Why didn't I get a Behringer 802 mixer? at DVinfo.net

John Britt · March 18th, 2004, 10:06 PM

I don't know if I'm having buyer's remorse or what... I just got the Tapco 6306 mixer about a week ago (for use mainly as a phantom power mic preamp). I was talking to a musician friend of mine last night and he said, "Why didn't you get th Behringer 802? It's got phantom power and you can buy it for $50!"

Why didn't I? Should I consider returing the Tapco for the Behringer? Somehow the Behringer 802 flew under my radar -- I was astounded to even hear that I could get a phantom powered mixer for $50 (http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHUB802) -- Even a simple phantom powered mic preamp seemed to cost at least $80 (the MAudio Audio Buddy). I thought I was getting a pretty good deal when my local guy dropped the Tapco price for me b/c he couldn't get me the Audio Buddy.

Is the Behr. comparable in quality to the Tapco 6306? Is the Tapco worth double the price of the Behr.? I'm not a skinflint, but I hate to think that I spent an extra $49 when I could've gotten the same quality for less...

Matt Stahley · March 18th, 2004, 10:14 PM

Im not a behringer mixer fan though some lover the gear. I've had a Mackie(Tapco) 1202 thats been trouble free for years.I would think the extra $49 is worth it.Though not the best Pre's in the world Im sure the Tapco Pres are better than the Behr. Looks like a nice little mixer too bad its not battery operated.

Bryan Beasleigh · March 18th, 2004, 11:07 PM

What kind of quality might you expect from a $50 mixer. How much did you spend on your camera? Lets keep this whole picture in focus.

John Britt · March 18th, 2004, 11:26 PM

Bryan --

Well, the mixer is pretty much just acting as a phantom power preamp for my new NT1-A (thanks again for the help), so I can get the signal into my computer for my voiceovers. The only reason I didn't just get a preamp like the AudioBuddy is that the local store dropped the price of the Tapco close enough to the cost of the AudioBuddy plus shipping.

I like to be frugal and smart with my money -- $50 is 10 PQ63 miniDV tapes y'know.

And honestly, I really don't know what to expect from a $50 mixer. It was recommended to me by a musician. Maybe it makes a great preamp, even if it sucks as a mixer. Or maybe it's noisy as heck. I'm clueless on this...

Bryan Beasleigh · March 18th, 2004, 11:38 PM

I can almost guarantee a $50 mixer will be substandard to our needs. Music and dialog are two totally different things.

The NT1A is one of the quietist mics there is , why put it through a cheap mixer.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · March 18th, 2004, 11:55 PM

You wouldn't do any better nor worse with the Behringer than the Tapco or Buddy. I'd wager they all three use the same preamp circuitry, or at least preamp chips. Once you're in that low budget range, they are pretty well all equal. I'm not a fan of Behringer at all, but some folks really like their price tags.

Jan Roovers · March 19th, 2004, 02:11 AM

Behringer uses the same preamplifier in their bigger and more expensive mixers.
Technically seen the performance is more as sufficient. Have a look at the specs.
I am an electronic engineer from Delft Technical University and I don't see anything wrong with those spec. The price is cheap but a look at the specs did me decide to buy this mixer without doubt and regardless of the price. Those specs has nothing to do with voce or music.
And I am very pleased with it. It does exactly what it must do and it does it good. I never heard a technical complaint.

Here is a review on the net.

At home I use a Quad (end-)amplifier for my HiFi installation. Technically this amplifier does exactly what it must do. Very special for the concept is that it remains on spec. That is the patent. In the base it is a controlled system (feed back principle). The patent ( for mainamplifiers) exists for years now. For resellers that is boring of course. And they are willing to sell you something else and new and more expensive. This is always the base for a funny discussion. Some of them want you to tell that a tubeamplifier is better, because of the better sounding harmonic distortions. That is true. But forget it, I don't want to hear any distortion at all!

BTW: Tubeampilfiers are sometimes used for special effects in relation with soundrecording but that is another story. In those cases the distortion is wanted.

You don't go wrong with this mixer from Behringer.

People don't like Behringer because they spend less on R&D, but they make some good stuff, sometimes not. For instance I don't like the sound of there monitors, but for those things I need my ears.

