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."

"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

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" 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 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

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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"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

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

"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

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"
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

"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

"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

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

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