Cheap Mixer

farss wrote on 11/22/2004, 7:12 PM

I know this belongs in the audio forum but if I mention the word "Behringer" over their no ones going to talk to me for a year.
I've been looking at their UB 1204 Pro, the specs look pretty good and for the price I can't find anything that comes close. The only thing I'd like is individual phantom power switching but you can't have everything. Anything that has all the extras and / or a better name has more channels than I need and a price to match.
Now I know Behringer are known for have made some pretty ho hum kind of gear but the new range seems to use decent preamps, mostly I just want it for the odd job and taking care of the level problems I have, half my kit is -10dBm and the other +4dBm, I've got a home grown box I use as an attenuator to knock +4 down to -10 but going the other I need something with a bit of gain and this mixer would seem to fill the bill as well as doing other work.
Anyone whose had first hand experience with this or similar current generation Behringer mixers please give me your thoughts.

Comments

musicvid10 wrote on 11/22/2004, 11:48 PM

Can't speak for this series, the ones I have used in the past have had pretty noisy 1st preamp stages. For mid-priced mixers I would probably go with Mackie or Yamaha just on reputation.

Chienworks wrote on 11/23/2004, 3:12 AM

Well, i bought a Behringer UB2222FX-PRO mostly for the price. It lists for about $350 (US dollars) and i picked it up on ebay for $199.95. I didn't expect a lot, but i was very pleasantly surprised. It's super clean and quiet. Everything seems quite solidly put together. I hauled it into our test lab at work and it seems to be flat 20Hz to 20KHz, maybe down half a dB or less from 10Hz to 45KHz. Singnal to noise ratio mic ins to main outs is better than 90dB (the limit of our test gear, it may be better than that). We don't have any way to test distortion, but if our engineers' ears are any judge, it passes with flying colors in that respect too.

farss wrote on 11/23/2004, 5:29 AM

Thanks,
that's pretty good review. I think a lot of the bad press comes from their earlier gear, the Pro series seem much better.
The only thing that bugs me is once you go over 4 mic ins you get those for me useless built in FXs. Guess they've got their place but it's just more knobs and buttons to confuse the users (I'll be hiring it out as well as using it myself).
Bob.

craftech wrote on 11/23/2004, 8:17 PM

With optional battery power and mono/stereo inputs, the MXB1002 has served me very well on video shoots. I bi-wired an AT822 stereo mike and hooked it up to two mono inputs and then used three Rode NT3 mikes on the other mono inputs for several musical stage performances and it sounded very nice. Considering it's size it does a lot. I haven't noticed any noise from it either. Lots of videographers use that mixer. I bought it from Full Compass. They are a great to deal with.

RexA wrote on 11/24/2004, 2:28 AM

So I followed the link to MXB1002 at Full Compass. One of the specs listed there is:
"Phantom power: +18 V (battery)"

Isn't phantom power usually 48V? Is 18 enough for most mics that use phantom power? Any potential problems (no pun) with this low voltage?

farss wrote on 11/24/2004, 2:53 AM

I think most mics these days only need about 12V. Probably a reasonable compromise when running off battery
Bob.

musicvid10 wrote on 11/24/2004, 6:00 AM

9v is ample most of the time. Check your mic specs to see what they recommend. 18v will probably work with 99% of all condenser mics.

TorS wrote on 11/24/2004, 6:27 AM

>>> but if I mention the word "Behringer" over their no ones going to talk to me for a year.

He he, you noticed that too. Someone asked a perfectly decent question there once, but had the misfortune to mention "Creative something or other". It took a lot of bumping before an answer came.
Tor

Jsnkc wrote on 11/24/2004, 8:05 AM

We've always liked the Mackie 1202-VLZ Pro and 1402-VLZ Pro.

Chienworks wrote on 11/24/2004, 8:07 AM

The 1402-VLZ Pro is one of my favorites too, but it's very pricey for what it has.

hugoharris wrote on 11/24/2004, 8:32 AM

I have had a UB1622FX-Pro as part of my DAW setup for about a year, and so far it has been reliable. The sound quality is quite good - certainly on a par with my old Mackie 1202. For the price, I have been quite happy, but I wouldn't go hauling it around to gigs.

Kevin.

rique wrote on 11/24/2004, 11:49 AM

I know this belongs in the audio forum but if I mention the word "Behringer" over their no ones going to talk to me for a year.

Saying Behringer over there is like saying 24P here. ;->

farss wrote on 11/24/2004, 11:51 AM

I was just thinking, I could make a killing selling tube cameras to the audio guys and then there's patch leads with OFC and gold BNC connectors, same thing with firewire cables, I mean guys can't you see how much warmer the pictures are?
Ha, we've got around 10 2" quad machines in a warehouse and 20 1" machines, those guys would pay a motza to get more 'warmth' in their video now wouldn't they.
Bob.

Hans Nyberg wrote on 11/24/2004, 6:44 PM

B&H says the MXB1002 has 48V phantom power.

MichaelS wrote on 11/24/2004, 8:12 PM

Take at look at TAPCO. The name was big back in 70's...Mackie has purchased the line and has released a really nice, affordable mixer under that name...the TAPCO 6306. I picked up one to mix lav's. Impressive for the money.

John_Cline wrote on 11/24/2004, 8:51 PM

TAPCO was actually Greg Mackie's first company. I'm pretty certain that Mackie simply revived the TAPCO name to put on a line of "ecomony" audio equipment to compete with the likes of Behringer.

Here is an excerpt from their web site:

"TAPCO knocked the audio industry on its arse back in 1969 with the very first 6-channel PA mixer specifically made for rock 'n' roll. Designed by audio guru Greg Mackie, the first TAPCO mixer had more than enough headroom to handle screaming singers. It was priced just right for starving musicians. And it was durable enough to withstand wild rides in the tour bus. In fact, many original TAPCO mixers are still in use today."

John

craftech wrote on 11/24/2004, 9:42 PM

If B&H says that the MXB1002 has 48 volts phantom it is a misprint. It has 18 and is more than adequate to run even my studio mike. I generally don't use the phantom power on a shoot though. The Rode mikes I use take 9 volt batteries that last a very long time and the AT822 takes a AA cell and lasts even longer. I only use the phantom power when I use it with my AT4047 Studio Condenser mike and it works fine even though it can take "up to" 48 volts phantom.

John

By the way, the Mackie owners are the loudest when it comes to criticizing Behringer claiming that Behringer "stole" their designs from Mackie. They also tout unfounded claims that Mackies have quieter pre-amps than Behringers. Been listening to that garbage for years. All nonsense. If they want to pay more for a Mackie to get the same quality as a Behringer let them.

MichaelS wrote on 11/24/2004, 10:40 PM

John,

That's interesting. We used to use TAPCO mixers back in the mid 70's. There was a 6 channel rack mount unit that was about the toughest piece of road equipment you could get. Solid steel. You could use it as a shield against flying beer bottles or irate boyfriends. Hehe!

I've got several Behringer components, an eq, compressor, patch bay...nothing but good things to say about their products.

Thanks for the insight!

farss wrote on 11/25/2004, 1:02 AM

I've looked at the Tapco and it is a nice unit, price is OK too, much more realistic than the stuff with the Mackie sticker on it. It does look better built than the Behringer mechanically but it only has 2 mic channels against the Bs 4. For what I want it for the better build quality can be a minus, it means extra weight. If it was being handled by lots of careless roadies then I'd go for the Tapco but as it'll be mostly me and fairly careful clients handling the unit I'm not too worried.
At the end of the day you know there's only so many ICs and circuit configurations, I think some of the stuff some of the audio guys sprout is pure BS, I'd love to see them take a double blind test on some of the claims they make. There's only one more bizarre crowd I've run into, the turntable mob, I mean come on, $30K to make a peice of plastic go round and round.
Bob.

hugoharris wrote on 11/25/2004, 8:52 AM

Over on rec.audio.pro, the regulars seem more enthusiastic about TAPCO mixers than Behringer. That being said, many of the same engineers have a few selected pieces of Behringer gear in their rack - for them admitting it is like "coming out the closet"!

Kevin.

Blues_Jam wrote on 11/27/2004, 12:01 AM

I bought one of those TAPCO 6-channel PA mixers new in the early '70s. I used it for PA and recording though it had only mono outputs. It sounded great and had an exceptionally sweet sounding reverb (IMO). It seemed to be a high quality piece of equipment for such a low price. It even had dampened pots that felt very smoothe.

I sold it to a friend to upgrade my recording equipment and, YES, it is still in use every single week in a very unforgiving Rock & Roll environment (if ya know what I mean :)

Blues

Chienworks wrote on 11/29/2004, 7:55 AM

If i recall correctly, TAPCO is a subdivision of Mackie these days.

Coursedesign wrote on 11/29/2004, 2:20 PM

There was an old "T" standard for external condenser microphone voltage, this ran at 12V. Not used for any modern mikes that I have seen.

With 48V phantom mikes, you get significantly increased dynamic range if you actually use 48V compared to say 24V or less. Not a bad thing if you need deal with high SPLs.

MichaelS wrote on 11/29/2004, 6:59 PM

Ahhhh...

I love it when I learn something new! Please take this "more voltage=more dynamic range" concept a bit further. I've never heard of it, but sounds really interesting!