To my opinion most preamplfiers are sold to expensive.
The technic to build extremely good pre-amplfiers exists for years now and is based on the feedback principal and can be bought as a cheap chip. Nothing mysterical on that. Based on their specs those chips are used in measurement instruments. For mic-preamplifiers you don't need any more.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · March 19th, 2004, 02:30 AM

Other Behringer threads:

"alleged to have produced their equipment from stolen or reverse-engineered designs from other audio equipment manufacturers "

"hisses like an angry camel" (problem corrected with setup)

I convinced a friend to buy a Behringer mixer, but according to him its mic preamps aren't nearly as quiet as the comparable Mackie he ended up having to borrow instead.

Bryan Beasleigh · March 19th, 2004, 02:36 AM

I'm sorry but I can't believe a sub $100 preamp/ mixer is worth the powder to blow it to hell !

Glenn Chan · March 19th, 2004, 02:40 AM

So... has anyone bothered to objectively measure this mixer or do an A/B comparison to another mixer?

Dan Brown · March 19th, 2004, 08:26 AM

I've been using a B802 with a pair of Oktava M012 mics. Once I got the line level output coupled properly to the mic level input of the Pana DV852, all is working well. The 802 uses integrated circuit preamps, which are the current 'good' ones. I suppose the higher end field mixers use discreet components or something, not sure. The '802 is obviously geared toward the small band music market, but the phantom power and clean audio performance make quite usable for video. At least that is my experience. It might break easy, but I'm fairly careful with my gear.

I don't understand the derrogatory remark about amateurs, if this is a professional-only board, I'm sure in the worng place. I have less in my whole video package than some pros have in a single microphone, but then again, I pay for my gear out of my pocket.

I'd love to have a DVX100a and SD302 mixer with a case of A-T mics and accessories, a dual-processor Power Mac., FCP, Steadicam, a crane, a dollie and tracks, a case of Arri Fresnels, and plenty of grip gear, etc., etc. But I find I can get pretty 'professional' looking results with my lowly DV852, Beringer, Oktaves and FCE on a eMac. In the end it's about the quality of the video and audio, and I think you can learn quality production with the B802. Just make sure you have AC power nearby ;^)

Cheers...

Douglas Spotted Eagle · March 19th, 2004, 08:35 AM

In a chat last night with one of the engineers at Mackie, who happens to be a close friend, the Tapco uses the same prechips that the lower end Mackie boards use, which is what I'd suspected.
As Brian comments, the price point dictates the quality you're gonna get. I've used the Behringer products, not specifically the 802 for any length of time, but in the few times I've had to use one, it's noisy. All of the lower end mixers are, including the Samson and MidiMan. The question isn't how noisy it is, the question is whether it's too noisy to use. Generally, they aren't. When they are set up correctly with the level set to unity, and then the trim set, they are fine.

Jan Roovers · March 19th, 2004, 12:30 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Brown :
I don't understand the derrogatory remark about amateurs, if this is a professional-only board, I'm sure in the worng place.
-->>>

you may rest assured: Lucky I am, I ám an amateur.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · March 19th, 2004, 12:34 PM

I think this is one of those times where Bryan got a little too intense. This board is for amateurs and professionals alike.
Bryan, too much coffee this morning? :-)

Bryan Beasleigh · March 19th, 2004, 02:21 PM

I'm sorry for referring to my friend as a rank amateur, I'm an amateur as well but I'm also realistic about what one can expect from an "inexpensive" piece of gear. The chip at issue may well be perfectly acceptable but what about the power supply and components. How long will the controls last? Switches and pots will wear and create no end of sorrow. Cheap jacks will lose their tension and hiss and crackle, then just stop working when the leaf bends. There is a lot more to a audio chain than just a chip. There's also a matter of shielding and grounding.

I have been around for a few years and have experienced the pitfalls of buying cheap gear. I guess it's a rite of passage. For a mixer to sell for $50 it has to have a manufacturing cost of about $15 - $20, maybe less.

Now a Quad is a very high end amp, somewhat of a classic. I have a 306 with a 34 control unit running my monitors.

March 18th, 2004, 10:06 PM	#1
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	Why didn't I get a Behringer 802 mixer? I don't know if I'm having buyer's remorse or what... I just got the Tapco 6306 mixer about a week ago (for use mainly as a phantom power mic preamp). I was talking to a musician friend of mine last night and he said, "Why didn't you get th Behringer 802? It's got phantom power and you can buy it for $50!" Why didn't I? Should I consider returing the Tapco for the Behringer? Somehow the Behringer 802 flew under my radar -- I was astounded to even hear that I could get a phantom powered mixer for $50 (http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHUB802) -- Even a simple phantom powered mic preamp seemed to cost at least $80 (the MAudio Audio Buddy). I thought I was getting a pretty good deal when my local guy dropped the Tapco price for me b/c he couldn't get me the Audio Buddy. Is the Behr. comparable in quality to the Tapco 6306? Is the Tapco worth double the price of the Behr.? I'm not a skinflint, but I hate to think that I spent an extra $49 when I could've gotten the same quality for less...

