[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
RE: Quality of Behringer Mixers. Was Re: Balancing Volume Levels?
Probably and it's almost the only product of theres that isn't a clone
(that
I know of)
-----Original Message-----
From: L. Angulo [mailto:labalou2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 2:41 PM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: Quality of Behringer Mixers. Was Re: Balancing Volume Levels?
ill second this,except for the FCB1010(which seems to be pretty reliable) i
havent had any good experiences with Behringer.I think the FCB1010 is
probably the best product they have come up with!
Luis
--- S V G <vsyevolod@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Rainier wrote:
> <<I'm slowly getting tired of people using the Behringer brand name
> like it was a mixture of Josef Stalin and French carmakers.>>
>
> I am very open to hearing about quality Behringer mixers. They
> have a quite deserved bad rap when it comes to very low quality in
> some of their products, most notably their low end mixers (and FCB1010
> manuals). A local pro audio repair shop near me does a lot of
> Behringer warranty work, a lot of it comes straight from Behringer
> themselves. The amount of gear that goes straight into the dumpster
> is absolutely overwhelming. We're talking pallet load after pallet
> load. If they are getting compared to Joseph Stalin or French
> carmakers (a bit extreme IMHO) perhaps they are deserving of it?
>
> I feel that the best thing that we can do as a group of people is
> to steer our friends away from low quality and towards high quality.
> Sometimes high quality comes in very inexpensive packages, perhaps
> it's the physical interface alone... or the owners manual is very well
> thought out, or something like that. If a manufacturer is selling a
> product that appears to be a good deal only to have severe
> malfunctioning or low S/N ratios, I want to hear about it.
>
> The LD list is most useful to me when people can objectively
> discuss various gear, the pros and cons of UI's, sampling quality, how
> the gear
> *works* for us as opposed to against us. I have learned so much over
> the years of being on this list. Behringer mixers, and I am talking
> about the low end stuff that they produce, are not worth the money
> they charge unless fidelity is not important to you or your
> application. In my experience, Mackie is a better value for the
> money.
> And I would love to hear contrasting opinions.
> Like, at what point does Behringer start sounding good? How much do I
> have to spend before I get a reliable, relatively low noise mixer?
> Does Behringer actually compete with Mackie quality-wise at some price
> point?
>
> One of these days I may get inspired to get a better quality
> mixer than my two Mackies (1604 VLZ Pro and 3204). Then I'll talk
> about how much more of the music I'm hearing and I can't believe how
> long I stayed with the Mackies. :) Until then, Mackie rocks my sonic
> world.
>
>
> <<And if anybody is interested: Way back, I replaced the integrated
> mixer of my Fostex multitrack (which back then was the best integrated
> fourtrack on the market, also superior to all portastudio
> products)...>>
>
> This is where your argument gets absurd. Which Fostex
> multitrack? Are you sure it's superior to *all* portastudio products
> at that time?
> Did you really try them all? I appreciated your post up to this
> point. Claiming that you are authorized to say that Fostex kicks
> sonic booty on *all* Tascam portastudio products of that time will not
> work without further backing up your words. C'mon man, you can do
> better than this...
>
> In sonic honesty and friendship,
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
=====
www.luis-angulo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo