The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Behringer Wing
Old 2 weeks ago
  #61
Lives for gear
Man there's a lot of butt-hurt when the evil B releases a good product!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
It has to be remembered, whatever you think of Behringer, they made the most successful digital mixing desk in history. I’ve never been that keen myself, operationally it can be slow and too much paging between screens and layers. There is a big ‘but’, it does a show, is generally more reliable than other cheap options (up until now), is still stupidly cheap and capable. If it goes up the Swanee on you, it’s also the desk you are most likely to find another one of to replace and almost all of us know how to use it.

If they do anything that improves user interface, facilities, and operation perhaps with improved FX it’s going to kill the low end market. Yamaha will still sell as corporate users will buy for the bullit proof reliability. As much as I can question some of what Behringer does, there are things it very much gets right and they have the financial clout to see it through.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #63
Lives for gear
Also note that for the amount they have sold, 700,000 iirc, how many failures do you actually hear about?, even for a low 1% failure rate that would be 7,000 consoles, and I've heard about hardly any failures, and probably explainable by the MTBF of components or items that wear out (like faders) on any console.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #64
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DGL View Post
Also note that for the amount they have sold, 700,000 iirc, how many failures do you actually hear about?, even for a low 1% failure rate that would be 7,000 consoles, and I've heard about hardly any failures, and probably explainable by the MTBF of components or items that wear out (like faders) on any console.
And note, the faders (5 pack) are cheap and easy to replace !
Old 2 weeks ago
  #65
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derick View Post
And note, the faders (5 pack) are cheap and easy to replace !
Yes, faders fail, similar to tyres on a car. You can make them as well as you like but they will at some point need replacing and that is something that can be acquired easily.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #66
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
The bottom line is 96K and the optimized processing it requires is sonically superior to 48K and it is also more expensive to manufacture.
96K is potentially more expensive, but incrementally. It's only twice as fast as 48K, which is not very fast to start. For something like a mixer, it's more expensive to develop because you need to support 96K effects, and likely scaling back of available processing and channels when running at 96K. I'm just stating the obvious here, but the way you wrapped it around "sonically superior", I'm not sure whether you were implying that the extra effort is possibly a factor in "sonically superior". (Yes/no?)

More generally, what do you base your "sonically superior" comment on? Since you didn't say, "in my opinion", or "top professionals seem to agree", I'd expect that you feel it's easily (scientifically) proven. Could you elaborate? I don't follow this debate closely, but as far as I know this question has been remarkably resistant to ABX testing. That seems at odds with a flat "is sonically superior".

[I'm just asking if you have more to say about this—this isn't a "you're wrong" or "prove it" post, just wanted to discuss the point a little bit. ]
Old 2 weeks ago
  #67
Lives for gear
 

A mountain of opinions exist on this forum and several others pursuant to the polarized question of 48 vs 96K sample rates in both live SR and/or studio work.
As Aisle 6 has expressed on several other threads (It's a "sum of the parts" that deliver the sonic superiority, not 96K alone): I totally concur.
I have made clear my preferences pursuant to this question and have no intention to pursue the matter on this thread any further.
Hugh
Old 2 weeks ago
  #68
Lives for gear
 
Bilb's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
Perhaps we should hold our effusive and or critical water until Beringer formally publishes the critical data pursuant to their planned new "Wing" processor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
(Quote RME tech staff pursuant to USB 2 deployed in their UFX interfaces)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
The one thing we do know about the Wing is it offers 8 48K input channels and if the speculation pursuant to it's price is correct that would work out to apx $350. per channel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
I am highly dubious pursuant to the utilitarian value the wing will deliver as a 48K FOH work horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
I follow with a great deal of respect the opinions of Sam C and Aisle 6 pursuant medium and large scale events and they both have carefully detailed the importance of top pro gear to achieve clean capture in SR work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
Grass pike has every right to opinions pursuant to the sonic quality of gear he does not work with or prefer just as I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
A mountain of opinions exist on this forum and several others pursuant to the polarized question of 48 vs 96K sample rates in both live SR and/or studio work.
As Aisle 6 has expressed on several other threads (It's a "sum of the parts" that deliver the sonic superiority, not 96K alone): I totally concur.
I have made clear my preferences pursuant to this question and have no intention to pursue the matter on this thread any further.
Hugh
Ok the gig's up: how much are Big Pursuant paying you and how can I get in on this deal?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
This will be my final comment on this thread
We heard you the first time
Old 2 weeks ago
  #69
Lives for gear
 

One thing that bugs me is that IMO the biggest workflow improvement the Wing has is the 10" touchscreen. It's almost as if it's got a built-in iPad. Oh wait, I already have 4 iPads. They could have just updated the firmware and tablet software to enable a tablet to act as the console monitor, switching displays as different functions are selected on the console.

