Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Another BEHRINGER question

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 3:49:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

http://www.behringer.com/SL3242FX-PRO/index.cfm?lang=EN...


Any opinions for a 32 track home studio pro or con?

More about : behringer question

Anonymous
October 26, 2004 9:34:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: Mr Tuvok tuvok@vulcan.net
>Date: 10/25/04 7:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <464rn0pdkgiubronv08jkmi9e3nu8s4cif@4ax.com>
>
>http://www.behringer.com/SL3242FX-PRO/index.cfm?lang=EN...
>
>
>Any opinions for a 32 track home studio pro or con?
>
>

No. It has no direct outs (at the most would be about 6 outputs) from it's
channels, this is no more than a glorified stage mixer.
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 9:34:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Raymond" <bruwhaha58097238@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041026133438.28718.00001510@mb-m05.aol.com
>> From: Mr Tuvok tuvok@vulcan.net
>> Date: 10/25/04 7:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>> Message-id: <464rn0pdkgiubronv08jkmi9e3nu8s4cif@4ax.com>

>> http://www.behringer.com/SL3242FX-PRO/index.cfm?lang=EN...

>> Any opinions for a 32 track home studio pro or con?

> No. It has no direct outs (at the most would be about 6 outputs) from
> it's channels, this is no more than a glorified stage mixer.

It does have insert I/O which can provide many of the benefits of a direct
output.

However, there are only 2 standard aux sends and 2 FX sends per channel
Related resources
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 4:41:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

looks impressive, lots of channels. haven't heard it, but for the cheap price,
I would expect it to sound OK, but not very good. Good equipment is expensive
for lots of reasons, including the raw cost of the components.

For a home studio, do you really *need* 32 channels in at the same time? If
you are tracking into a computer, the software will let you record fewer at any
one time and play them back at the same time. For example, at my studio I can
record or play back 24 channels at any one time, but I can have a couple of
hundred tracks in a project if I want to. (the max I have so far is about 60)

I'd rather have a few *great* sounding channels than a lot of cheap channels.

-lee-
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 10:48:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny wrote
<It does have insert I/O which can provide many of the benefits of a direct
output.

However, there are only 2 standard aux sends and 2 FX sends per channel>

This is true but not what the insert was designed for. Will there be enough
gain from the insert? Probably not, a pre fader I/O is preferred better yet one
that is switchable for pre or post fader.
All and all it will work that way but not the best alternative.
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 11:16:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Raymond" <bruwhaha58097238@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041027024830.03855.00004681@mb-m19.aol.com
> Arny wrote
> <It does have insert I/O which can provide many of the benefits of a
> direct output.
>
> However, there are only 2 standard aux sends and 2 FX sends per
> channel>
>
> This is true but not what the insert was designed for.

So what? It works!

>Will there be enough gain from the insert?

Speaking as someone who routinely records off of inserts, yes. After all,
many audio interfaces support both -10 and +4. Other equipment that might be
logically driven from them have gain reserves. In my application I drive
inputs set for +4 in order to have enough headroom.

> Probably not,

You have already admitted that have no practical experience with this
because your flawed analysis said it can't work. What gives you the right to
tell people who have been successful with using inserts for direct outs that
they can't work?
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 6:50:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> It does have insert I/O which can provide many of the benefits of a direct
> output.

At the cost of losing the inserts for their intended purpose. This is
not always, but sometimes, a bad thing.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 6:50:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> You have already admitted that have no practical experience with this
> because your flawed analysis said it can't work. What gives you the right to
> tell people who have been successful with using inserts for direct outs that
> they can't work?

If one needs to record regularly direct outs are much preferable to
diversion of inserts for that purpose, which renders them generally
useless for use as _inserts_. Yes, it can be done; no, it isn't the most
favorable way to do it if one might actually need inserts.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 8:43:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gmb1ar.102aed2r5bhxcN%walkinay@thegrid.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> It does have insert I/O which can provide many of the benefits of a
>> direct output.
>
> At the cost of losing the inserts for their intended purpose. This is
> not always, but sometimes, a bad thing.

With a little creative cable fabrication, one can insert a processor and
tap the channel for direct recording at the same time.
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 8:46:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gmb1cl.1owyq0g1gx6x90N%walkinay@thegrid.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> You have already admitted that have no practical experience with this
>> because your flawed analysis said it can't work. What gives you the
>> right to tell people who have been successful with using inserts for
>> direct outs that they can't work?
>
> If one needs to record regularly direct outs are much preferable to
> diversion of inserts for that purpose, which renders them generally
> useless for use as _inserts_. Yes, it can be done; no, it isn't the
> most favorable way to do it if one might actually need inserts.

Agreed that not having proper direct outs is not as good as having them.

If one has a need for a post-fader direct out (arguably an oxymoron, but
also a common feature); then tapping the insert just won't do the job.
Anonymous
October 27, 2004 10:18:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Raymond" <bruwhaha58097238@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041027024830.03855.00004681@mb-m19.aol.com...
> This is true but not what the insert was designed for. Will there be
enough
> gain from the insert?

Enough gain for what?

>Probably not, a pre fader I/O is preferred better yet one
> that is switchable for pre or post fader.
> All and all it will work that way but not the best alternative.

An insert doesn't replace a post fader/post EQ out, if that's what you need,
anyway.

TonyP.
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 7:59:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>"Raymond" <bruwhaha58097238@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20041027024830.03855.00004681@mb-m19.aol.com
>> Arny wrote
>> <It does have insert I/O which can provide many of the benefits of a
>> direct output.
>>
>> However, there are only 2 standard aux sends and 2 FX sends per
>> channel>
>>
>> This is true but not what the insert was designed for.
>
>So what? It works!
>
>>Will there be enough gain from the insert?
>
>Speaking as someone who routinely records off of inserts, yes. After all,
>many audio interfaces support both -10 and +4. Other equipment that might be
>logically driven from them have gain reserves. In my application I drive
>inputs set for +4 in order to have enough headroom.
>
>> Probably not,
>
>You have already admitted that have no practical experience with this
>because your flawed analysis said it can't work. What gives you the right to
>tell people who have been successful with using inserts for direct outs that
>they can't work?
>

Looks like some are looking for a cat fight, well I'll just see you your reply
and give you some of my experience with using an insert send as a direct
out....it didn't have enough gain for my recording software.
Professional recordings...(that is what we are talking about yes?) would be
best following the book, and I know that Arny knows witch book I'm speaking of.
If you read my post completly you would have seen that I stated "All and all it
will work but its not the best alternitive". And what give's you the right to
say what I have already tried and came up with less than usable results?
I will no longer reply to this topic.
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 12:04:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Raymond" <bruwhaha58097238@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041027235926.22383.00002547@mb-m17.aol.com
>
> Looks like some are looking for a cat fight, well I'll just see you
> your reply and give you some of my experience with using an insert
> send as a direct out....it didn't have enough gain for my recording
> software.

That's more bollocks, because recording software doesn't set recording
levels, recording interfaces set recording levels.

Name one piece of recording software that doesn't record from LSB to FS.

Name one piece of recording software that can't bring a track up the 11 dB
difference between -10 and +4.

>Professional recordings...(that is what we are talking
> about yes?) would be best following the book, and I know that Arny
> knows witch book I'm speaking of.

That would in fact be a *witch* book about recording, IOW one that is based
on superstition and magic.

>If you read my post completly you
> would have seen that I stated "All and all it will work but its not
> the best alternitive".

From a signal level and purity standpoint, tapping off inserts is just fine.
In most consoles it is actually superior to a direct output because it
usually does not add additional stages of amplfication and processing. It's
just the output of the mic preamp.

> And what give's you the right to say what I
> have already tried and came up with less than usable results?

If you had level problems, the pointing finger points at the gain structure
you set up in your console. Trims set too far counterclockwise, anybody?

> I will no longer reply to this topic.

Good idea - quit while you're only this far behind.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:23:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:5fmdnXRyffeMfR3cRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
> If you had level problems, the pointing finger points at the gain
structure
> you set up in your console. Trims set too far counterclockwise, anybody?

That was my guess too, but I doubt he would listen to reason. He tried it
once and it didn't work for him, so it MUST be the same for everybody and
every other piece of equipment :-)

TonyP.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 12:23:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"TonyP" <TonyP@optus.net.com.au> wrote in message
news:41821a74$0$32563$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:5fmdnXRyffeMfR3cRVn-gQ@comcast.com...

>> If you had level problems, the pointing finger points at the gain
>> structure you set up in your console. Trims set too far
>> counterclockwise, anybody?

> That was my guess too, but I doubt he would listen to reason. He
> tried it once and it didn't work for him, so it MUST be the same for
> everybody and every other piece of equipment :-)

Ironically, it may have worked for him but he may have been too uninformed
and uncurious to realize it.

There's a tendency for people to want to set levels going into their DAW
software so that when they record, they can see a healthy-looking wave on
the screen. Well, when you are recording many tracks there are not a lot of
pixels per track, so if you record with decent headroom, you may see a lot
of apparently flat lines on the screen.

Sadly, setting the levels for a multitrack recording in such a way that
there are visible indications on the screen while you are recording, is
often a recipe for clipping disasters that are only discovered when it is
too late.
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 11:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:55:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>
>There's a tendency for people to want to set levels going into their DAW
>software so that when they record, they can see a healthy-looking wave on
>the screen. Well, when you are recording many tracks there are not a lot of
>pixels per track, so if you record with decent headroom, you may see a lot
>of apparently flat lines on the screen.
>
>Sadly, setting the levels for a multitrack recording in such a way that
>there are visible indications on the screen while you are recording, is
>often a recipe for clipping disasters that are only discovered when it is
>too late.

That's a bit of a barrel-scraping argument :-) You set recording
levels by studying the waveform pictures? Doesn't your DAW have
metering?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 30, 2004 11:25:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:g0n7o0polvbqra1sthu286na8c4q2kk9gu@4ax.com
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:55:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> There's a tendency for people to want to set levels going into their
>> DAW software so that when they record, they can see a
>> healthy-looking wave on the screen. Well, when you are recording
>> many tracks there are not a lot of pixels per track, so if you
>> record with decent headroom, you may see a lot of apparently flat
>> lines on the screen.
>>
>> Sadly, setting the levels for a multitrack recording in such a way
>> that there are visible indications on the screen while you are
>> recording, is often a recipe for clipping disasters that are only
>> discovered when it is too late.
>
> That's a bit of a barrel-scraping argument :-)

No, its a pragmatic argument.

>You set recording levels by studying the waveform pictures?

Once upon a time I did that, yes. And I do look at waveforms while I'm
editing.

> Doesn't your DAW have metering?

It does, but I vastly prefer looking at the waves. Meter reading can be so
transient, and waves are so permanent.

In fact I base almost nothing on meter readings in my DAW.

If I want to know information about peak or average levels, I highlight the
relevant wave and use my DAW's statistics function.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 1:28:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:06:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>> Doesn't your DAW have metering?
>
>It does, but I vastly prefer looking at the waves. Meter reading can be so
>transient, and waves are so permanent.
>
>In fact I base almost nothing on meter readings in my DAW.
>
>If I want to know information about peak or average levels, I highlight the
>relevant wave and use my DAW's statistics function.

While recording?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 7:46:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:kb58o0d2hbakpkm2ftlufpq858118jtauq@4ax.com
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:06:59 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't your DAW have metering?
>>
>> It does, but I vastly prefer looking at the waves. Meter reading can
>> be so transient, and waves are so permanent.
>>
>> In fact I base almost nothing on meter readings in my DAW.
>>
>> If I want to know information about peak or average levels, I
>> highlight the relevant wave and use my DAW's statistics function.
>
> While recording?

No. I set levels for recording by doing some sound checks, looking at the
results after recording them, and then adjusting the mic preamp gains to
suit. I generally record with about 10 dB of headroom over the largest
observed signal.
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 2:54:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <voqdnVxagMtujRncRVn-oA@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> >You set recording levels by studying the waveform pictures?
>
> Once upon a time I did that, yes. And I do look at waveforms while I'm
> editing.
>
> > Doesn't your DAW have metering?
>
> It does, but I vastly prefer looking at the waves. Meter reading can be so
> transient, and waves are so permanent.

On most DAWs you don't see the waveforms until after you stop
recording, but meters are nearly real time. If you have time to make a
test recording, checking the waveform is fine, but for setting
levels, I find that meters get me in the ballpark quickly, they give
me an indication of what's happening during the recording, and most
important, they keep me safe.

On most DAW waveform displays, a signal that's recorded at -6 dBFS
only fills up half the graphic space and that' doesn't give me much
information to work with.

Looking at waveforms can easily tell me that there's a problem with my
recording. Looking at meters can help me prevent that problem from
occurring.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 31, 2004 9:29:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:N4KdnVqKV8Cevx_cRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> There's a tendency for people to want to set levels going into their DAW
> software so that when they record, they can see a healthy-looking wave on
> the screen. Well, when you are recording many tracks there are not a lot
of
> pixels per track, so if you record with decent headroom, you may see a lot
> of apparently flat lines on the screen.

Not me, I always turn off the wave drawing during record, one less thing to
tie up the processor. Sure it could handle it, but the meters are enough for
me anyway.

TonyP.
!