# A ringing endorsement for Behringer: James Cameron



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

It's good to know that budget gear has it's place...even if that place is the highest grossing film of all time.


----------



## Dave Upton (Aug 4, 2009)

If there's one thing all my pro-audio buddies have in common it's their hate of Behringer products.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

That's why I posted it: A nose thumbed at pro-audio snobbery.

Now if their complaint is their practice of reverse engineering, I can kind of see their point, but my wallets is not as principled as theirs. James' wallet certainly can't be hurting, what with $15 3D movie tickets AND saving money by using economically priced gear.


----------



## corock (Sep 7, 2009)

I've read several times how pro-audio guys dont like Behringer products. I have no opinion myself, but find it curious that Behringer is such a big company when its cliental doesn't like its products.


----------



## ankursamtaney (Apr 26, 2010)

You make an interesting point, Corock. And here's why that's the case, in my opinion.
a) Behringer makes a whole lot of gear that gives a gazillion amateurs and budding musicians an opportunity to get some pro-audio gear (like mixers, amps, condenser mics, etc.), to make music. Something they probably wouldn't have been able to do, if not for economical quality gear.
b) Such amateurs come to public forums and say "I bought this Behringr mixer. I think it's awesome. What do you think?". That's when industry veterans who possibly work at the biggest recording studios / LIVE gigs, come and "Behringer is , It's noisy. It fails on you, etc etc", without realising that many people who buy Behringer gear can't afford SSLs, Neves, and often not even Mackies.
c) Since Behringers gives SO MANY people the opportunity to buy a nice big mixer (among other things) without breaking the bank, they end up selling boat loads of gear that most of its competitors don't or can't sell. Sure enough, if you sell a million mixers in a year and 0.1% conk off relatively soon, that's a 1000 mixers. 800 of these 1000 people get onto forums and tell the vetrans "you were right.. this conked off.. " and start saying that Behringer sucks, without thinking enough, and the vetrans get to say "I told you so".

That sets off a vicious circle, but guess what. Behringer's sales do not fall, they get more publicity (as they say - any publicity is good publicity; no publicity is bad publicity!) and then people sit wondering "How on earth does everyone hate the company, and it's still doing well and kicking !?!" Know what i mean?

I use a bunch of Behringer gear myself, for the sole reason that I play a lot and record alot but just for fun, and the quality i get out of Behringer gear is more-than-sufficient for my needs. It's all about using the gear "correctly". And more importantly, I can bet a $100, that 90% of the people who own Behringer gear and say it sucks, do not know how to make the most of this gear. They only learn the hard way that expensive gear doesn't automatically translate into quality sound / recordings!


----------



## Lucky7! (Jan 7, 2008)

eugovector said:


> That's why I posted it: A nose thumbed at pro-audio snobbery.


I LOL'd.


eugovector said:


> Now if their complaint is their practice of reverse engineering, I can kind of see their point, but my wallets is not as principled as theirs.


Not all of it is reverse engineered though.



ankursamtaney said:


> You make an interesting point, Corock. And here's why that's the case, in my opinion.
> a) Behringer makes a whole lot of gear that gives a gazillion amateurs and budding musicians an opportunity to get some pro-audio gear (like mixers, amps, condenser mics, etc.), to make music. Something they probably wouldn't have been able to do, if not for economical quality gear.
> b) Such amateurs come to public forums and say "I bought this Behringr mixer. I think it's awesome. What do you think?". That's when industry veterans who possibly work at the biggest recording studios / LIVE gigs, come and "Behringer is , It's noisy. It fails on you, etc etc", without realising that many people who buy Behringer gear can't afford SSLs, Neves, and often not even Mackies.
> c) Since Behringers gives SO MANY people the opportunity to buy a nice big mixer (among other things) without breaking the bank, they end up selling boat loads of gear that most of its competitors don't or can't sell. Sure enough, if you sell a million mixers in a year and 0.1% conk off relatively soon, that's a 1000 mixers. 800 of these 1000 people get onto forums and tell the vetrans "you were right.. this conked off.. " and start saying that Behringer sucks, without thinking enough, and the vetrans get to say "I told you so".
> ...


^^^ Good points, and I agree with much of it.

Excellent first post. Welcome to the Shack.


----------



## corock (Sep 7, 2009)

eugovector said:


> That's why I posted it: A nose thumbed at pro-audio snobbery.
> 
> Now if their complaint is their practice of reverse engineering, I can kind of see their point, but my wallets is not as principled as theirs.


I wonder if the "principled" people also refuse to buy generic brand pharmacuticals at huge savings. I mean, hey, they weren't the company who did the r&d; they just copied someone elses work, made it cheaper and passed on the savings.:scratch:


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

I have used Behringer products for over 10 years and I think they produce a quality product at an affordable price. Back in the late 80's and early 90's when I was a full time musician and eating Raman noodles every night, I would have loved to have had some of their products available to me in order save some money. Guitar players used to make the same argument against Crate amps when they first overhauled their product line but now they are not near as despised as they once were. My motto has always been, "It's not the guitar, it's the one playing it that matters"...... :bigsmile:


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

dsr7997 said:


> It's not the guitar, it's the one playing it that matters


Too true:T


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Behringer sells to the mass market. They dont sell to the pros. Like said above they sell to the new comer who has no clue about quality and durability but once they have bought Behringer gear for a while and realize the difference they wont buy again and will spend a few $$ more the next time.


----------



## corock (Sep 7, 2009)

That makes sense. Somebody needs to fill that market. Just like professional carpenters aren't going to buy Black & Decker, but its good enough for the guy that uses it a couple times a year. That doesn't mean the guy buying it has no clue, but it meets his requirements. I'm pretty sure 20th Century Fox has an idea what they're doing, and can be considered professionals in the AV world.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> Behringer sells to the mass market. They dont sell to the pros. Like said above they sell to the new comer who has no clue about quality and durability but once they have bought Behringer gear for a while and realize the difference they wont buy again and will spend a few $$ more the next time.


I didn't realize Behringer had such a high failure rate. My stuff has held up fine and been using it for years.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

tonyvdb said:


> Behringer sells to the mass market. They dont sell to the pros. Like said above they sell to the new comer who has no clue about quality and durability but once they have bought Behringer gear for a while and realize the difference they wont buy again and will spend a few $$ more the next time.


So, James Cameron wouldn't be considered a pro?


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

dsr7997 said:


> I didn't realize Behringer had such a high failure rate. My stuff has held up fine and been using it for years.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Same here, never had a problem with mixers, microphones, my BFD, guitar processor...guess I must be the luckiest guy in the world.

Then again, I've had Mackie mixers, Shure microphones, Monster Cables, Boss Effects pedals all fail on me. Maybe I'm actually the unluckiest guy in the world.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

dsr7997 said:


> I didn't realize Behringer had such a high failure rate. My stuff has held up fine and been using it for years.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I wouldn't say "a high failure rate" but Behringer does not last as long nor is the sound quality all that great. I've been volunteering in several different pro venues over the last 25+ years non stop and non of them ever used Behringer equipment or had anything good to say about them.
Behringer amps work great for subs as noise is not an issue but for full range I would never use one. The same goes for mixing consoles, would not recommend one for true studio recording use.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> I wouldn't say "a high failure rate" but Behringer does not last as long nor is the sound quality all that great. I've been volunteering in several different pro venues over the last 25+ years non stop and non of them ever used Behringer equipment or had anything good to say about them.
> Behringer amps work great for subs as noise is not an issue but for full range I would never use one. The same goes for mixing consoles, would not recommend one for true studio recording use.



Sorry Tony, I made a generalization about the "High Failure Rate" and honestly shouldn't have. :doh: I have been recording, performing and writing for 25+ years myself and I have scene a lot of people over the years with some very top of the line equipment that couldn't produce a quality production to save their life. Adversely, I have scene a lot of people with budget gear that could produce a high quality production that would knock your socks off so I personally think it is unfair to knock Behringer for what could easily be misconstrued as a lack of knowledge or lack of familiarity with a product. We may disagree on this but I know we agree that what is important in the end is the sound quality. :T


----------



## tcarcio (Jun 27, 2007)

Well for what I use it for the Behringer amps I own have worked flawlessly. I see allot of people useing them for sub amps and I don't see any complaints. Snobs or not pro guy's can spend their money on whatever they want and so can I.


----------



## wabbitguy (Jan 12, 2010)

When built my own project studio years back, I had a rough idea of what I wanted to do, just wasn't familiar enough with the gear required to do it. It didn't take a more than a few seconds to realize that an SSL console would be the cream of the crop and about half that time to understand that it wasn't in the budget.

The most economical way to get started was to invest moderately in some Behringer gear. Since then, I've bought, used, returned and upgraded various pieces of my recording setup. I always A/B gear to make sure I'm actually improving something.

Thus I still have some original Behringer gear that suits my needs perfectly and I have yet to have it fail on me in daily use.

What Behringer does best is bring gear into a price range almost anyone can afford. The gear itself might not be the most stellar piece of kit out there but at least it's affordable. Every now and then they make some superior quality items just to keep the mix interesting.

There's no doubt scads of Behringer users who, in spite of what the rest of the world with much larger budgets and years more experience tell them, are happy to be able to do what they want at a price they can justify.

Mel


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

You make an excellent point Mel, one I wish I would have made as well. I'm not suggesting Behringer is equal to other top manufacturers out there, I use a lot of other gear not made by Roland, Trident and others. I am merely saying that they do make a quality product for what you pay.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wabbitguy (Jan 12, 2010)

dsr7997 said:


> You make an excellent point Mel, one I wish I would have made as well. I'm not suggesting Behringer is equal to other top manufacturers out there, I use a lot of other gear not made by Roland, Trident and others. I am merely saying that they do make a quality product for what you pay.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I whole heartedly agree with you!

I use gear from Roland, Apogee, ART, Lexicon, SoundCraft and others as well. Until I actually compared some of the better quality gear with my Behringer stuff, I didn't realize there'd be such a difference in some cases. Plus in the odd case, the Behringer stuff was better (which really rocks your thinking).

And then of course the reality of the whole "is this piece of kit better than the one I currently use" and is it better by "X" amount of dollars? Books, articles and entire web sites are devoted to this topic.

My ears are my wishful thinking, my budget is my conscience...

Mel


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> Behringer sells to the mass market. They dont sell to the pros. Like said above they sell to the new comer who has no clue about quality and durability but once they have bought Behringer gear for a while and realize the difference they wont buy again and will spend a few $$ more the next time.


No offense intended, but this type of generalization is silly. Behringer is a large company and composed in that company are good lines and bad lines. There is no avoiding it in a large corporation. Just look at Windows Vista versus 7. The difference is ginormous in quality. Engineering always comes down to the quality of the project manager and the budget from the marketing department. 

The Behringer DCX2496 for example has no equal in the market place. Though I will say QSC seems to be more popular in my area than Behringer.


----------



## ankursamtaney (Apr 26, 2010)

eugovector said:


> Same here, never had a problem with mixers, microphones, my BFD, guitar processor...guess I must be the luckiest guy in the world.
> 
> Then again, I've had Mackie mixers, Shure microphones, Monster Cables, Boss Effects pedals all fail on me. Maybe I'm actually the unluckiest guy in the world.


LOL! I hear you man!

This is clearly a case of: If one bought a cheap little KIA vehicle that crapped out in 6 months, he'd go and tell the world that KIA sucked. However, if a Ferrari (or Porsche or a Rolls Royce) stalled on the road in the 1st week, he's go like "Oh well, this stuff happens every once in a while".. and I can bet he wouldn't even tell his neighbour about the incident!

haha


----------



## gsmollin (Apr 25, 2006)

I surround myself with pro equipment on a daily basis. I have $70k Agilent network analyzers, $120K Tektronix oscilloscope, oh yes, $12k probes for the scope,... and a $0.1k Behringer equalizer in my HT. It works great. While it is true that the Behringer equipment is totally budget-engineered, it is also true that the big boys of the industry charge what they can, just because they can. I have a $50K Agilent impedance analyzer that has special 1 meter cables that cost $2k each. They are just coaxial cables with an adapter box on the end. They can charge that because they are Agilent. Tek isn't much better. Behringer is a lot better. Sure, if you can afford the industry leaders go for it. I know I do. If you can't, then buy Behringer, and don't apologize. Instead, go make some music. Forget the badge. Later you can always afford to upgrade.


----------



## BrianAbington (Mar 19, 2008)

from my understanding who ever is in charge of the audio production on a movie set will provide the equipment...however...knowing how much of a perfectionist cameron is if he didn't like the performance of the equipment he would demand something else be brought in. 

Still that board is probably just for play back and nothing to do with the recording


----------



## BrianAbington (Mar 19, 2008)

I should add. I love beheringer I have designed several systems for churches using thier equipment and plan to build a home theater using a bunch of their crossovers and amps.


----------



## paulspencer (May 11, 2007)

I've seen independent tests of amps and Behringer were slightly closer to spec in their power ratings in some cases than more expensive brands like Crown. I've also spoken with one pro audio retailer who quoted me some of their stats on failure rates. Behringer had a lower failure rate than Crown. It seems hard to believe I will admit, and may not be universally true, but without any real data I wouldn't so quickly jump on the "Behringer is " bandwagon. 

I use some Behringer equipment for my home system - DCX, DEQ, Europower and A500 power amps. Great value.

For professional and demanding use I'd probably spend more, but for home use or fixed installations Behringer is hard to beat. I also think that their equipment is far more transparent than any pro speaker I've heard.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

paulspencer said:


> I've seen independent tests of amps and Behringer were slightly closer to spec in their power ratings in some cases than more expensive brands like Crown. I've also spoken with one pro audio retailer who quoted me some of their stats on failure rates. Behringer had a lower failure rate than Crown..


.......What I don't understand is why the Behringer haters disregard information like that?

The response just seems to be "Well... I hate them anyway and all their stuff is junk".

It's so much like the anti-Microsoft crowd. Regardless of how you feel about it - it has a place in the market and it's not going anywhere.

(Oh no. Did I just defend Microsoft???)


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

tcarcio said:


> Well for what I use it for the Behringer amps I own have worked flawlessly. I see allot of people useing them for sub amps and I don't see any complaints. Snobs or not pro guy's can spend their money on whatever they want and so can I.


Using Behringer amps on your sub will not reveal the high noise floor of the amp like using it on your main speakers will. It is usually in the mids and highs were Behringer amps reveal their noisiness.


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

Amps don't seem to be Behringer's strong suit. But Behringer provides a lot of garage bands' EQ and mixing, which often makes the difference between having gear that can get a job done vs. not. There's a lot of creativity running through those units which might otherwise be channeled into Rock Band the Game, or something. 

I'm all for using good tools - my drum set is 1968 Slingerland - but we can't have everything, so here's to budget electronics!


----------



## Lucky7! (Jan 7, 2008)

Trick McKaha said:


> Amps don't seem to be Behringer's strong suit.


Considering how many people actually use them for subs and other uses in HT, you're comments do not reflect actual satisfaction amongst users.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Not especially surprising; I wouldn’t exactly consider home theater a demanding environment for a professional PA amplifier.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

I see Behringer as a mixed bag. As was said, used properly... Different equipments have different demands. Live music and general production are different. Behringer makes such a broad range of products that each application needs its own requirement.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

fractile said:


> I see Behringer as a mixed bag. As was said, used properly... Different equipments have different demands. Live music and general production are different. Behringer makes such a broad range of products that each application needs its own requirement.


I'm having a hard time understanding your last post. What's the mixed bag component? Behringer makes products for both live music, studio, and home reproduction. Do you think one of there offerings is lacking?

From my perspective, there is no mixed bag when it comes to their product offerings. They have products for everything but the most extreme class, all of good quality, and for a bargain price.

