> > My first tests were done using room noise fed to the
> > computer's sound card, with a split going through the DEQ.
> > The test signal was room noise that was a mix of computer fan
> > noise and the TV into an SM58.
>
> Why not pink noise?

It was a spur of the moment measurement and I didn't have one handy.
Being as a transfer function is normalized it should be independent
of the test signal, and would have been if it weren't for the unexpected
uncorrelated noise.

>
> > It took some time to track down what I believe to be the source
> > of error in my first set of tests. After some experimentation I was
> > able to simulate the anomalous data. The simulated data consisted
> > of a mix of a bandwidth limited signal plus some uncorrelated
> > broad band noise.
> >
> > Long story short, I believe the uncorrelated noise of the sound
> > card mixed with the bandwidth limited signal created the anomalous
> > results. [something to the effect of the in band signal having a higher
> > SNR than the out of band signal] Anyway, it seems the on board
> > sound card is a lot worse than I thought. It was a dumb oversight
> > and I really should have known better!
> >
> > I did kind of enjoy the (somewhat deserved) roast as it caused me
> > to reevaluate my test procedures, etc.
>
> I don't understand your test methodology. It seems to me that
> listening tests combined with analysis of some kind of FFT software
> like Smaart would have been completely acceptable.

The methodology was that the transfer function G(t) is the ratio
of output to input. That measurement should be independent of the
stimulus. The flaw in my quick measurement (outlined above)
was that there was additional channel noise that was different for the
two channels, noise that thus isn't normalized. Something to the
effect of [ E(out)+ E(noise1) ] vs [ E(in)+E(noise2) ]
If noise1 and noise2 were small enough they wouldn't have had
an impact... blah blah blah...
Before throwing the old measurements out I wanted to understand
my source of error. "Long story short... " above explains the source
of error. It turns out that the bad measurements resembled some
MP3 artifacts I've encountered, so I didn't immediately suspect my
data. I subsequently threw out the questionable data after running a
new series of scope/square wave, sweep, and pink noise tests.
The units are now in a permanent install and working just fine!

Enough dead horse beating for now.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

[zero]

"Ron Capik" > wrote in message
...
> RyanL wrote:
>

> Hmmm, maybe I should have called the thread:
> Behringer DEQ2496 bench test errata

It would have saved a lot of tomato throwing if you titled it as a
_field test_. Bench test is a work/repair bench in action, doing what it
does best.


-zero

[hank alrich]

Ron Capik wrote:

> In the previous thread (a few weeks ago) I said I saw some odd
> stuff and asked if others had noticed anything odd. In this
> follow-up thread I state that my previous measurements were
> flawed and go on to explain the flaws below. I thought the
> explanation might help others recognize measurement pitfalls.
> ...or maybe not.

You done good, Ron, and thanks for the follow-up. I was wonderin' if my
ears were shot and these things actually sound like crap. <g>

But they do not. Quite a handy little EQ box, nevermind its low cost.

--
ha

[Sean Conolly]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
.. .
> Ron Capik wrote:
>
>> In the previous thread (a few weeks ago) I said I saw some odd
>> stuff and asked if others had noticed anything odd. In this
>> follow-up thread I state that my previous measurements were
>> flawed and go on to explain the flaws below. I thought the
>> explanation might help others recognize measurement pitfalls.
>> ...or maybe not.
>
> You done good, Ron, and thanks for the follow-up. I was wonderin' if my
> ears were shot and these things actually sound like crap. <g>
>
> But they do not. Quite a handy little EQ box, nevermind its low cost.


Keeping in mind that I barely qualify as "rank amateur", the only problem I
have with the unit is that I need a second one, maybe even a third. In my
limited and relatively low buck rig the Behringer is tied with the XR-20 as
the only pieces that always put a smile on my face when I use them.

Sean