[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 
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!

--- 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


Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.