I don't quite follow you, do you have some practical examples?

 

The computer you're typing from? The drive you have in it? That tech was all military/rocket science gear only, which then became used for big enterprises and eventually ended up in your pocket inside $100 phones. The low-noise operational amplifier chips and AD converters found in your audio interface were used just a few years ago in high-end oscilloscopes and HF radio equipment (the stuff you use when measuring wifi/bluetooth/cellular to comply with emission/interference regulations). Once the manufacturer recouped their R&D, they're free to set up high volume production and it all becomes much cheaper. The cost was never really in the materials - it's in R&D, machine setup time, and upfront investment needed. Look no further than Behringer who based their whole business on doing high volume and optimizing their products to reuse certain parts, as well as having their own manufacturing plants.

btw, Behringer ADA8000 won 15:4 to Lynx Aurora 16 in a blind test (link).

 

If you cant make a pro record with Behringer or waves stuff then a 5k $ compressor and 5k$ converters wont help you either.

 

For some strange reason you are carrying on a pro-Behringer crusade, constantly celebrating the merits of this company: not sure if you really own any of this gear to be able to judge it so positively, or you just rely on some audio forums feedback.
I own a lot of Behringer gear, including an ADA8200, so I know what we're talking about, I don't base my judgments on random youtuber's reviews and can therefore have in-depth feedback on it.

ADA8200:
Poor converters, cheap preamps, inaccurate digital clock, noise floor, channel bleeding. It has 8ch, but using it at 96k the channels only become 4. The only good thing is the low pricetag, which in fact is absolutely coherent at its low performance.

In the multitude of junk that Uli sells, his only really convincing products are the gear clones of the last 4 years RD8, TD3, Odyssey etc. (the few clones he really managed to produce)
I've never tried the Wing mixer and maybe it could be interesting in terms of performance, but its price is no longer in the low end: $3600 (a lot of money), I don't know if I would choose a Behringer product having a budget like this for a mixer

 

Behringer's not great but some MusicTribe gear is alright.
I bought the Midas MR18 mixer over the Behringer model for a few bucks more and got much better preamps and higher build quality overall.

 

I honestly don't see how anyone these days could ever complain about pricing or innovation, when in the 80's, a DX7 cost $4,000 us dollars! This is a great time to be alive doing music. There are plugins right now, like Tal Sampler or Tal Drum that would literally make me forget about my classic drum machines and samplers. People complain about everything and if they cant make a hit with all the tools available to them now, that's the producers fault not the equipment. People have been complaining about how much the Roland Juno X cost and the original Juno 60 was $3000 in the 80's and tack on inflation and see how much that would cost today! You could never convince me that a classic Juno 60 is worth that much more than the Juno X, analog or not! We are blessed to have all this cheap great gear now, and folks still wanna complain. The Big company's are really not that terrible, but the people these days are.

 

How does it have such poor converters, preamps, digital clock and noise floor if people confuse it with Lynx Aurora 16? Are Lynx such garbage that Behrigner sounds better than them? ADA8200 is actually an improved model over ADA8000, so that Lynx must have been really a piece of turd by your logic.

Meanwhile X32 being basically *the desk* everyone uses worldwide is definitely not convincing, right.

Wing is actually hugely interesting in terms of performance, and the price is an absolute steal. Compared to lower-end desks like the X32, you get custom layout of faders (as in, have your vocal reverb fader right next to the vocal, instead of having to switch between inputs 1-16, 17-32 and then sends 1-16 with buttons every time), plugin EQs compressors *per channel* (as opposed to a clean digital EQ+comp and just 8 slots for FX - like analog EQ/comp, delay/reverb/amp sim, de-esser, etc), it actually has 374 inputs and outputs (much of these over digital connections), 48 channels (all of which can be stereo which still count as 48 channels). It's an absolutely huge upgrade over what's been available at that price point previously. The closest in terms of price would probably be Presonus StudioLive 64S, but they use AVB which requires you to buy a AVB-specific network switch, and it can't do Dante - and if I'm not mistaken you also can't freely assign channels as you like. That sort of feature is what PA guys get a Midas Pro 1 for, and that one is $12,500. Suddenly $3600 is not a lot of money, just like X32 is *insanely* cheap and enabled tons of people worldwide to jump to digital mixing desks to begin with.

The problem isn't that they don't have good products, you just have no idea what the products do and are clearly not the target audience.

Actually the Midas has a disadvantage, it has no DI (Hi-Z) inputs so you *must* use a DI box for guitar/bass while with XR18 you could just use the first 2 inputs. As for much better preamps, I haven't had the opportunity to test both side to side but I'm not hearing a drastic difference between M32 and X32 - really your PA is much more at play, and any preamp differences could be noticeable only on headphones.

 

Wow! That's Behringer Propaganda in full effect
You work for Uli, right?

 

Behringer used to be a cheap brand that no one bought because everyone knew what a piece of junk it was. Made in China was the name back then. Goes quickly broken and a lot of plastic. Real musicians were more likely to buy Roland, Mackie mixers.

Behringer began at some point to deliver better quality.

 

Indeed. Seems like it's right about the time when they actually travelled to China to keep an eye on the manufacturing as opposed to believing the promises they got from the factories.

Of course, I'm his VP of Audiosex Propaganda and get paid handsomely for every reply to your comments.

 

Fully agreed, the thing is with vintage keyboards you're paying for the legend of it (understood by many as a promise of being able to make music like people who used such legendary gear) and not for the gear you actually get. Sadly, this is also the case with a fair bit of new products if you just look at what Moog and Roland do riding on their legacy. Just look at how much it took Behringer to make a pretty much 1:1 Minimoog D with modern improvements. It surely doesn't cost the $2000 Moog ask for Matriarch - the real price is more like the $700 Poly D. We're starting to see what the real price of this gear is, and it's only better for all of us as others are forced to finally come up with something worth the asking price.

 

This text is neither well researched nor based on facts. You're letting your imagination run wild.

Uli Behringer knows exactly what happens in his factory. There are also foremen and quality assurance in the factory.
It is not the production that is perfect, but the use of inferior cheap components.

 

Last edited: May 11, 2022

yah, 'when he built his own factory' is more accurate

 

If only Uli would focus on finishing his pending clone saga (see OP list), instead of throwing his time into low-level Chinese junk we will all be very grateful

 

I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY! If it wasn't for Behringer cloning everything and doing an excellent job at it, I honestly think the big 3 companies, (Roland, Korg and Yamaha) would not even be trying as hard to be innovative. I believe Behringer caused Tom Oberheim to get cracking on his new Ob keyboard because the way Behringer works, they will have dropped there new clone faster than Tom! Another great Behringer clone is the MS-1, That is a damn good piece of kit no matter what the price is. They even outdid Roland with the RD8 and RD9

 

I'm sorry to burst your bubble on that one but it's exactly the opposite - science, but especially military, is *generally* not using the most sophisticated or god forbid prototype equipment, but only very well tested and proven tech. Just look at what kind of computers NASA uses for their satellites and rockets. You will be surprised.

 

Everybody else started making their products in China in the mean time as well. Sometimes even in the same factories. But people value one brand brand over another and they all take the advantage of us for being the vane bozos we are.

 

Behringer Please make an Elektron Machinedrum SPS-1UW+ MKII !!! , this thing is gonna sell like hot cakes believe me,

it's an insta pre-order for me once u release , nothing else like it on market hardware or software

 

The James Webb Space Telescope scientific instruments run on a 118MHz PowerPC with a whopping 44Mb of RAM (and some other storage, I'd imagine). It is however radiation protected and has a wide thermal range, so it's expensive as fuck. But the base technology isn't that high tech.

The Mars rover, Perseverance, is slightly faster: 200MHz PPC and 256Mb RAM.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/rover/brains/
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150019915/downloads/20150019915.pdf

*edit:* I checked, apparently a RAD750 PPC board runs around $200000 apiece and there's multiple ones for redundancy. I'm scared to think what the later models cost.

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2022

There's a *huge* difference between foreign quality assurance and having your own people monitoring the production on-site. It's well known that Chinese (and not only Chinese for that matter) factories do a lot for show and even if you visit the factory, you can't get a proper idea of what you're going to get. Read Poorly Made in China to get an idea of what they'd do to get your business.

He only knows since he has his own manufacturing, back in the day he would just send designs from Germany without having anyone actually on site.

Which components are "inferior" exactly? Since X32 and DM12 people actually have changed their opinion on the components and would say eg. the build quality of DM12 is actually better than an actual vintage Juno 106.

Meanwhile some of the actual factories are in Malaysia right next to Intel's.

Fully aware, note the keyword though - generally. There's a difference between mission-critical systems and cutting edge R&D, and the latter mostly takes place in military and science as that's where the funding is.