Has Behringer gone quality ?

RoonSmits · Post by **RoonSmits** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:35 pm

Hi,

when I was searching for digital desks and the quality of their internal FX I came across this:

http://www.behringer.com/DDX3216/specia ... 3&lang=eng

follow the link "Inside the DDX3216" on the left hand side and check out the 6th page.

Here's a picture to illustrate it a bit more:
http://www.behringer.com/DDX3216/ddx_in ... nside7.JPG

Is there a generice code to, let's say write a compressor running on a Shark DSP? Can anyone maybe do an A - B test between SFP FX and the ones in the Behringer desk?

Just out of curiousity.

Cheers
Ronald

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:39 pm

Could it be that Creamware has a joint venture here?

R

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:55 pm

Doubtful, alot of other companies use SHARC DSPs, independently of Creamware. They probably looked at the Sony DMX-100 console, which as fas as I know also uses SHARC processors.

Behringer are, err, a bit famous for looking at other people's products and saving on R&D, so everything is possible

.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:47 am

I use that board - it works very well live and also integrates really well with the Creamware card. But (in my opinion) its effects are nowhere as high quality as the Creamware card's. The EQ (4 band parametric per channel) is not bad, and my ears can't tell any difference between how it digitally sums the channels compared to Creamware's mixers. But the reverb, phase, flange, chorus ... not so good. And the compressors seem to distort the signal - they're for light use only I guess.

You can get an expansion card for the mixer that provides 16 channels of ADAT (in & out), and ship 16 channels to and from a Creamware card (assuming your card has that interface) In fact, I've considered using a Pulsar-equipped computer live as a replacement for that mixer's processing - the concept works well at home.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Liquid Len on 2004-12-10 01:00 ]</font>

valis · Post by **valis** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:50 am

Just be concious of the latency that the adat & processing adds.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:39 am

On 2004-12-10 06:50, valis wrote:
Just be concious of the latency that the adat & processing adds.

Uggg, it's too early in the day to be concious. How much latency does ADAT add? What about the Creamware effects? How can I tell how much latency each of them adds? Is there a table somewhere?

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:53 am

On 2004-12-10 09:39, Liquid Len wrote:
What about the Creamware effects? How can I tell how much latency each of them adds? Is there a table somewhere?

It was a bit hidden, but here is an old one from Pulsar1: http://www.planetz.com/Pulsar/PerformanceLatency.html

cleanbluesky · Post by **cleanbluesky** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:00 am

I revile at the concept of the cheap and cheerless Behringer, but I bought a BCF2000 and its probably the best piece of £150 equipment I have ever seen. It has everything you could want and more (except touch-sensitive faders) but for £150 when everything else on the market is at least £500.
Behringer now has a space in my heart...

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:47 am

I value the Behringer 3216 mainly for its cost and flexibility - I can use it live and in the studio (I mean, in the basement). In terms of sheer quality of AD/DA conversion, I'm sure it's not that great - in fact, I have a Noah going digitally into the 3216 board (using SPDIF) and there is a small but noticeable improvement in quality if I feed an analog keyboard into the Noah's AD convertor (line in) instead of into one of the Behringers channel input.

RoonSmits · Post by **RoonSmits** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:38 pm

On 2004-12-10 09:39, Liquid Len wrote:
On 2004-12-10 06:50, valis wrote:
Just be concious of the latency that the adat & processing adds.
Uggg, it's too early in the day to be concious. How much latency does ADAT add? What about the Creamware effects? How can I tell how much latency each of them adds? Is there a table somewhere?

That's indeed what I'd like to know too. Since these mixers are quite cheap these days around €750,- I believe, it could almost be a nice X-mas present for myself.
But then it should be a workable solution.

cheers
Ronald

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:25 pm

AD and DA conversion introduces latency too. Something like 1-3ms I think.

Post by **garyb** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:41 pm

hardware introduces latency.....

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:11 pm

Yeah well Gary, but that is a bit too simplified. You can have an all analog chain with unnoticeable latency, while more people will be able to percieve the latency of a hybrid analog/digital chain.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:34 pm

I had a digital Mixer by Korg (168RC) in the SFP processing chain (via Adat) for some time. At 48k the trip from SFP to mixer and back to SFP was about 20 samples equivalent to 0.5 ms.
While 20 samples doesn't seem to be a lot of time it causes HORRIBLE artifacts if the same channel is sent both ways simultaneously.

Which also means that if you intend a certain sound by layering (for example) 2 pads you HAVE to get that sample accurate, else the result is arbitrary.
Try it with one of the sources delayed for that amount of time - it's stunning and extremely rewarding...
you'll never bother about latency anymore - the whole discussion about 1, 3 or 4 ms is totally pointless

cheers, Tom

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:57 pm

I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means, but all digital systems will have propogation delay. The time taken by each component to process an input and deliver it to the output, the speed of light down a fibre optic cable, etc. all result in small amounts of delay being added. While it's not really significant if you keep the signal chain as short as possible, if you're connecting lots of digital devices with lots of digital links, the delays would add up to a noticeable amount.

I'm not sure if the same happens with analog equipment - my guess is that it is there, but it is much smaller. Of course there are other disadvantages, such as noise.

I'm happy to be proved wrong by someone who's done more research into this subject (I must confess I haven't exactly got a scientific knowledge of the intricacies of digital systems

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dArKr3zIn on 2004-12-10 20:58 ]</font>

Post by **garyb** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:53 pm

it's a problem in analog chains FOR SURE. it just was never an option to try and fix it before....most analog signal processing still goes thru digital fx which means ad/da conversion, the whole bit. if you add in the length of the cabling it can be the same or MORE than your computer system in a big studio with long runs back and forth from a patch bay and machine room.....

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:52 pm

Sound (electricity) travels by the speed of light in cables. The speed of light is 298.053km/s, which translates to 298.053.000m/s. Let's just say 300.000.000 to make it easy. Now let's calculate the "lenght" of a 20.000Hz sine wave, when traveling thru a cable. 300.000.000/20.000 = 15.000m. Deeper notes have longer wave lenghts. Cable length is NOT a latency issue. And b.t.w. cables which claims to adjust for some frequencies traveling faster than others are ... well ... just expensive. They are NOT a solution, as there is not problem.

Post by **garyb** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:22 pm

nice figures.

as i said, big studios with 100's of feet of cabling have minor latency issues. i have seen figures showing analog mixers having latencies of 2-3ms or so on this forum years ago... also you haven't addressed the ad/da of digital processors(reverbs, delays, compressors). i am only mentioning this as people are talking about the need for sample accurate projects........

other than that, i'm sorry for making this an issue....

cleanbluesky · Post by **cleanbluesky** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:15 am

What would an acceptable latency be? Under 10ms?

Does latency have to be shorter for different projects, while it can be lax on others?

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:26 am

It depends on a multitude of figures. I spoke with a bass player, who claimed, that he became untight, if he moved away from the speaker. If you double sounds, you will get comb filetering, if one is delayed ... when doubling some sounds even one sample latency/inacuracy can be heard.