And I don't get why any digital mixers incorporate the processing and surface controls in the same unit anymore. There's no reason for anything except the surface controls to be at FOH. All the i/o and processing can easily be side stage. Even expansions like Wavesgrid can easily be controlled remotely. The processing should be in the form of something like the X32 Core or X32 Rack, easily expanded with digital snakes, run cat5 to the surface controller at FOH, or just use WiFi if you dare.

Best of all, the surface controller needn't be proprietary. It could even be modular - add faders in groups of 4 or 8, rows of knobs in various configs, use tablet(s) as monitor(s) or connect a touchscreen, etc. Make it as elaborate or compact as your needs require. Could even disassemble in pieces to fit case(s) that are way easier to haul. The ATA case for an M32 weighs 107 lbs! The mixer only weighs 55 lbs.

When I first saw the Wing I thought "Great! A flat deck design that will fit in a thin case!" Then I saw the i/o sticking out the bottom and facepalmed.

Last edited by AC2SPL; 2 weeks ago at 02:35 AM..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #70
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
A mountain of opinions exist on this forum and several others pursuant to the polarized question of 48 vs 96K sample rates in both live SR and/or studio work.
As Aisle 6 has expressed on several other threads (It's a "sum of the parts" that deliver the sonic superiority, not 96K alone): I totally concur.
I have made clear my preferences pursuant to this question and have no intention to pursue the matter on this thread any further.
Hugh
OK, I wasn't trying to start a fight, just wanted to know if the "96K...is sonically superior to 48K" was as emphatic as it was stated. You qualified it a bit, that's fine. I have no interest in arguing whether 96k sounds better than 48k—that's the domain of ABX testing proof, as far as I'm concerned.

While I'm at it (not direct at you), some comments on DSP at higher rates...

Some people suppose that 96k automatically makes effects processing better, due to the added frequency headroom. This is true in some cases, but slightly if at all. For instance, an effect with non-linear processing at 48k will have less distortion at 96k, but not a lot—it's only an added octave, and aliasing won't drop off much. In either case, if there is enough distortion to be of concern, the effect would have to be oversampled a lot more than 2x anyway, and would have no audible difference between 48-96. Also, in some cases an effect that support higher sample rates will run at a lower rate internally for better performance (less so with 96k than higher, of course).
Old 2 weeks ago
  #71
Here for the gear
 

What do you all think the Wing compact is going to look like? Behringer's done it with all the other consoles... Another thing has been that Behringer's consoles have basically been stripped back clones of the Midas consoles, but there isn't anything from them but the Heritage D right now. Any thoughts on a Midas equivalent?

- F
Old 2 weeks ago
  #72
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by forrestaudio View Post
What do you all think the Wing compact is going to look like? Behringer's done it with all the other consoles... Another thing has been that Behringer's consoles have basically been stripped back clones of the Midas consoles, but there isn't anything from them but the Heritage D right now. Any thoughts on a Midas equivalent?

- F
Not really, the X32 was it's own thing developed in Willich, Germany and Midas/KT were only involved near the end.
The M32 is an X32 in a new case with Midas pro series I/o and faders. Now the fact that Midas pro series I/o is standard on the wing I am not too sure if there will be a Midas version of it as I don't really know what they could add to make the inevitable price difference worth it.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #73
Here for the gear
 

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGL View Post
Not really, the X32 was it's own thing developed in Willich, Germany and Midas/KT were only involved near the end.
Word. I haven't really explored the history of the Behringer - Midas relationship much, I'd just assumed that Behringer made the cheaper equivalent of the Midas stuff. This may not be the thread, but do you know if that's the same for the XR18/M18?

And I hate to bring up the subject, but what about the 96k sample rate with a faster processor? I've never used regularly used anything more the M32 with a Midas stagebox, so I don't really know the difference myself. Figured I'd ask tho.

- F
Old 2 weeks ago
  #74
Lives for gear
Never understood why 96K live consoles are so important when the world still sings through a horribly frequency-stunted microphone - yes - you know the one!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DGL View Post
(...) I don't really know what they could add to make the inevitable price difference worth it.
better/larger or two displays, better/more faders, more knobs to twist
Old 2 weeks ago
  #76
Lives for gear
 
grasspike's Avatar
[QUOTE=forrestaudio;14350939]
Quote:

Word. I haven't really explored the history of the Behringer - Midas relationship much, I'd just assumed that Behringer made the cheaper equivalent of the Midas stuff. This may not be the thread, but do you know if that's the same for the XR18/M18?