I'd say the only thing that could be considered a mixed bag is that Behringer is notorious for borrowing design elements from other manufacturers who invest heavily in research and development. If by buying the best equipment you can buy for the least amount of money (i.e. Behringer), are you are diluting the value of R&D on the part of more expensive manufacturers, thus limiting the incentive to innovate?

As a hobbyist or working musician, it would be tough to put your morals before your economics (if you consider this a moral issue, and not a true component of a competitive marketplace). Personally, I see Behringer making it realistic to afford high-quality equipment for anyone with an interest in such things.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

By “mixed bag” I’m sure he means that some Behringer products have proved to be poor performers, and others good or even excellent performers. Some unreliable, others reliable. It’s the same theme from many others who’ve posted on this thread. That’s not necessarily a “dis” against Behringer, even highly-regarded “quality” brands like QSC Crown, dbx etc. have had some clunkers in their product lines over the years...

Behringer has acknowledged at the “company history” link on their website that for some time they had QC issues from the Chinese vendors they contracted with to manufacture their gear – i.e., they’d say anything to get the gig, then cut corners on the side once they had it. Behringer has now built their own manufacturing facility in China, so I expect we can only see improvements in the future.

By the way, has anyone verified whether or not the picture on the opening post was taken at a studio that James Cameron himself owns? I don't see how it could be construed as an endorsement if he's using whatever equipment is on-hand in someone else's facility...

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm not sure he means that. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but my request for clarification persists.

Also, maybe I was rooting on Behringer a little to hard when I said "From my perspective, there is no mixed bag when it comes to their product offerings. They have products for everything but the most extreme class, all of good quality, and for a bargain price."

What I should have said was "They have products for everything but the most extreme class, all of quality equal to much more expensive brands, and for a bargain price."

My experience has been that Behringer equipment is no better or worse when it comes to quality than Mackie, Yamaha, QSC, Crown, Shure, Samson, EV, JBL, and many other pieces that I've had the chance to use and manage inventory of first hand. At the end of the day, I bought a lot of Behringer because the failure rate was no worse, and it cost anywhere from 80-25% of a comparable product. When I can either buy 1 shure, or 4 behringers, I'll take the Behringers so I can have 3 backups. I've had more Beta 58s conk out on me then xm8500s.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> By the way, has anyone verified whether or not the picture on the opening post was taken at a studio that James Cameron himself owns? I don't see how it could be construed as an endorsement if he's using whatever equipment is on-hand in someone else's facility...


Very few directors actually own the facilities they use, though I think James Cameron may be one of the exceptions. Still, I did not intend the picture to represent a direct endorsement of James Cameron for Behringer products. My apologies if it came across that way.

That being said, the background looks like a pretty substantial setup, and considering that the director and principle actors of the highest grossing film of all time are gathered around the mixer, I'd bet whoever owns that facility is rather purposeful in the equipment they choose. That being said, maybe their just watching a youtube video of Autotune the News.


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

I go on to explain what I mean in the rest of that post. That the range of their products is so broad, there will different types of quality points to be considered with each application, depending on the specific technology of the equipment being used and the demands being placed on it.

This past week my Mom mentioned wanting some better speakers than the ones built into her TV, so I ordered a pair of Behringer Ms16 monitor speakers. Why? Because that particular product is a perfect match for the application. It's self-powered, has adequate power output of 8W per speaker, bass, treble and volume control, RCA inputs for the TV and 1/8" TRS input in case she wants to plug the computer in. Add in 80Hz-20kHz frequency response, and yes, for under $100 and it's sold. The Fostex 6301b has only one 1/4" input, no tone control and costs twice as much.


----------



## DougMac (Jan 24, 2008)

I'd like to see a little more to put the photo into context. I have a childhood friend who's sister-in-law was a dialog editor. It would be fun to talk to her.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I tried contacting James Cameron directly, but he's not returning my calls.


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

DougMac said:


> I'd like to see a little more to put the photo into context. I have a childhood friend who's sister-in-law was a dialog editor. It would be fun to talk to her.


