Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Probably and it's almost the only product of theres that isn't a clone (that I know of) -----Original Message----- From: L. Angulo [mailto:labalou2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 2:41 PM To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com Subject: Re: Quality of Behringer Mixers. Was Re: Balancing Volume Levels? ill second this,except for the FCB1010(which seems to be pretty reliable) i havent had any good experiences with Behringer.I think the FCB1010 is probably the best product they have come up with! Luis --- S V G <vsyevolod@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Rainier wrote: > <<I'm slowly getting tired of people using the Behringer brand name > like it was a mixture of Josef Stalin and French carmakers.>> > > I am very open to hearing about quality Behringer mixers. They > have a quite deserved bad rap when it comes to very low quality in > some of their products, most notably their low end mixers (and FCB1010 > manuals). A local pro audio repair shop near me does a lot of > Behringer warranty work, a lot of it comes straight from Behringer > themselves. The amount of gear that goes straight into the dumpster > is absolutely overwhelming. We're talking pallet load after pallet > load. If they are getting compared to Joseph Stalin or French > carmakers (a bit extreme IMHO) perhaps they are deserving of it? > > I feel that the best thing that we can do as a group of people is > to steer our friends away from low quality and towards high quality. > Sometimes high quality comes in very inexpensive packages, perhaps > it's the physical interface alone... or the owners manual is very well > thought out, or something like that. If a manufacturer is selling a > product that appears to be a good deal only to have severe > malfunctioning or low S/N ratios, I want to hear about it. > > The LD list is most useful to me when people can objectively > discuss various gear, the pros and cons of UI's, sampling quality, how > the gear > *works* for us as opposed to against us. I have learned so much over > the years of being on this list. Behringer mixers, and I am talking > about the low end stuff that they produce, are not worth the money > they charge unless fidelity is not important to you or your > application. In my experience, Mackie is a better value for the > money. > And I would love to hear contrasting opinions. > Like, at what point does Behringer start sounding good? How much do I > have to spend before I get a reliable, relatively low noise mixer? > Does Behringer actually compete with Mackie quality-wise at some price > point? > > One of these days I may get inspired to get a better quality > mixer than my two Mackies (1604 VLZ Pro and 3204). Then I'll talk > about how much more of the music I'm hearing and I can't believe how > long I stayed with the Mackies. :) Until then, Mackie rocks my sonic > world. > > > <<And if anybody is interested: Way back, I replaced the integrated > mixer of my Fostex multitrack (which back then was the best integrated > fourtrack on the market, also superior to all portastudio > products)...>> > > This is where your argument gets absurd. Which Fostex > multitrack? Are you sure it's superior to *all* portastudio products > at that time? > Did you really try them all? I appreciated your post up to this > point. Claiming that you are authorized to say that Fostex kicks > sonic booty on *all* Tascam portastudio products of that time will not > work without further backing up your words. C'mon man, you can do > better than this... > > In sonic honesty and friendship, > > Stephen > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > ===== www.luis-angulo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo