Print

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

[doug johnson2]

The big difference between the Behringer and the Midas X/M boxes is supposed to be the M boxes have Pro series pre-amps.  Whether or not one can hear the difference between the two in a live situation is debatable.  It is my understanding that the M boxes are built with better quality and more robust components.  Not only does this make them more roadworthy, but it may also account for a sonic difference.  The same would go for the Pro Series boxes.  I would expect them to contain better components as well as be much more robust.

[JohnReeve]

I haven't had a chance to A/B them, but I've worked with x/m32, S16, DL16, DL32 pretty often.

I personally have not noticed a difference in the sound.  I still bought the Midas-branded stuff.

I currently have an m32c, and m32r, 2 DL16- the DL16 are easy to daisy chain and it seems good to have some redundancy/ backup.  In the big scheme of things it doesn't seem massively more expensive to go with the pair of DL16 than either a DL32 or the Behringer-branded stuff, and I feel like it's more acceptable on the "next-up-the-foodchain" gigs I am trying to get.

My thought was that even if it's not that much better than the behringer stuff, it's slightly nicer and so I gave up on doing the math about if it's worth it. 

It is certainly not like going to the DL251 and a pro2 or something- as you note the logistics change when the equipment gets larger- I can't flip a pro2 by myself, but I can pull my m32r out of its pelican just fine.  I also have a trailer and no lift gate- I've moved my buddy's pro2s around enough to not want to do it without a flat surface and/or some help.

I also have the m32c in a case with one of the dl16, and I built a rack panel to put powercons, AES50, network, and the recording USB on the front panel so I can leave the back on. 

That's nerdy, but I am using it with bands where I am in bars and don't have a lot of space, so it's nice to set the rack on its back and plug everything into one side.  Also I do plenty of gigs where I just need 16 ch, so it's nice to leave the other DL16 in the trailer.

[Caleb Dueck]

The big difference between the Behringer and the Midas X/M boxes is supposed to be the M boxes have Pro series pre-amps.  Whether or not one can hear the difference between the two in a live situation is debatable.  It is my understanding that the M boxes are built with better quality and more robust components.  Not only does this make them more roadworthy, but it may also account for a sonic difference.  The same would go for the Pro Series boxes.  I would expect them to contain better components as well as be much more robust.

Years back we compared Behringer X32, M-ehringer M32, and Midas Pro2.  Same physical inputs and cables, plugged between the three, same output cables and studio monitors in the shop.  There was a noticeable, but not drastic, difference between all three.  The Midas/Behringer rep said the real reason for the difference was the phase alignment, how the 1s and 0s were processed internally, AD/DA converters, etc; just the preamps was a near-myth they (Midas) kept alive as a sales tool. 

Our takeaway was - if you want to go cheap, go Behringer; if you want it to sound nice, go real Midas - or Digico or dLive.  At the time, we installed either X32 or Midas Pro2/3/X; since then it's primarily A&H with zero Behringer/Midas/Tribe. 

I used an X32 weekly, and sometimes a Digico SD8 or A&H; I felt the X32 was a bit harsh and thin/dry, but it wasn't overt enough to focus on it versus the band, speakers, room acoustics, etc.

[Rolando Saenz]

Years back we compared Behringer X32, M-ehringer M32, and Midas Pro2.  Same physical inputs and cables, plugged between the three, same output cables and studio monitors in the shop.  There was a noticeable, but not drastic, difference between all three.  The Midas/Behringer rep said the real reason for the difference was the phase alignment, how the 1s and 0s were processed internally, AD/DA converters, etc; just the preamps was a near-myth they (Midas) kept alive as a sales tool. 

Our takeaway was - if you want to go cheap, go Behringer; if you want it to sound nice, go real Midas - or Digico or dLive.  At the time, we installed either X32 or Midas Pro2/3/X; since then it's primarily A&H with zero Behringer/Midas/Tribe. 

I used an X32 weekly, and sometimes a Digico SD8 or A&H; I felt the X32 was a bit harsh and thin/dry, but it wasn't overt enough to focus on it versus the band, speakers, room acoustics, etc.

looks like I'm going second hand DL16 instead of a new S16

[Alec Spence]

IIRC connecting two of the 32 channel stage boxes, either Midas or Behringer, with any of the M/X series consoles gives you access to all 32 input channels on the first one in line, and the first 16 on the second one in line. You can have 48 remote input channels connected to one console (so not counting the on-console ones) but not 64.

This allows you to have more than 32 inputs connected to one console, but you can only select 32 at a time out of the 48 connected, if you need that ability. I haven't tried this since the firmware was upgraded to allowing you to pick any input in sequence from any group of 8.

I have never needed the ability to have more than 32 inputs connected to a console, but maybe someone somewhere does and has.

Knowing this is from "I wonder what would happen if..." shop days. I haven't tried it in a long time, though, so some detail of this may be wrong.

Nearly, but not quite.  The 48 input channel limit is a limit of the AES50 protocol.  So, yes, you can cascade boxes on an AES port and access 48 inputs from them.  But, of course, you can also use the second AES50 port to have a total of 96 available inputs, plus whatever local I/O you have.

Naturally, while you have all these inputs available, the X/M32 is still limited to 32 full DSP channels, plus auxes.

The obvious use case for such a high input count would be multi-band line-upts with all bands' channels connected, and using scenes to repatch in between sets.  In practise, few would do it this way, and those that would are likely to be using higher end kit.

[Jeff M Hague]

do you rack the M32C along with some other stuff ?
a furman conditioner or UPS ?

Yes. I have 1 rack with 2 Furman M-8Dx, the M32C, 1 DL16, an IEM transmitter for my headphones, a wireless mic for talkback, a Bluetooth receiver for break music and a WiFi access point. That rack usually sits downstage and I use it for mains and downstage monitor outputs and downstage inputs. The other DL16 is in a separate rack by itself and usually sits upstage next to the drum kit and I use it for any backline outputs and inputs.

[frank kayser]

One thing the S16 has that the DL16 does not is combo input jacks.  For us small frys, it allows 1/4 mono inputs i.e., keys and acoustic guitars.  For most, that would be a non-issue.  FWIW.

[Douglas R. Allen]

One thing the S16 has that the DL16 does not is combo input jacks.  For us small frys, it allows 1/4 mono inputs i.e., keys and acoustic guitars.  For most, that would be a non-issue.  FWIW.

You must be thinking of the SD16? The "S" 16 only has XLR in/outs.

Douglas R. Allen

[Dan Mortensen]

Nearly, but not quite.  The 48 input channel limit is a limit of the AES50 protocol.  So, yes, you can cascade boxes on an AES port and access 48 inputs from them.  But, of course, you can also use the second AES50 port to have a total of 96 available inputs, plus whatever local I/O you have.

Naturally, while you have all these inputs available, the X/M32 is still limited to 32 full DSP channels, plus auxes.

The obvious use case for such a high input count would be multi-band line-upts with all bands' channels connected, and using scenes to repatch in between sets.  In practise, few would do it this way, and those that would are likely to be using higher end kit.

Yes, Alec, you're absolutely right in both parts of your response. While it's intellectually interesting to have that capability, I've never been interested in trying to use it. It always made more sense to cascade mixers if mixing it myself, but you'd almost never get a BE to OK that conglomeration, and you'd have to be doing the same thing every night to get in the groove of having completely different input configurations in different scenes. You'd never be able to test the inputs that weren't in the 32 in the current scene, which would drive me nuts, and that would be a short trip.

[ProSoundWeb Community]