You can see they're on the set doing some playback of a scene, and not in a production room. I imagine that for practicality (in case a light stand falls on it) and expense containment they chose something that is functional and inexpensive for field work.

I saw an article on the making of one of those Transporter movies where they mentioned using something like six or twelve Canon XHA1s HD cameras, and ~half of them got destroyed in the process. I have one. It's a compact, self-contained camera with professional capability; and at under $10k it's more expendable than something costing several times more.

I'm a little tired of the bashing game, no matter who it is, but equipment has to be evaluated in the context of its application. You generally get what you pay for, sometimes more, sometimes less. Some of it is popular because clients expect to see certain name brands in a studio; other more obscure stuff is in use because someone likes "the sound" of it. Beyond that is the array of gear that has been evaluated by people in the industry and graded on its suitability for various levels of work, live or studio, semi-pro or pro, etc.


----------



## Theresa (Aug 23, 2010)

From what I've read, the miniDSPs are equal or better than the Behringer 2496, but its not a pro unit and I don't need a pro unit. For a sub amp, I just got a EP4000, and switched the fan. Without this minor surgery it was unusable for me. Now it just excels. For subs I didn't need the Emo XPA-3 that I was using and can transfer its use for other drivers (I use the miniDSPs for all my fronts and subs) and get that high quality where it can be heard, the mid-range. I doubt I would buy anything but an amp from them but still thats a chunk of business.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Theresa said:


> From what I've read, the miniDSPs are equal or better than the Behringer 2496, but its not a pro unit and I don't need a pro unit. For a sub amp, I just got a EP4000, and switched the fan. Without this minor surgery it was unusable for me. Now it just excels. For subs I didn't need the Emo XPA-3 that I was using and can transfer its use for other drivers (I use the miniDSPs for all my fronts and subs) and get that high quality where it can be heard, the mid-range. I doubt I would buy anything but an amp from them but still thats a chunk of business.


I'm confused. What does your post have to do with the quality of Behringer?

This thread doesn't have anything to do with miniDSPs.


----------



## woofersus (May 6, 2008)

There are a couple of things I would gather from that picture. First, they're obviously not in a studio. It would appear they are watching footage shot recently or that day or some such thing. (since the actors are in costume) Clearly nobody would use a mixer with no subgroups for recording or mixing down anything, and the dialog shot during scenes is most likely tracked digitally and for certain scenes will be all overdubbed anyway. Given the nature of that purpose, I'd say the small, inexpensive Behringer mixer probably fits the bill quite nicely. They aren't going to drag around something expensive for portable uses such as this where sound quality isn't the highest priority.

That said, I have used and liked a few Behringer mixers in the past. Not for recording - the preamps are far too noisy for that - but for live use in non-critical applications my old 2442a was fine. (although a friend had one and the power supply had bad caps in it - they had to blow a fan on it or the system would start making 110db chirping sounds when it got warm) Unfortunately I tried the newer SX2442fx despite its improved preamps has much lower quality pots and faders, drops to only a 3 band eq per channel with only one sweepable mid, ditches the inserts on the subgroups, only has 2 aux sends, no stereo aux returns, subgroups only assignable as 1-2 or 3-4 rather than individually, and has only a single switch for phantom power on the whole board. So, pretty much a huge downgrade. They bolted in a Shark and stripped out most of the routing options. I'd sooner recommend a small band save a few more bucks and look for a used Soundcraft GB2 or Allen and Heath Mixwizard. I've been burned by mixers, amps, and effects units with failures, and I've also not always been impressed with the sound quality of some of the items. I bought a Behringer Super-X crossover years ago and it was awful. The controls had almost no correlation with the markings on the faceplate, there was tons of bleed between the high and low outputs, the level adjustment would still leave signal passing when turned all the way down, and it introduced noticeable background noise into the system. Luckily it failed prematurely and I replaced it with a Rane that worked properly and has been working fine for nearly a decade since at that venue. The Behringer HA4700 headphone amp is decent as long as you don't use the 4th output since it's too close to the power supply and hums pretty badly on most units. I only use the first 2 and it's great for drummers. I used some Behringer Shark DSP units and they were complete garbage. 3 out of 5 broke in about 18 months, and we never could get them to effectively do anything to the signal that we wanted them to due to a lack of fine adjustment. The GEQ3102 has been perfectly adequate for monitors. I've never used any of the newer amps that people are using for subwoofers and such, but I'd imagine they are ok for that purpose. It helps that they purchased CoolAudio a few years back for their amplifier technology. I've never used a Behringer Feedback Destroyer either, but my other experiences with their signal processing would make me leery to say the least. I would also imagine that the building of their own factory has helped with quality levels, but products are still built to a price point, so quality will vary even within the brand.

