Behringer - Very Disturbing Article - Page 5

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
news:BF564FE8.124B1%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
>>> We've been over this wayyy too many times...
>> Yes we have, yet you continue to not get it correct.
> George... George... These things HAPPENED.

Yes they did, just not the way you keep saying.

> Simple

So simple you still fail to understand it after going over so many times.

Phildo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"Chevdo" <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote in message
news:uhdYe.256642$HI.23437@edtnps84...
> Yep, you're a moron, alright. What's with the two ** before you reply?
> Is it
> a warning that something stupid is about to be typed?

He does it so we know to move on to the next post and not bother reading his
drivel.

Assillon is best ignored.

Phildo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

In rec.audio.pro George Gleason <Bmoas@yahoo.com> wrote:
: of course it uses the tube

It appears to use the tube to help sell the preamp.

Here's my question - what if the tube burns out?
Do the LEDs continue to function? Does the preamp
continue to function (for better or worse) but the
user doesn't know the tube is burned out?

Scott

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> J. P. Morris <jpm@it-he.org> wrote:
>>
>>In case anyone cares, I still haven't been able to measure the voltage
>>within the MIC100 owing to a combination of my own ignorance and some
>>inconveniently-placed lumps of glue, but I can now confirm that the valve
>>is glowing from its own internal light (i.e. the heaters). No LEDs to
>>'help' it in this box.
>
> If it's a 12AX7, the plates are on pins 6 and 1. Pull the tube slightly
> out of the socket and measure the difference from the signal ground and
> those pins.

I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't think of using signal ground as a
reference. That was one of the problems.. where to take the ground from.

I'll try that, but not right now since I'm using it

> If you aren't sure how they are numbered, measure all the pins. The two
> with the highest potentials with respect to ground are the plates.

Yes, since I know almost nothing about valve pinouts, I was just going to
look for the highest voltage. I think I've located the connector carrying
the supply voltages, but checking the valve pins themselves will be best.

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Anti-walkthroughs for Deus Ex, Thief and Ultima http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
The DMFA radio series project http://dmfa.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"Todd McFadden" <toddbear@adelphia.net> wrote :

> Does it "use" the tube? That's the question

Yes it does.. now can we get on and leave this sillyness behind

--
Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows,
how are you gonna guarantee my safety..
--John Crichton - Farscape pilot

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Paul van der Heu wrote:

> "Todd McFadden" wrote :

> > Does it "use" the tube? That's the question

> Yes it does.. now can we get on and leave this sillyness behind

While understanding this is not a tube preamp. Even the lowly Rolls
RP220 is an actual tube mic preamp.

--
ha

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> J. P. Morris <jpm@it-he.org> wrote:
>>
>>In case anyone cares, I still haven't been able to measure the voltage
>>within the MIC100 owing to a combination of my own ignorance and some
>>inconveniently-placed lumps of glue, but I can now confirm that the valve
>>is glowing from its own internal light (i.e. the heaters). No LEDs to
>>'help' it in this box.
>
> If it's a 12AX7, the plates are on pins 6 and 1. Pull the tube slightly
> out of the socket and measure the difference from the signal ground and
> those pins.

Urgh, it looks like there is 11v on pin 1. I'm assuming pin 9 is common
since it has 0v. I can't get much further around since the valve itself is
in the way. The socket is mostly covered so I can't take readings from the
back without a lot of dexterity. Interestingly, there seems to be nothing
on pin 3 (heater.. that can't be right)

Of course, I don't know which of the two triodes is actually being used.

Not conclusive, but it doesn't look good.

If I were to remove the valve entirely, would I still be able to take
readings or is it going to disrupt the circuit and prevent usable
measurement?

If it helps anyone, I think Behringer stole this particular design from the
DBX mini-pre. That's just a guess, though.

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Anti-walkthroughs for Deus Ex, Thief and Ultima http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
The DMFA radio series project http://dmfa.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1h3a8dp.1i8ccmc1vshe0tN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> TimPerry wrote:
>
> > "Kurt Albershardt" <wrote...
> > > TimPerry wrote:
>
> > > > right now i am pondering how to set up a flashing tower beacon in a
> > > > museum display. the lamp nomally runs 1000W to 1300W depending on
the
> > > > lamps. i think maybe wire them in series and add a diode or maybe
an
> > > > SCR. now these things GLOW.
>
> > > What kind of lamps? Rotating mirror or flashing light? I can think
of
> > > several options...
>
> > a full sized aircraft obstruction beacon built in 1949 containing two
> > incandescent 650W duratest 120 V lamps. the flasher is a motorized
rocking
> > mercury switch that is supposed to operate at 30 flashes per min.
>
> Tim, you'd better hush about that or Kurt will have you in his camp at
> Burning man...
>
>
> --
> ha

after living in LV i have left Nevada forever except for the odd trade show.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"Richard" <thermof@atps.net> wrote:
>
> "[...] its built-in tube adds warmth and transparency
> to your signal."

Warmth *AND* transparency? Good trick. It's fat and skinny. Tall and
short.

Think about it Richard. This does kinda lend credence to the argument
that this particular device is more marketing con job and less serious
audio device.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:27:14 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>newsgut1s$fa8$1@panix2.panix.com...
>
>> I won't buy that, because the Reflector factory in Russia is making them.
>> The Russian ones have a lot more heater-cathode leakage than the old RCAs,
>> though, meaning you need to run them with DC heaters even for line level
>> stuff.
>
>And the Sovtek-branded ones burn out really quickly.

How can I identify the Reflector models? I ask because
I have some "Made in USSR" 6SN7's bought in <1994 that I
really like, and in comparison to Tungsol's and such;
normally a tough competition.

OTOH, I don't use 'em at anything even remotely like a
small signal level.

Maybe weirder still, I like a couple samples of 6SL7
Russkies from the same era; look like the same "brand".
Not even close to Sylvania's, but "better" than lotsa
6188's floating about. And again, in comparison to
the classics.

Makes me wonder if the stuff Uncie Ned had at that time
was from a different plant, or if the production's
changed, or what? But I'm still runnng the first pair
of 6SN7's at >300 Volts, >14 mA, these many years
later. Emission and linearity holding up.

Thanks very much, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"Richard" <thermof@atps.net> wrote in message
news:1127268573.594562.182140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >Richard <ther...@atps.net> wrote:
>>>What is the problem with highlighting a Valve ??? a 12AX7 does not
>>>light up very much under normal use .... What next ? people claiming
>>>that clip/peak indicators are a con because the light is not actually
>>>from components catching fire ????
>>
>>Because it's just more cosmetic silliness. As soon as you start putting
>>the stuff behind glass and lighting it up, it's a sign that there is more
>>of an emphasis on style than substance.
>>
>
> Geez you are reading a lot into this - any sensible manufacturer gives
> some thought to how their product is going to look and tries to make
> their product look as good/effective as they can (within price
> constraints of course) Car manufacturers are a classic in this regard.
> Of course if you feel the manufacturer has spent to much money on
> appearance you can always buy a cheaper product ...... Oh hang this is
> Behringer we are talking about there probably is no cheaper alternative
> ;-) In fact different colours in the paintwork on the front panel cost
> more does this mean you avoid products which use more than one colour
> in its paint work - Behringer must look pretty good in this regard.
>
>> I don't CARE what it looks like. I care how it sounds. I don't want my
>> money being spent on additional junk that adds nothing to improve the
>> sound.
>> --scott
>
> David Mellor obviously cares what stuff looks like, in his whole
> 'Review' he does not mention once what the box sounds like .... OTOH
> given that he has written a whole article expressing his disgust at
> what essentially amounts to the look of the device in question I doubt
> that I could take any of his opinions on Audio seriously he just sounds
> like a bit of a pratt really.
> At the end of the day the fact that Behringer have chosen to highlight
> the Valve with a couple of LEDs does not constitute a "Con" it is
> merely a styling/appearance decision like the colour/shape of the
> knobs, Layout etc.
>

Just an observation, but really.......does anyone here have an idea what
behringer pays for 3 leds? I know what they would cost me to buy them at a
local electronics store, and it's really not much. While I don't care for
the highlighting of the tube, in a real world money sense it doesn't cost
pennies to do it.

The reviewer didn't critique the sound of the unit or the value vs price for
such a unit. AFAIC he's just another wanker with a web page.

JL

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

"Tim Martin" <tim2718281@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:SsFYe.14038$ws4.7355@newsfe5-win.ntli.net
> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> newsgufeq$oa8$1@panix2.panix.com...
>
>> It's probably more linear at low voltages ...

> With my neart-zero knowledge of tubes, I had the
> impression that the tube was there to add distortion
> ("warmth" ) and that's why a low plate voltage is
> advantageous, to reduce the linearity.

Your knowlege here is good, but you may have missed some of
the the context of Scott's comments.

I know Scott to have a heart for vacuum tubed equipment that
is designed to have clean performance.

Clean-sounding tubed equipment is not an oxymoron - in the
day of tubes there was a lot of tubed equipment that
performed well, both on the test bench and as heard. Some of
this equipment is still around, and if well-maintained, it
sounds really good.

Therefore, Scott considers tubes with more linear
performance to be more desirable. If you haven't caught on,
he's not the least bit happy with tubes in circuits that are
designed to maximize audible distortion.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Paul Stamler <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>newsgut1s$fa8$1@panix2.panix.com...
>
>> I won't buy that, because the Reflector factory in Russia is making them.
>> The Russian ones have a lot more heater-cathode leakage than the old RCAs,
>> though, meaning you need to run them with DC heaters even for line level
>> stuff.
>
>And the Sovtek-branded ones burn out really quickly.

Do they? I have a huge box of NOS Raytheon ones in the garage so I never
bothered with them except to make sure my headphone amp project would work
with them installed. How do they burn out? Is it a filament failure or
does the cathode get poisoned?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,alt.audio.pro.live-sound (More info?)

Paul Stamler <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>I've had some of both, on one occasion the filament for one half went dead
>while the other glowed happily -- didn't know the 6SN7 had parallel
>filaments for the two halves. Anyhow, the Sovteks died quickly, while the
>Electro-Harmonix tube with which I replaced them take a lickin' and keep on
>tickin'. I'm pulling 10.5mA/side (they're paralleled) with 310V on the
>plate, a solid load but well within spec limits..

Weird, since Sovtek and E-H are two sides of the same house. Do the tubes
look like they were made in the same place?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

In article <dguf46$8q1$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com says...
>
>Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:
>>In article <dgst6f$qi$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com says...
>>>
>>>Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Ok I am looking at the picture right now and I do see the socket, but I
>>cannot
>>>>tell if there is clearance to remove the tube. It's also sitting behind
the
>>>>LEDs, and looks like one or two would have to be removed or bent to get the
>>>>tube out
>>>
>>>Yes, there is a socket, and yes the tube is removable.
>>>
>>>If you remove it, the output level will drop somewhat, because it is being
>>>used as an effects stage.
>>
>>so you've seen the schematic?
>
>Yes, I have taken this unit apart and drawn much of it out.

Really, well I would've thought you'd have said so when you made your claims
about the unit. You could've settled this thread long ago if this is the truth
but I have noticed in my few weeks of monitoring this newsgroup that there is a
propensity for people to lie about things like this. It's nothing personal, of
course. I just find it odd that it took you this long in the thread to say
that you've even operated one of these units, or taken the tube out, or drawn
out the schematic, or anything that would lend credibility to the claims you
authoritatively make about it.


>I have been through all of this stuff a decade ago here on r.a.p. Where
>have you been?


Wasn't the behringer unit was only released this year? Surely you realize that
you're not making much sense with that statement. I'm starting to get the
impression you've never even had one of these beringers in your hands, and that
you're basing your entire claim on experience with an older product made by
another company!

Sure would be nice if I could take people seriously on this group, but hey,
it's usenet I suppose.

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

Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:
Kludge writes:
>>
>>Yes, I have taken this unit apart and drawn much of it out.
>
>Really, well I would've thought you'd have said so when you made your claims
>about the unit. You could've settled this thread long ago if this is the truth

If I hadn't done so, I wouldn't have said it.

>but I have noticed in my few weeks of monitoring this newsgroup that there is a
>propensity for people to lie about things like this.

Which newsgroup? This thread is crossposted between several groups, which is
part of the problem. I am reading it in rec.audio.pro.

>Wasn't the behringer unit was only released this year? Surely you realize that
>you're not making much sense with that statement.

The ART was introduced nine years ago. The Behringer is just more of the
same. So is the dbx.

Let me reiterate: This Behringer device is basically copying a technique
that ART came up with, and it is a bad technique no matter who is selling
it. The whole concept is a misguided one. A lot of people are using it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

In article <dh1nqo$9jc$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com says...
>
>Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:
>Kludge writes:
>>>
>>>Yes, I have taken this unit apart and drawn much of it out.
>>
>>Really, well I would've thought you'd have said so when you made your claims
>>about the unit. You could've settled this thread long ago if this is the
truth
>
>If I hadn't done so, I wouldn't have said it.

