Re: Re: Behringer-Mackie debate 2642

[a k butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>]

At 18:06 20/01/05, you wrote:
>As for Behringer mixers, I´ve pointed out in various forums that there´s a
>huge variability among them. If you have a very old model from, say, 1996
>(easily distinguishable by their dark grey livery and, in the case of the
>MX2642 I´m always referring to, missing preamp pots and simple three-band 
>EQ
>in the stereo section), these units are rotten pieces of junk, agreed.

I have that exact model :-)
Sounds OK,
and never had noise problems.
(and I never missed those extra controls, after the initial angst)

I've had acceptable results using the mic-pre's,
though i generally just bypass them.


>  Later
>they improved on the design and first added a decent EQ and a input level
>pot to the stereo section (these models have a grey livery). The final
>production run (then called MX2642A, which comes in silver livery) 
>featured
>redesigned preamps

the same pre-amps as in their cheapest new stuff?
(they call them the same)


as the unit cost considerably less after the re-design,
and has a couple more features,
i'd be wondering if re-design is about quality or cost .

The earlier Behringer stuff, for instance, used to have toroidal
transformers, the later stuff has cheap ones that hum.

So.... always try before you buy.

>  which make this a really good-sounding mixer for the
>price (they were keen to offload them when the new series was introduced 
>and
>consequently, many dealers sold these mixers for 200 Euros new).

that's a good deal,
the original 2642 was GB£600



If you want "great sounding pre-amp", get a purpose built pre-amp from a 
company that does pro audio gear, the difference will be obvious.
.....forget Behringer-Mackie etc.



andy butler