There are other brands with bad products out there that are popular. Take the Alesis 3630 compressor/gate for example. There is an entire thread over on gearslutz.com with people sarcastically praising it for laughs. It won't even get recommended in the budget forum. The gate is so noisy it's unusable even in live settings. And yet they're everywhere. Also the 4 buss Mackie mixers that are ubiquitous at churches and small clubs and bars. I've never encountered a less musical EQ section or a noisier preamp - not to mention an incredibly inflexible output section. I'd rather have the equivalent Behringer any day. A friend who I've done some recording for has a Behringer guitar cabinet, and while it sounds ok, the Peavey head is terrible sounding. We just recorded his parts direct and skipped his rig. Oh, and those cheap Peavey speakers you see at lots of churches and mobile DJ rigs? I took a broken one apart once because the compression driver was fried and found out it's a sealed, plastic backed unit that weighs about 1lb. (not including the horn/waveguide) Consequently a lot of those failed. I actually saw a Peavey rep blow two of their subs up during a workshop, lol. EAW's cheapest series by comparison uses a compression driver that is bolted together so you can replace a voice coil in about 10 minutes and the whole assembly weighs about 8lbs. (if you need a super cheap PA cabinet I recommend Yamaha's club series)

The thing is, budget gear has its place. It's just that when making a show happen is your livelihood and money is riding on your gear, you aren't going to roll the dice. Frankly, a majority of riders will specifiy "No Behringer" and "No Mackie" more than any other gear, so its not an option anyway. (Mackie has hits and misses too - I hate the aforementioned 4-buss series mixers and the amps are unreliable, but their compact VLZ series mixers are nice for their designed purposes and their speakers are pretty good since they bought RCF when getting into that business.) Also, there are a lot of people buying cheap gear and saying how awesome it is that have no idea what awesome sounds like. (sort of like how Audoiphiles roll their eyes when people rave about a HTIB from Sears) Go to musiciansfriend.com and find the cheapest, crappiest thing there and I guarantee you there will be reviews saying "ZOMG ITS THE GREATEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD MY TRACKS ARE HOT!!!!!" Guys who have been doing it for a while can offer a little more perspective than an end user that has 3 things at home. Call your Sweetwater rep or somebody from All Pro Sound and ask about their experience with the reliability of budget gear. They'll tell you what minimum sufficiency for your application is. Some of that stuff just isn't built for the rigors of the road. It's also true that not every pro is good at his job, and the sound quality is the end result that matters, but I see a lot of people assuming that "pro" gear is automatically built to some kind of standard and it just isn't. If it sounds good to you for your uses, then fine. Don't assume it's as good as anything else out there if you haven't tried anything else though.

In the end, I wouldn't _automatically_ assume a piece of Behringer gear is junk, but given my own experience and the info I hear from pros who have been around, I'd want to try it for myself before spending any money on it. I don't need another silver turd in my rack.


----------



## Theresa (Aug 23, 2010)

After reading these pages I'm still pleased to have purchase a EP4000 for sub use. The fan was to loud to have lived with but I swiped it out for a quieter one. Tremendous bass headroom, no noise (duh, its crossed over at 80Hz, 24db/octave), and runs just warm to the touch with the quieter fan. So as has been said here many times, to paraphrase, if it works well enough for the intended purpose than use it.


----------

