Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Behringer ADA8000 tweak?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:08:00 PM

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

I know, I know but still...

So was there a tweak to bypass the preamps on these?
Seems like I remember it being talked about in theory but has anyone done it
? TIA.
--



http://tinyurl.com/dvgrd
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 5:42:00 PM

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

> So was there a tweak to bypass the preamps on these?
> Seems like I remember it being talked about in theory but has anyone done
it
> ? TIA.
> --

Most painless way is to sell it in favor of an Alesis AI-3, same converters,
just balanced line in/out.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 10:12:40 PM

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

The ADA8000 is balanced I/O.


TM

Zigakly wrote:
>
> > So was there a tweak to bypass the preamps on these?
> > Seems like I remember it being talked about in theory but has anyone done
> it
> > ? TIA.
> > --
>
> Most painless way is to sell it in favor of an Alesis AI-3, same converters,
> just balanced line in/out.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 10:12:41 PM

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

"T Maki" <tmaki@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:430E09EF.2116EBBC@earthlink.net

> Zigakly wrote:

>>> So was there a tweak to bypass the preamps on these?
>>> Seems like I remember it being talked about in theory
>>> but has anyone done it ? TIA.

>> Most painless way is to sell it in favor of an Alesis
>> AI-3, same converters, just balanced line in/out.

> The ADA8000 is balanced I/O.

But, the line input goes through the mic preamps. I think
this is the concern.

On balance, there don't seem to be a lot of practical
problems due to this.

http://audiorail.home.comcast.net/ADA8000_RMAA_summary....

Shows reasonable noise performance.

I use 2 ADA8000s with an 02R96 in a live sound application,
and notice no significant audible differences between the
ADA8000 line inputs versus the 02R96 line inputs.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 10:19:49 PM

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

Bypass the preamps? If you want to bypass the circuitry, why
not just plug your outy into the inny without going through
a box?

If you want to use the ADA8000 as just a balanced line
driver, just loop the TOSLINK OUT to IN. Innies on the
front, outies on the back.

What exactly are you interested in doing?



TM



"a.m." wrote:
>
> I know, I know but still...
>
> So was there a tweak to bypass the preamps on these?
> Seems like I remember it being talked about in theory but has anyone done it
> ? TIA.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 10:19:50 PM

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

"T Maki" <tmaki@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:430E0B9B.5F5A4EF7@earthlink.net...
> Bypass the preamps? If you want to bypass the circuitry, why
> not just plug your outy into the inny without going through
> a box?
>
> If you want to use the ADA8000 as just a balanced line
> driver, just loop the TOSLINK OUT to IN. Innies on the
> front, outies on the back.
>
> What exactly are you interested in doing?
>

Interested in getting 8 channels of ADAT lightpipe into & out of the
ADA8000 without having to go through their onboard mic pres.

>
>
> TM
>
>
>
> "a.m." wrote:
> >
> > I know, I know but still...
> >
> > So was there a tweak to bypass the preamps on these?
> > Seems like I remember it being talked about in theory but has anyone
done it
> > ? TIA.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 5:14:17 AM

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

"a.m." wrote:

>
> Interested in getting 8 channels of ADAT lightpipe into & out of the
> ADA8000 without having to go through their onboard mic pres.

I wish Behringer had put in a block diagram of the thing,
but the way I understand it (and the way the four of mine
seem to work) is that you squirt some digital light into the
TOSLINK IN port, and eight channels of analog come squirting
out the XLR outputs. MIC/LINE analog in gets you digital
light coming out of the TOSLINK OUT port.

I'll have to check mine to see if the optical in runs
through the mic preamps on its way to the analog outs. That
would be somewhere past the midpoint on the silly scale if
they did.

Hmmm...



TM
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 11:46:22 AM

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

"a.m." wrote ...
> Interested in getting 8 channels of ADAT lightpipe into & out of the
> ADA8000 without having to go through their onboard mic pres.

Here is the schematic of the analog sections (I & O):
http://www.gyraf.dk/schematics/Behringer_ada8000_analou...
(Reverse-engineered by Gyraf, but likely accurate enough
for this discussion.)

You could concievably do away with all four discreete
transistors and both sections of the TL074 and feed
balanced line-level directly into the 22 uF caps...

Seems to me like a pretty simple modification compared
to some I've seen.

Jensen has published some I/O upgrade ideas...
In: http://www.jensen-transformers.com/as/as086.pdf
Out: http://www.jensen-transformers.com/as/as093.pdf
These are for a different A/D and D/A. I have not done
the research to see if the operating (analog) levels of the
Beheringer and/or Alesis chips are similar?
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 12:18:53 PM

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

"T Maki" <tmaki@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:430E6CE3.739B959F@earthlink.net
> "a.m." wrote:


>> Interested in getting 8 channels of ADAT lightpipe into
>> & out of the ADA8000 without having to go through their
>> onboard mic pres.

> I wish Behringer had put in a block diagram of the thing,
> but the way I understand it (and the way the four of mine
> seem to work) is that you squirt some digital light into
> the TOSLINK IN port, and eight channels of analog come
> squirting out the XLR outputs. MIC/LINE analog in gets
> you digital light coming out of the TOSLINK OUT port.

That's how mine work, too. ;-)

> I'll have to check mine to see if the optical in runs
> through the mic preamps on its way to the analog outs.
> That would be somewhere past the midpoint on the silly
> scale if they did.

Not the optical in, but the line ins run through the mic
preamps. Pretty much common practice on all but mid-high
line mixers. I believe all the Berhinger mixers work this
way, as did the older Mackies.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 1:45:28 PM

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

T Maki <tmaki@earthlink.net> wrote in news:430E6CE3.739B959F@earthlink.net:

> "a.m." wrote:
>
>>
>> Interested in getting 8 channels of ADAT lightpipe into & out of the
>> ADA8000 without having to go through their onboard mic pres.
>
> I wish Behringer had put in a block diagram of the thing,
> but the way I understand it (and the way the four of mine
> seem to work) is that you squirt some digital light into the
> TOSLINK IN port, and eight channels of analog come squirting
> out the XLR outputs. MIC/LINE analog in gets you digital
> light coming out of the TOSLINK OUT port.
>
> I'll have to check mine to see if the optical in runs
> through the mic preamps on its way to the analog outs. That
> would be somewhere past the midpoint on the silly scale if
> they did.
>
> Hmmm...
>
>
>
> TM
>

Obviously, the lightpipe in isn't routed through the mic pre's, but the
analogue in is at all times. This is what the OP is trying to avaoid.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 1:45:29 PM

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

"Forty Winks" <Yawn@bedtime.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96BE6D6F723FFYawnbedtime@84.92.1.10

>
> Obviously, the lightpipe in isn't routed through the mic
> pre's, but the analogue in is at all times. This is what
> the OP is trying to avaoid.

Right, but he seems to be doing this without regard for
costs and benefits.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 1:45:30 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:NcWdnZ2dnZ13Mf76nZ2dnUyVkt6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
> "Forty Winks" <Yawn@bedtime.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96BE6D6F723FFYawnbedtime@84.92.1.10
>
> >
> > Obviously, the lightpipe in isn't routed through the mic
> > pre's, but the analogue in is at all times. This is what
> > the OP is trying to avaoid.
>
> Right, but he seems to be doing this without regard for
> costs and benefits.


Nah, I'm just curious about it is all. I know some studios in town that use
these things as is and they stay busy every day doing demos & custom albums
even though they'd probably be laughed off some forums for using them. I was
just curious is all.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:50:47 PM

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

"a.m." <acmost@bellsouth.not> wrote in message
news:eKEPe.3592$2_.2177@bignews6.bellsouth.net
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:NcWdnZ2dnZ13Mf76nZ2dnUyVkt6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
>> "Forty Winks" <Yawn@bedtime.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96BE6D6F723FFYawnbedtime@84.92.1.10
>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, the lightpipe in isn't routed through the mic
>>> pre's, but the analogue in is at all times. This is what
>>> the OP is trying to avaoid.
>>
>> Right, but he seems to be doing this without regard for
>> costs and benefits.

> Nah, I'm just curious about it is all.

Curiosity can be good. I've been known to suffer from a bit
of it every now and again. ;-)

> I know some studios in town that use these things as is
> and they stay
> busy every day doing demos & custom albums even though
> they'd probably be laughed off some forums for using
> them.

I know that when I was ordering that ca. $10K 02R96 I felt a
little strange making up about half the mic channels with
$229 ADA8000s. However, in actual use its all pretty much
the same. I'm not going to claim that an ADA8000 has the
equivalent of 8 Great River preamps or even 8 Yamaha
preamps. However, money means something, and two AD8HRs
seemed kinda excessive...
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:50:48 PM

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

> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:NcWdnZ2dnZ13Mf76nZ2dnUyVkt6dnZ2dRVn-y52dnZ0@comcast.com...
> >> "Forty Winks" <Yawn@bedtime.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns96BE6D6F723FFYawnbedtime@84.92.1.10
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, the lightpipe in isn't routed through the mic
> >>> pre's, but the analogue in is at all times. This is what
> >>> the OP is trying to avaoid.
> >>
> >> Right, but he seems to be doing this without regard for
> >> costs and benefits.
>
> > Nah, I'm just curious about it is all.
>
> Curiosity can be good. I've been known to suffer from a bit
> of it every now and again. ;-)
>
> > I know some studios in town that use these things as is
> > and they stay
> > busy every day doing demos & custom albums even though
> > they'd probably be laughed off some forums for using
> > them.
>
> I know that when I was ordering that ca. $10K 02R96

Nice!. there's certainly alot of O2R/ studios in town

I felt a
> little strange making up about half the mic channels with
> $229 ADA8000s. However, in actual use its all pretty much
> the same. I'm not going to claim that an ADA8000 has the
> equivalent of 8 Great River preamps or even 8 Yamaha
> preamps. However, money means something, and two AD8HRs
> seemed kinda excessive...
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 5:44:40 PM

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

Forty Winks wrote:

> Obviously, the lightpipe in isn't routed through the mic pre's, but the
> analogue in is at all times. This is what the OP is trying to avaoid.

But OP said "Interested in getting 8 channels of ADAT
lightpipe into" without going through preamps. The only
clean way to get light INTO is through the TOSLINK IN port.
And, yes, I know "Obviously, the lightpipe in isn't routed
through the mic pre's." Just goofing around with the
question a little.


TM
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 6:02:13 PM

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

"a.m." wrote:
>
> I know some studios in town that use
> these things as is and they stay busy every day doing demos & custom albums
> even though they'd probably be laughed off some forums for using them.

That's an interesting comment.

Can it actually be said that someone - anyone - is using
tools that work for them, are affordable and provide a
decent return on their investment, can be considered a
component that contributes to their revenue inflow and
bottom line profit, appear to be pleasing their customers
(at whatever market position they occupy) and actually are
doing so without regard to what anyone in "some forums"
think of said tools?

How can that be?



TM
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 6:02:14 PM

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

--

"T Maki" wrote in message
>>>That's an interesting comment.
How can that be?<<<

I know, more of a dumb comment from me. I find it true with alot of stuff on
the web.Lots of experts here but in the real world things are different.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:09:05 PM

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

T Maki wrote:

> I wish Behringer had put in a block diagram of the thing,
> but the way I understand it (and the way the four of mine
> seem to work) is that you squirt some digital light into the
> TOSLINK IN port, and eight channels of analog come squirting
> out the XLR outputs. MIC/LINE analog in gets you digital
> light coming out of the TOSLINK OUT port.

I think the original poster is stuck on the "The line inputs take the
same path as the mic inputs but with attenuation" thing. This is pretty
much standard procedure on any low end gozinta unit that has mic level
inputs.

The "mic preamp" is usually not a separate stage or entity that can be
bypassed, and in a unit like this, probably goes directly to the A/D
converter. I suppose it would be possible to replace the mic preamp
circuit with buffer that would appropriately match a balanced line
level input source with whatever the A/D chip wants to see. Maybe this
would be a good project for someone who wants to play with some THAT
Corp. InGenius ICs.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:55:48 PM

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

"a.m." wrote:
>
> --
>
> "T Maki" wrote in message
> >>>That's an interesting comment.
> How can that be?<<<
>
> I know, more of a dumb comment from me.

No, no, not a dumb comment at all. It's a very good, valid
observation.

> I find it true with alot of stuff on the web. Lots of experts here but in the real world things are different.

And you are smart to be able to distinguish the difference.
And never underestimate the capabilities of people who
aren't afraid to ignore opinions of others. Often, you will
observe them as having accomplished things contrary to the
concensus opinion, and after having achieved whatever level
of success they enjoy - mostly to the envy of the concensus
- are explained away as having achieved that success by
means other than persistent, consistent application of
effort and knowledge. Who could possibly succeed outside the
concensus opinion without stealing the circuit, copying the
design, screwing their customers and employees, hoodwinking
the experts, violating what we all know to be "true", lying
to the press, being a sock puppet, etc.?

Yeah, it's a mystery to me, too...

Carry on.


TM
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:06:46 AM

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

The problem with Behringer is less the sound and more the QC. Not great
sound, but not horrible either and certainly acceptavble for live work, if
the product is working properly.

This is what makes me nervous and why I won't use them. Out of 5 Behringer
products I have used, only one of them really worked properly. That's a very
poor track record. Others have had better luck......which is also a factor
in lousy QC.



"T Maki" <tmaki@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:430F4976.96D883AB@earthlink.net...
> "a.m." wrote:
> >
> > --
> >
> > "T Maki" wrote in message
> > >>>That's an interesting comment.
> > How can that be?<<<
> >
> > I know, more of a dumb comment from me.
>
> No, no, not a dumb comment at all. It's a very good, valid
> observation.
>
> > I find it true with alot of stuff on the web. Lots of experts here but
in the real world things are different.
>
> And you are smart to be able to distinguish the difference.
> And never underestimate the capabilities of people who
> aren't afraid to ignore opinions of others. Often, you will
> observe them as having accomplished things contrary to the
> concensus opinion, and after having achieved whatever level
> of success they enjoy - mostly to the envy of the concensus
> - are explained away as having achieved that success by
> means other than persistent, consistent application of
> effort and knowledge. Who could possibly succeed outside the
> concensus opinion without stealing the circuit, copying the
> design, screwing their customers and employees, hoodwinking
> the experts, violating what we all know to be "true", lying
> to the press, being a sock puppet, etc.?
>
> Yeah, it's a mystery to me, too...
>
> Carry on.
>
>
> TM
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 9:03:48 AM

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

T Maki wrote:

> But OP said "Interested in getting 8 channels of ADAT
> lightpipe into" without going through preamps. The only
> clean way to get light INTO is through the TOSLINK IN port.

It sounds like yet another badly framed question, or a distortion of an
innocent question.

I think that what he really meant was how to get an 8-channel ADAT
optical output from analog inputs without going through the mic preamp
stage. Arny's modification suggestion is reasonable for someone who has
an AD-8000, a stock of parts, and some experience modifying equipment.
But it's more involved than moving a wire or installing a jumper on the
circuit board.

Replacing the 1/4" phone plug on an original Radio Shack PZM with an
XLR to provide a balanced output is a worthwhile modification (if you
need it). Replacing the input circuitry on an AD-8000 is probably not
worth while for anyone other than a died-in-the-wool experimenter.

I remember a replacement I/O board for the original ADAT recorder
(Horizon, perhaps?) that provided adjustable input gain and enough gain
to use with a mic, but it was a total swap-out with the original board,
and cost a few hundred bucks. It was a worthwhile mod for a recorder
that cost $4,000, but I doubt that anyone could make a similarly
cost-effective equivalent for a $100 A/D converter.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 10:08:41 AM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1125094145.395417.196160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> T Maki wrote:
>
>> I wish Behringer had put in a block diagram of the thing,
>> but the way I understand it (and the way the four of mine
>> seem to work) is that you squirt some digital light into
>> the TOSLINK IN port, and eight channels of analog come
>> squirting out the XLR outputs. MIC/LINE analog in gets
>> you digital light coming out of the TOSLINK OUT port.
>
> I think the original poster is stuck on the "The line
> inputs take the same path as the mic inputs but with
> attenuation" thing. This is pretty much standard
> procedure on any low end gozinta unit that has mic level
> inputs.