Yeah, but you didn't say you'd done it for several days even though you were
participating in this thread. Why?

>
>>but I have noticed in my few weeks of monitoring this newsgroup that there is
a
>>propensity for people to lie about things like this.
>
>Which newsgroup? This thread is crossposted between several groups, which is
>part of the problem. I am reading it in rec.audio.pro.

Same here, actually this portion of the thread is not being crossposted to any
other groups.

>
>>Wasn't the behringer unit was only released this year? Surely you realize
that
>>you're not making much sense with that statement.
>
>The ART was introduced nine years ago. The Behringer is just more of the
>same. So is the dbx.

You're probably right, but the matter still isn't resolved because I'm not
convinced you have any actual experience with the unit we're discussing, you're
just making a fairly safe assumption that it is like units you have a lot of
experience with.


>
>Let me reiterate: This Behringer device is basically copying a technique
>that ART came up with, and it is a bad technique no matter who is selling
>it. The whole concept is a misguided one. A lot of people are using it.
>

Yeah, it sounds like a con to me, as I have stated. But think about this, say
you're Behringer and you know experts like Scott will just assume that you've
copied those other similar units. So why bother even putting the tube in the
circuit, if even experts like Scott aren't going to double-check? I mean, if
they don't put the tube in the circuit, they don't mung the sound - potentially
living up to their claim of 'transparancy', sort of like the Tice Clock or
Shakti Stones. Since they don't distort the sound, and don't do anything at
all, they have a better chance of convicing the listener they're improving on
the sound than if they did distort it in some way.

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

Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:
>In article <dh1nqo$9jc$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com says...
>>
>>Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:
>>Kludge writes:
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I have taken this unit apart and drawn much of it out.
>>>
>>>Really, well I would've thought you'd have said so when you made your claims
>>>about the unit. You could've settled this thread long ago if this is the
>truth
>>
>>If I hadn't done so, I wouldn't have said it.
>
>Yeah, but you didn't say you'd done it for several days even though you were
>participating in this thread. Why?

Because I thought it was obvious. I described how the thing worked. If I
hadn't taken it apart, I wouldn't have known how it worked, so I would not
have described how it works.

>You're probably right, but the matter still isn't resolved because I'm not
>convinced you have any actual experience with the unit we're discussing, you're
>just making a fairly safe assumption that it is like units you have a lot of
>experience with.

Then go take it apart for yourself and see. In half an hour you can draw
out the tube stage diagram and save yourself a lot of time posting questions
to which you won't accept the answers people give you.

>Yeah, it sounds like a con to me, as I have stated. But think about this, say
>you're Behringer and you know experts like Scott will just assume that you've
>copied those other similar units. So why bother even putting the tube in the
>circuit, if even experts like Scott aren't going to double-check? I mean, if
>they don't put the tube in the circuit, they don't mung the sound - potentially
>living up to their claim of 'transparancy', sort of like the Tice Clock or
>Shakti Stones. Since they don't distort the sound, and don't do anything at
>all, they have a better chance of convicing the listener they're improving on
>the sound than if they did distort it in some way.

It was, in fact, a tradition to put extra tubes into things that didn't do
anything. In the thirties when radio was new, radio manufacturers would
advertise the quality of the sets by the number of tubes they had. A
six-tube set MUST be better than a four-tube set, right? One manufacturer
had a twenty-three tube set. I think four of them actually did something,
and the rest just had the filaments wired up for show.

I'm sure somebody out there will be making some "tube preamps" soon with
tubes that aren't even wired up. It seems the logical next step in the
marketing game.

But to be honest, the guys making these things _want_ to mung up the sound,
so that people can listen in the music store and immediately hear that the
thing sounds different than the console preamps. And if it sounds different
and costs more, it MUST be better, right? That's how marketing works.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

Chevdood wrote:

> Yeah, but you didn't say you'd done it for several days even though you were
> participating in this thread. Why?

It ain't his job to get you up to speed. Google is your friend.

--
ha

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

On 23 Sep 2005 20:39:23 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> ...

>It was, in fact, a tradition to put extra tubes into things that didn't do
>anything. In the thirties when radio was new, radio manufacturers would
>advertise the quality of the sets by the number of tubes they had. A
>six-tube set MUST be better than a four-tube set, right? One manufacturer
>had a twenty-three tube set. I think four of them actually did something,
>and the rest just had the filaments wired up for show.

They did this with tubes too? That's fascinating, because tubes
were "EXPENSIVE" back then.

In the early '70's I took a close look at a handheld transistor
radio, and found two transistors that were 1: wired as diodes, and 2:
didn't seem to have a complete connection to the rest of the circuit.
Only in recent years and thanks to Usenet have I learned that this was
a common marketing gimmick, there were "8 transistor" and "10
transistor" radios that only used 6 transistors in the active
circuitry. They DID have more transistors, but the extras didn't do
anything. Perhaps the extras were just floor sweepings?

Nowadays a portable audio device sounds better than its competition
because it has "more codecs"...

> ...

>--scott

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

In article <11j9dtsmq782kc9@corp.supernews.com>, rcrowley@xpr7t.net says...
>
>"Chevdo" wrote ...
>> Bad move, people who posess a lot of knowledge are
>> more apt to make mistakes about what they know than those
>> who don't.
>
>Nominated for stupidest Usent posting for the month of September.
>Apparently people who posess little knowledge just come
>here an whine. Do you know what plonk means?

Now here's a fellow who thinks he's far more important than he is.

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:11:20 GMT, chevdo@chevdont.com (Chevdo) wrote:

>In article <11j9dtsmq782kc9@corp.supernews.com>, rcrowley@xpr7t.net says...
>>
>>"Chevdo" wrote ...
>>> Bad move, people who posess a lot of knowledge are
>>> more apt to make mistakes about what they know than those
>>> who don't.
>>
>>Nominated for stupidest Usent posting for the month of September.
>>Apparently people who posess little knowledge just come
>>here an whine. Do you know what plonk means?
>
>Now here's a fellow who thinks he's far more important than he is.

Afraid I'll have to second Richard's choice.

Write when you find work,

Chris Hornbeck

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

In article <3uk9j152g38s4jlhvljr673imqql6lvplh@4ax.com>,
chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net says...
>
>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:11:20 GMT, chevdo@chevdont.com (Chevdo) wrote:
>
>>In article <11j9dtsmq782kc9@corp.supernews.com>, rcrowley@xpr7t.net says...
>>>
>>>"Chevdo" wrote ...
>>>> Bad move, people who posess a lot of knowledge are
>>>> more apt to make mistakes about what they know than those
>>>> who don't.
>>>
>>>Nominated for stupidest Usent posting for the month of September.
>>>Apparently people who posess little knowledge just come
>>>here an whine. Do you know what plonk means?
>>
>>Now here's a fellow who thinks he's far more important than he is.
>
>Afraid I'll have to second Richard's choice.
>
>Write when you find work,
>

Oh you're going to pretend to killfile me too? This newsgroup is hillarious.
Me find work? I'm usenet, I'm just as under-employed as you are.

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

In article <vjm9j1dimu3h53f77hmu8254qnl4e6tp84@4ax.com>,
ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net says...
>
>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 04:22:24 GMT, chevdo@chevdont.com (Chevdo) wrote:
>
>>In article <1h3ct4d.1i4sv8s1cw00zgN%walkinay@thegrid.net>,
walkinay@thegrid.net
>>says...
>>>
>>>Chevdood wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, but you didn't say you'd done it for several days even though you
were
>>>> participating in this thread. Why?
>>>
>>>It ain't his job to get you up to speed. Google is your friend.
>>>
>>
>>nobodys job is to post on usenet, and I wouldn't know the first place to
start
>>with Google to determine whether a tube is or isn't connected to the
Behringer
>>pre-amp. Care to point me in the right direction?
>
> Dunno about Hank, but I don't.
>

I think you mean can't.

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

Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:
>
>Wow you sure told me.
>
>But I still have no idea if the tube in the Behringer unit is in the circuit or
>not, so I guess you didn't tell me.

I told you, but you didn't want to listen. If you don't want to listen to
the answers, why are you bothering to ask questions?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:

> walkinay says...

> >Chevdood wrote:

> >> Yeah, but you didn't say you'd done it for several days even though you
> >> were participating in this thread. Why?

> >It ain't his job to get you up to speed. Google is your friend.

> nobodys job is to post on usenet,

news.admin

> and I wouldn't know the first place to
> start with Google to determine whether a tube is or isn't connected to the
> Behringer pre-amp.

You're going to open one up and draw the schematic, right?

> Care to point me in the right direction?

I suggest Googling a few hundred of Scott's posts. Advanced Group Search
with him as poster, and mic preamp terms out to keep you busy for a
short while at least. That way you'll get a grip on whereof he speaks.

--
ha