ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Behringer X32, Almost Suited to Recording, but Lacks 24/96 Recording Capability  (Read 9061 times)

Mark ☻Bass Pig☻ Weiss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Subsonic Fanatic/Amp Repair Specialist
    • Amplifier Experts


Okay, here we go, fifth attempt at posting through this captcha crap:

When the X32 was announced, I was briefly excited because of the ability to record the mix to a USB drive.
My current system at the time (until the black box died) was a MOTU 896 Original and a Sony GRX560 laptop as DAW. That rig worked great and served me well for eight years, but was getting long in the tooth. So when the Behringer was announced, I was all ears.
A board that could record as many channels as I needed for a classical concert with flown mics? Great! It could record to USB thumb drives? Magnificent!
But then I started asking questions. Could it record 24-bit/96KHz sample depths/rates? After much prodding, the folks at Behringer admitted this was a 16 bit 44KHz system. Darn!
When they come out with a 24/96 version of this, I'll be very interested.
In the meantime, I'm battling it out with a new MOTU 896mk3H, and a Lenovo W500, running USB mode since the laptop's firewire port doesn't see the new MOTU (nor does my old laptop). A simple solution in one piece like the X32 would have been nice, if it supported the sample rates I need.




PS: The Captcha system sucks really bad. "The letters you typed didn't match" and when you hit 'back' your typing is all gone! And then the next time around the system says "you already submitted this post" but it is nowhere to be found! Very bad system.
Logged
Take care,

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss

http://www.MWHDvideo.com
http://www.basspig.com The Bass Pig's Lair
http://www.ampexperts.com

Brad Weber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2215
  • Marietta, GA

From what I have read and heard the considerations that lead to decision for 16 bit, 44.1/48kHz had to do with the intended market for the X32 and also possibly with its relationship to Midas products.  How much more would you pay or what would you give up to get 24 bit, 96kHz sampling and would a significant portion of those purchasing a X32 be willing to pay more or make other compormises?  I'm sure that just about everybody has something they wish the X32 did or had but if it did or had all those things it would probably be a very different product at a very different price point.
Logged

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13208
  • Wichita, Kansas USA

Mark, the Captcha goes away after a couple of posts.  It's to make sure you're reasonably human...

Remember that the X32 was designed primarily to be a LIVE mixer with some recording capability.  Over at SoundForums.net there is a 204 page thread on the X32, and about half the post are from guys that have DAW interface issues, complain about sampling rates... but the recording stuff isn't part of the main feature set of the mixer.

Sorry it doesn't meet you needs, perhaps you'd like to look at Music Group's other line... Midas.
Logged
Chewing through your wimpy dreams
They eat without a sound,
Digesting England by the pound.

Mark ☻Bass Pig☻ Weiss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Subsonic Fanatic/Amp Repair Specialist
    • Amplifier Experts

Mark, the Captcha goes away after a couple of posts.  It's to make sure you're reasonably human...

Remember that the X32 was designed primarily to be a LIVE mixer with some recording capability.  Over at SoundForums.net there is a 204 page thread on the X32, and about half the post are from guys that have DAW interface issues, complain about sampling rates... but the recording stuff isn't part of the main feature set of the mixer.

Sorry it doesn't meet you needs, perhaps you'd like to look at Music Group's other line... Midas.




A couple of posts? I've had an account here since 2006 and posted quite a bit until late 2007, mostly in the subwoofer topic areas. Perhaps each area has a 'newbie' effect? Oh well...


Re: X32... that's what Behringer tells me. But then, so was the DCX2496 intended to be a live sound loudspeaker manager, but it has a 24/96 mode of operation, which, IMHO, sounds considerably cleaner than it's 44K mode.


How much would I spend? Not much more than the X32 costs now. Actually, my MOTU 896 was doing a perfect job until it died on me a couple of months ago and I found out there's no repair service from MOTU anymore. My only concern back then was that the PC had a mechanical hard drive which could fail during a concert, leaving me with no multitrack audio. I was also concerned about the fragile nature of laptop computers, firewire cabling and so on.. having one box that records and can take all my mic feeds would be peace of mind. But not at the cost of 24/96 sound fidelity.
Logged
Take care,

Mark & Mary Ann Weiss

http://www.MWHDvideo.com
http://www.basspig.com The Bass Pig's Lair
http://www.ampexperts.com

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13208
  • Wichita, Kansas USA

Mark, the forum software was changed a couple of years ago and you had to re-register.  The Captcha is used to keep spam registrations & posts down. If it wasn't gone for your 3rd post to the forums, it should be after #4.  Mac or one of the other mods can help if you continue to get the Captcha intercept.

From my perspective, the difference between 4xkHz and 96kHz sampling is less latency because the samples (and subsequent processing) occur faster.  For the most part, I consider the difference to be inaudible in terms of straight-thru audio in a live sound setting.

What does "cleaner" sound like?  I have some suspicions about what was going on inside the DCX, and perhaps Ivan can chime in as he used a bunch of them in budget installs until they started to fail or make unwelcome noises.  And I subscribe to the concept that if we can hear a difference, we should be able to measure a difference... but sometimes I wonder if we have the right tools for that job, or if we are measuring the right aspects of sound... but that is for another post.
Logged
Chewing through your wimpy dreams
They eat without a sound,
Digesting England by the pound.

Patrick Tracy

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 504
  • Boulder, CO, USA
    • Boulder Sound Guy

Re: X32... that's what Behringer tells me. But then, so was the DCX2496 intended to be a live sound loudspeaker manager, but it has a 24/96 mode of operation, which, IMHO, sounds considerably cleaner than it's 44K mode.

Welcome back. We all had to go through the process of joining the new forum.

The DCX296 has to interface with all sorts of unknown sources. The X32 recording feature doesn't have to interface with anything in real time. It's more of a convenience feature and selling point than a pro recording capability.

That said, 96k just seems pointless to me except for bragging rights and wasting storage space. But I understand that's just how it's done in in some specialties, like classical. The lowered latency seems like the biggest real advantage. I find 16 bit more of a practical limitation. You'd never actually use all the dynamic range 24 bit offers but having the huge margin of error makes live recording a lot less stressful.

John Chiara

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 437

Okay, here we go, fifth attempt at posting through this captcha crap:

When the X32 was announced, I was briefly excited because of the ability to record the mix to a USB drive.
My current system at the time (until the black box died) was a MOTU 896 Original and a Sony GRX560 laptop as DAW. That rig worked great and served me well for eight years, but was getting long in the tooth. So when the Behringer was announced, I was all ears.
A board that could record as many channels as I needed for a classical concert with flown mics? Great! It could record to USB thumb drives? Magnificent!
But then I started asking questions. Could it record 24-bit/96KHz sample depths/rates? After much prodding, the folks at Behringer admitted this was a 16 bit 44KHz system. Darn!
When they come out with a 24/96 version of this, I'll be very interested.
In the meantime, I'm battling it out with a new MOTU 896mk3H, and a Lenovo W500, running USB mode since the laptop's firewire port doesn't see the new MOTU (nor does my old laptop). A simple solution in one piece like the X32 would have been nice, if it supported the sample rates I need.

I don't think the console is 16bit... Just limited to 48K. Internally it is 40bit floating point.  I have recorded multitrack and I assume I am recording 24 bit files. Also, if the console worked at 96K it would half the available DSP resources, I believe.
Logged

Jerome Malsack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623

true on that, the recording is less stressfull.   I add in a pair of presonus blue max compressors and run them as limiters for the four inputs on my M-Audio Quattro.  Having the safety of a limiter also makes recording live a pleasure. 
Logged

Patrick Tracy

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 504
  • Boulder, CO, USA
    • Boulder Sound Guy

true on that, the recording is less stressfull.   I add in a pair of presonus blue max compressors and run them as limiters for the four inputs on my M-Audio Quattro.  Having the safety of a limiter also makes recording live a pleasure.

With 24 bit dynamic range you can record with peaks at -12dBFS and never get close to clipping or the noise floor. I don't see any benefit to limiting unless you're trying for a pseudo-mastered recording right off the bat.

John Roberts {JR}

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13222
  • Hickory, Mississippi, USA
    • Resotune

This has been discussed before. Behringer needs to be careful that they don't position this as exactly like the Midas for less money, otherwise who in the their right mind would even pay the extra $$ for Midas?

I believe the sample rate is overstated as an audible difference, but this product is not positioned as a high end recording product (yet).

Never say never and this looks like an easy future upgrade to fuel a replacement cycle, but not for a while, when these are still selling well.

JR

PS: Sorry you missed all the drama of the forum software change... :-)

[edit- Behringer would be stupid to ignore the recording market which should also be significant. They have never been accused of being stupid so be patient. [/edit]
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 12:24:42 pm by John Roberts {JR} »
Logged
Tune it or don't play it... please
Pages: [1] 2 3  All   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.46 seconds with 24 queries.