> The "mic preamp" is usually not a separate stage or
> entity that can be bypassed, and in a unit like this,
> probably goes directly to the A/D converter.

In essence, that's what the schematic:

http://www.gyraf.dk/schematics/Behringer_ada8000_analou...

(fine link by Richard Crowley) says.

> I suppose it would be possible to replace the mic preamp
> circuit with
> buffer that would appropriately match a balanced line
> level input source with whatever the A/D chip wants to
> see.

Exactly what the Weavfront AL1101 chip wants to see is
spelled out on the Wavefront Semiconductor web site, and it
is pretty much what the Gyraf schematic shows: two TL074
stages with the built-in low-pass filter at the inputs to
the ADC chip.

It strikes me that if you can keep the levels up through the
mic preamp, its probably not that much of a detriment to
sound quality.

Normally purpose-built line level inputs and mic preamps
differ greatly in how they implement variable input
sensitivity. Mic preamps use variable gain, while line
level inputs typically use fixed gain and input level
controls. Variable gain tends to produces variable dynamic
range, with the worst dynamic range at or near the highest
gain. Input level controls tend to product constant dynamic
range.

The simplist, most effective way to *upgrade* this product
for line level use only might be to replace the line level
input network with an attenuator, and fix the existing gain
control at a setting that delivers optimum SNR.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 11:19:56 AM

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1125144228.759544.181560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> T Maki wrote:
>
> > But OP said "Interested in getting 8 channels of ADAT
> > lightpipe into" without going through preamps. The only
> > clean way to get light INTO is through the TOSLINK IN port.
>
> It sounds like yet another badly framed question, or a distortion of an
> innocent question.
>

Me. me, me. I should have just asked can I stick 8 analog sources into the
front of the ADA8000(A/D) and come out ADAT Lightpipe into an accepting
soundcard(RME 9652 or Lynx2 with LS ADAT card) and BYPASS THE FREAKING MIC
PREs....like a myriad of other boxes that don't include the pres.Probably
framed even worse.

Seems the answer is not worth the trouble and for Joe average not real easy
to do.

How about going the other direction(D/A) which is really what I want
to do.....experiment with summing? What's the signal path there?
Framed bad again.



> I think that what he really meant was how to get an 8-channel ADAT
> optical output from analog inputs without going through the mic preamp
> stage. Arny's modification suggestion is reasonable for someone who has
> an AD-8000, a stock of parts, and some experience modifying equipment.
> But it's more involved than moving a wire or installing a jumper on the
> circuit board.
>

Counts me out. Thanks for all the replys. i was just curious about it


> Replacing the 1/4" phone plug on an original Radio Shack PZM with an
> XLR to provide a balanced output is a worthwhile modification (if you
> need it). Replacing the input circuitry on an AD-8000 is probably not
> worth while for anyone other than a died-in-the-wool experimenter.
>
> I remember a replacement I/O board for the original ADAT recorder
> (Horizon, perhaps?) that provided adjustable input gain and enough gain
> to use with a mic, but it was a total swap-out with the original board,
> and cost a few hundred bucks. It was a worthwhile mod for a recorder
> that cost $4,000, but I doubt that anyone could make a similarly
> cost-effective equivalent for a $100 A/D converter.
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:15:22 PM

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

"a.m." wrote ...
> Me. me, me. I should have just asked can I stick 8 analog
> sources into the front of the ADA8000(A/D) and come out
> ADAT Lightpipe into an accepting soundcard(RME 9652
> or Lynx2 with LS ADAT card) and BYPASS THE
> FREAKING MIC PREs....like a myriad of other boxes
> that don't include the pres.Probably framed even worse.

No, you can't bypass the mic preamp circuitry without
opening the box and doing some significant modification.

> Seems the answer is not worth the trouble and for Joe
> average not real easy to do.
>
> How about going the other direction(D/A) which is really
> what I want to do.....experiment with summing? What's the
> signal path there? Framed bad again.

The output section is a pretty simple line-level circuit.
As shown in the schematic I referenced:
http://www.gyraf.dk/schematics/Behringer_ada8000_analou...
!