Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scott Helmke]

One problem though, that i sometimes have comparing digital devices via transfer ... comparing mixers, processors, etc...
is when there seems to be a clocking issue between reference and measured channels....

Do you see that often?

Yeah, I can never quite get the phase trace to line up at the high frequency end of the scale. That's to be expected when you have different devices with different internal clock speeds and/or latency.

[Diogo Nunes Pereira]

Sitgesf

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk

[Jim McKeveny]

The M32 definitely looks and feels better than an X32 though.

^^^This is the essential difference.

[Bob Leonard]

^^^This is the essential difference.

The two boards may share a number of things in common, but it will only make sense that higher quality components will result in the perceived or real differences being discussed. Even if identical with the exception of form factor this will be the case.

[Daniel Levi]

iirc the differences are:

New input and output stages based on the PRO series consoles.
PRO series microphone pre-amp inc. the special clipping mode MIDAS are known for (X32 preamps are supposedly a dynacord design used in the original MIDAS Venice (short faders) consoles).
All input and output sockets replaced with genuine Neutrik connectors vs. the gerneric ones in the X32 (aside from the Ethercon connectios which are Neutrik on both) .
Midas in house designed PRO faders instead of the cheaper X32 in house designed faders which also have a rated lifespan of ~1,000,000 cycles compared to I think ~250,000 on the X32.
New case design and buttons.
Daylight viewable display compared to the normal one in the X32.
Now 10Yr warranty instead of 3yrs on the X32 and supposedly the extra level of support that comes with buying Midas.

AND... The most important, it's a Midas (which to some people matters)

I think that is all although there might be some other internal enhancements that aren't currently noticeable or enabled.

I personally think they were very clever with the X/M32 changing enough so that the M32 is no seen so much as an X32 with a Midas badge but a better designed and engineered product that would be expected from a product bearing the Midas name. 

[Bob Leonard]

There was a time when I embraced anything Midas analog or digital, even though the human interface could, at times, seem just a bit strange. I'm also glad to see that Behringer has produced what appears to be a decent quality series of mixers based on the X-32 design. However, they're all still Behringer products in the end, and my views haven't and won't change, taking Midas off of my short list forever.

And clever is correct. Behringer has taken their own philosophy of "re-engineering" other manufactures products and brought that "re-engineering" in house. Taking an X-32 putting it into a nicer enclosure and using higher quality components may make for a more solid product that can retail for a higher price, but in the end it's still a Behringer X-32. Disguised Behringer product is still Behringer product. Very clever indeed.

[Tim McCulloch]

There was a time when I embraced anything Midas analog or digital, even though the human interface could, at times, seem just a bit strange. I'm also glad to see that Behringer has produced what appears to be a decent quality series of mixers based on the X-32 design. However, they're all still Behringer products in the end, and my views haven't and won't change, taking Midas off of my short list forever.

And clever is correct. Behringer has taken their own philosophy of "re-engineering" other manufactures products and brought that "re-engineering" in house. Taking an X-32 putting it into a nicer enclosure and using higher quality components may make for a more solid product that can retail for a higher price, but in the end it's still a Behringer X-32. Disguised Behringer product is still Behringer product. Very clever indeed.

Bob, it could be the other way around, the M-32 was designed first and then Behringer spent the time and money to make it cheaper and call it the X-32.

The reality is we don't actually know.

And back when EV-Telex owned Midas/KT, they were buying Dynacord mixers and rebadging them as Midas Venice...

[John L Nobile]

And back when EV-Telex owned Midas/KT, they were buying Dynacord mixers and rebadging them as Midas Venice...

Thanks for clearing that up for me Tim. The first time I used a Venice I thought to myself "no way was this made by Midas".

[John Chiara]

There was a time when I embraced anything Midas analog or digital, even though the human interface could, at times, seem just a bit strange. I'm also glad to see that Behringer has produced what appears to be a decent quality series of mixers based on the X-32 design. However, they're all still Behringer products in the end, and my views haven't and won't change, taking Midas off of my short list forever.

And clever is correct. Behringer has taken their own philosophy of "re-engineering" other manufactures products and brought that "re-engineering" in house. Taking an X-32 putting it into a nicer enclosure and using higher quality components may make for a more solid product that can retail for a higher price, but in the end it's still a Behringer X-32. Disguised Behringer product is still Behringer product. Very clever indeed.

Bob,
I know your feeling about Behringer...it's almost a moral/political standard for you. We all need to choose how we live that out in the real world. My world ...in many, many different places...is X32 world...and I have to say for the better since the days of beat up analog boards with minimal or shitty outboard gear. It has become a standard that all kinds of touring bands are familiar with and can interface with, which makes everything easier. If someone else had done it first, it might have been and A+H or Soundcraft...but alas...it wasn't. Local colleges around here chose to go with other digital consoles for their classes...and we get interns who are less than agile in the clubs..which are 90% X32.
It is kind of like curren politicians can...we might not agree with stuff, but the ability to get things done is admirable as a process.

[Bob Leonard]

John,
I gave Behringer credit where credit is due. I may go back much further than most people in my relationship with their products, and none of my experiences have been gratifying, satisfying, or for that matter very pleasant at all. At one time, when people would ask if a particular device would help their overall sound, I would recommend buying used "B" hardware off of Ebay, telling those people to try it and if it's a solution then toss the hardware and buy the real deal.

As a part of my recording system I use an Xtouch. It provides motorized faders for my use with Cubase. I bought it because it was cheap. It works most of the time, but I don't use the recording system that often, so I can't vouch for dependability. Will I buy anything else Behringer? No, or will I recommend anything Behringer based on my experiences, principles, and historical past. They hit a home run with the X-32 series and it's offspring, I'll give them that, but that's as far as I go.

[ProSoundWeb Community]