And I hate to bring up the subject, but what about the 96k sample rate with a faster processor? I've never used regularly used anything more the M32 with a Midas stagebox, so I don't really know the difference myself. Figured I'd ask tho.

- F
The Midas versions and X series versions are so similar they can run each others firmware. They are all made in the same Factory in Behringer City in China.

The main difference are the mic pre and the convertors, the Midas version is a bit better but the standard is no slouch. The new Wing has the same faders

And the units with faders have different faders.

Truth be told the production company I work for has a now 7 year old X32 that has been used around 250 times a year for seven years. I have personally logged thousands of hours on it. Still works great. Only thing done was to replace the plastic tabs where your fingers touch. New ones were like 20 bucks.

The Yamaha digital consoles we also use have had fader issues in the same time frame.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #77
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scragend View Post
Never understood why 96K live consoles are so important when the world still sings through a horribly frequency-stunted microphone - yes - you know the one!
Haha that I can get. Have you used the Behringer XM8500 sm58 clones at all? Similar, though slightly sleeker, build and wayyy more gain output. Sounds better too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grasspike View Post
Truth be told the production company I work for has a now 7 year old X32 that has been used around 250 times a year for seven years. I have personally logged thousands of hours on it. Still works great.
Behringer gets some hate for making "cheap" stuff, but personally I love it. My XR18 gets about 15 hours of use a week, and has for the past year or so, and I bought it used. It holds up great. Same with my 3 XM8500s - about 300 hours logged on each one and they're still holding up great.

I'm also excited to see if the Wing becomes like the new X32, with everybody in the market for a "budget" digital console buying one. *cough cough houses of worship cough*
Old 2 weeks ago
  #78
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by forrestaudio View Post
Haha that I can get. Have you used the Behringer XM8500 sm58 clones at all? Similar, though slightly sleeker, build and wayyy more gain output. Sounds better too.
Yes I use those for crapioki, for more serious stuff I use Heil Audio PR-22s and Sontonic Solos - awesome sound compared to a 58 with pretty good feedback rejection considering the extended top-end - however it must be said there are some singers that suit a 58 so I always have a stand with one on for the people I know it suits - and cardiod is kinder to singers with crap mic technique over the hypers.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #79
Lives for gear
 

My two bits on 48/96k: In terms of digital processing and conversion between analog and digital, there is nothing even in Nyquist's theoretical foundation of digital audio that suggests that the ability to process/convert frequencies beyond the audible spectrum offers any benefit within the audible spectrum. But there are two aspects where converters capable of higher sampling rates can offer side-benefits:

1 - Conversion between sample rates and between analog and digital requires filtering out frequencies beyond the capable range of the sampling rate. For both digital and analog filters, filtering at a higher frequency can help avoid artifacts within the audible range. Whether or not this is worth doubling the processing requirements depends entirely upon the quality of the filters and whether those artifacts are significant compared to other compromises in the signal chain.

When it comes to live sound reinforcement, high frequency content is emitted from compression or ribbon transducers into waveguides. If you think for one second that treble above 10kHz is coming out of those things with better than 20% THD please leave the conversation. Just walk away. Sure it can sound nice, but that's just pleasant coloration from the transducer design, nothing to do with the converters.

2 - Converters which are capable of high sample rates have better processing capabilities, but you should realize that just because a converter can produce a 24-bit digital signal at 96kHz or 192kHz sampling rate does not mean it is actually capturing 24-bit samples at those rates. PCM stands for Pulse Code MODULATION. The digital signal gets constructed internally from lower resolution floating-point samples (aka oversampling) if the sample rate exceeds the converter's actual capabilities. Granted, there certainly exists the capability to capture 24-bit samples natively at 192kHz, but I for one am completely skeptical that such capabilities exist in the tiny 8-channel surface-mount chips in even the best consoles. Digital mixers sum in floating point, stands to reason they wouldn't hesitate to sample in floating point too.

So if sample fidelity is your jam, you should be aiming to use converters that are capable of 192kHz but operate them at the lowest sample rate you actually require. You'll be happy to now know that this doctrine has been widely adopted even in entry level digital mixers. The X32, SI, and Qu series all use Cirrus Logic CS5368's, 192kHz capable chips operating at 48Khz.

I guarantee that 96kHz capable mixers do not guarantee you better converters. You will almost certainly be pushing same-grade converters into oversampling, cutting the processing capabilities of the mixer in half, all so you can presume to send pristine HF content to horns which are just going to butcher it anyway.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #80
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL View Post
When it comes to live sound reinforcement, high frequency content is emitted from compression or ribbon transducers into waveguides. If you think for one second that treble above 10kHz is coming out of those things with better than 20% THD please leave the conversation.
So I understand what 10kHz and ribbon/compression transducers are, but I haven’t been doing audio work long enough to know what 20% THD or waveguides are. Are there any good resources I should go to/could somebody with more experience than myself explain a bit about that?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #81
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by forrestaudio View Post
So I understand what 10kHz and ribbon/compression transducers are, but I haven’t been doing audio work long enough to know what 20% THD or waveguides are. Are there any good resources I should go to/could somebody with more experience than myself explain a bit about that?
you don't need to bother: in terms of distortion, a compression driver IS without any doubt the weakest link in the entire signal chain - pretty much irrelevant in a discussion about benefits or limits of using higher vs standard sampling frequency though! same in a discussion about digital mixing desks (to which we might eventually get back...)

[while i dunno much about converter design or dsp engineering, i claim some expertise in terms of listening to/mixing on speaker systems with compression drivers and mixing on digital mixing desks, after close to 5000 shows so far...]
Old 2 weeks ago
  #82
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL View Post
2 - Converters which are capable of high sample rates have better processing capabilities, but you should realize that just because a converter can produce a 24-bit digital signal at 96kHz or 192kHz sampling rate does not mean it is actually capturing 24-bit samples at those rates. PCM stands for Pulse Code MODULATION. The digital signal gets constructed internally from lower resolution floating-point samples (aka oversampling) if the sample rate exceeds the converter's actual capabilities. Granted, there certainly exists the capability to capture 24-bit samples natively at 192kHz, but I for one am completely skeptical that such capabilities exist in the tiny 8-channel surface-mount chips in even the best consoles. Digital mixers sum in floating point, stands to reason they wouldn't hesitate to sample in floating point too.
I had to read it a few times to parse, but I agree with what you’re saying here (largely talking about how practical converters work). As a technical point though, the “modulation” in PCM doesn’t imply what you seem to think it implies. The sampling process itself is a modulation. That is, you can view the sampling process as multiplying the analog signal by a pulse train—that is the (pulse amplitude) modulation referred to by PCM (which saves that sample as a digital code representing the resulting pulse amplitude).

Sorry, not trying to nit pick, and you made your points well overall. It was just that sentence that was making it difficult to understand your point, for me. I guess I felt compelled to say why
Old 1 week ago
  #83
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by earlevel View Post
I had to read it a few times to parse, but I agree with what you’re saying here (largely talking about how practical converters work). As a technical point though, the “modulation” in PCM doesn’t imply what you seem to think it implies. The sampling process itself is a modulation. That is, you can view the sampling process as multiplying the analog signal by a pulse train—that is the (pulse amplitude) modulation referred to by PCM (which saves that sample as a digital code representing the resulting pulse amplitude).

Sorry, not trying to nit pick, and you made your points well overall. It was just that sentence that was making it difficult to understand your point, for me. I guess I felt compelled to say why
Fair, modulation doesn't necessitate oversampling, or even digital sampling at all, but PCM certainly affords the inclusion of digital oversampling. I only emphasized modulation to punch up the fact that it's not necessarily a construct of complete native full resolution samples. As nit picks go, that's as reasonable as they get.
Old 1 week ago
  #84
Lives for gear
According to Robert Lofgren on the PSW forums (one of the beta testers) the first Wing consoles are now/are being deliveved to the first people who pre-ordered through Thomann. Compared to the X32 tease fest this is unbelieveably quick from announcement to shipping.
Old 1 week ago
  #85
Lives for gear
 
grasspike's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DGL View Post
According to Robert Lofgren on the PSW forums (one of the beta testers) the first Wing consoles are now/are being deliveved to the first people who pre-ordered through Thomann. Compared to the X32 tease fest this is unbelieveably quick from announcement to shipping.
I think Behringer is realising that teasing a product for many many months is not a very good strategy anymore.
Old 1 week ago
  #86
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by grasspike View Post
I think Behringer is realising that teasing a product for many many months is not a very good strategy anymore.
Although the advantage of that was they go a lot of user input in the design stage, which in theory makes for a better product.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump