Behringer MX8000 question

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

I know, I know, it's a Behringer. I have a chance to pick one
up real cheap, and I know there's some improvements that were
made to the MX8000A/MX9000, and I can't find out what they were.
If they were inconsequential, I could use this for a live
board for a while. If the preamps, noise, mix amps, and/or EQ
are worse than the MX9000, then it's not worth it; I know what
that board sounds like. But I've not heard the original MX8000,
so I don't know what the difference is, and Behringer isn't
answering my email request for info.
Can anyone answer this for me?
--
---Michael (of APP)...
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/ [...] tmusic.htm

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

In article <MPG.1cbdc89881a2ce979896e5@news.freescale.net> ra3035@NOTfreescale.com writes:

> I know, I know, it's a Behringer. I have a chance to pick one
> up real cheap, and I know there's some improvements that were
> made to the MX8000A/MX9000, and I can't find out what they were.
> If they were inconsequential, I could use this for a live
> board for a while.

I think that "for a while" should be the operative word here. Use it
until you figure out what's wrong with it for your applications (which
may be nothing) or until it fails. If you bought it real cheap, you
will have come out ahead of spending more money for something you may
not really need.


--
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

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

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Michael" <ra3035@NOTfreescale.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cbdc89881a2ce979896e5@news.freescale.net...
> > I know, I know, it's a Behringer. I have a chance to pick one
> > up real cheap, and I know there's some improvements that were
> > made to the MX8000A/MX9000, and I can't find out what they were.
> > If they were inconsequential, I could use this for a live
> > board for a while. If the preamps, noise, mix amps, and/or EQ
> > are worse than the MX9000, then it's not worth it; I know what
> > that board sounds like. But I've not heard the original MX8000,
> > so I don't know what the difference is, and Behringer isn't
> > answering my email request for info.
> > Can anyone answer this for me?
> > --
> > ---Michael (of APP)...
> > http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/ [...] tmusic.htm
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I had one of the original MX-8000 mixers. There were serious power
supply
> and meter bridge issues. You can Google for my past responses to
8000
> questions. I found it to be one of the most brittle and thin
sounding mixers
> that I'd ever used. It sat in the back room for almost 5 years after
just a few
> uses, until I traded it to someone for construction work. The best
use I found
> for the mixer was to use the packing box for shipping a used
Soundcraft Delta
> to Lorin Schultz in Canada.
>
> That said, the mixer is loaded with the same great flexibility and
functionality
> of the Mackie 8-buss boards... so if you're getting a price break
that justifies
> the purchase, and the board has been in use and the power supply is
holding
> up, I think it's probably going to be a short term but worthwhile
purchase.
> You'll get a lot of mileage out of the flexibility found in the desk.
You'll also
> learn more about sound quality and how to overcome certain
limitations. ;-)
>
> --
> David Morgan (MAMS)
> http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
> Morgan Audio Media Service
> Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
> _______________________________________
> http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

I used one of these desk for a few years - mine was pretty reliable,
well-thought out, easy to use, and, as you said, very flexible.

Having said that, it doesn't sound very good. But I don't think that
the sound difference between it and an MX9000 is going to be
perceptible, except in as much as two things that are not very good can
be not very good in slightly different ways. It really isn't worth
agonising over - both of them work, and neither are good enough for
"real" recording work. Either will be fine for most live work, though
do you really need to carry a 24-channel console for live work?

I upgraded to a Soundcraft 600, which sounded a lot better, and which I
have since turned over again for a better console. I didn't notice that
a 24 track Mackie I used occasionally sounded significantly better than
the MX8000, though it might have.