March 18th, 2004, 11:55 PM	#6
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	You wouldn't do any better nor worse with the Behringer than the Tapco or Buddy. I'd wager they all three use the same preamp circuitry, or at least preamp chips. Once you're in that low budget range, they are pretty well all equal. I'm not a fan of Behringer at all, but some folks really like their price tags. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

March 19th, 2004, 02:11 AM	#7
Jan Roovers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Amsterdam NL -Turnhout BE Posts: 158	Behringer uses the same preamplifier in their bigger and more expensive mixers. Technically seen the performance is more as sufficient. Have a look at the specs. I am an electronic engineer from Delft Technical University and I don't see anything wrong with those spec. The price is cheap but a look at the specs did me decide to buy this mixer without doubt and regardless of the price. Those specs has nothing to do with voce or music. And I am very pleased with it. It does exactly what it must do and it does it good. I never heard a technical complaint. Here is a review on the net. At home I use a Quad (end-)amplifier for my HiFi installation. Technically this amplifier does exactly what it must do. Very special for the concept is that it remains on spec. That is the patent. In the base it is a controlled system (feed back principle). The patent ( for mainamplifiers) exists for years now. For resellers that is boring of course. And they are willing to sell you something else and new and more expensive. This is always the base for a funny discussion. Some of them want you to tell that a tubeamplifier is better, because of the better sounding harmonic distortions. That is true. But forget it, I don't want to hear any distortion at all! BTW: Tubeampilfiers are sometimes used for special effects in relation with soundrecording but that is another story. In those cases the distortion is wanted. You don't go wrong with this mixer from Behringer. People don't like Behringer because they spend less on R&D, but they make some good stuff, sometimes not. For instance I don't like the sound of there monitors, but for those things I need my ears. To my opinion most preamplfiers are sold to expensive. The technic to build extremely good pre-amplfiers exists for years now and is based on the feedback principal and can be bought as a cheap chip. Nothing mysterical on that. Based on their specs those chips are used in measurement instruments. For mic-preamplifiers you don't need any more. __________________ ___________ Jan Roovers www.jtv.be

March 19th, 2004, 02:30 AM	#8
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Other Behringer threads: "alleged to have produced their equipment from stolen or reverse-engineered designs from other audio equipment manufacturers " "hisses like an angry camel" (problem corrected with setup) I convinced a friend to buy a Behringer mixer, but according to him its mic preamps aren't nearly as quiet as the comparable Mackie he ended up having to borrow instead. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 19th, 2004, 08:26 AM	#11
Dan Brown Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 235	I've been using a B802 with a pair of Oktava M012 mics. Once I got the line level output coupled properly to the mic level input of the Pana DV852, all is working well. The 802 uses integrated circuit preamps, which are the current 'good' ones. I suppose the higher end field mixers use discreet components or something, not sure. The '802 is obviously geared toward the small band music market, but the phantom power and clean audio performance make quite usable for video. At least that is my experience. It might break easy, but I'm fairly careful with my gear. I don't understand the derrogatory remark about amateurs, if this is a professional-only board, I'm sure in the worng place. I have less in my whole video package than some pros have in a single microphone, but then again, I pay for my gear out of my pocket. I'd love to have a DVX100a and SD302 mixer with a case of A-T mics and accessories, a dual-processor Power Mac., FCP, Steadicam, a crane, a dollie and tracks, a case of Arri Fresnels, and plenty of grip gear, etc., etc. But I find I can get pretty 'professional' looking results with my lowly DV852, Beringer, Oktaves and FCE on a eMac. In the end it's about the quality of the video and audio, and I think you can learn quality production with the B802. Just make sure you have AC power nearby ;^) Cheers... __________________ dB

March 18th, 2004, 10:14 PM	#2
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	Im not a behringer mixer fan though some lover the gear. I've had a Mackie(Tapco) 1202 thats been trouble free for years.I would think the extra $49 is worth it.Though not the best Pre's in the world Im sure the Tapco Pres are better than the Behr. Looks like a nice little mixer too bad its not battery operated.

March 18th, 2004, 11:07 PM	#3
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	What kind of quality might you expect from a $50 mixer. How much did you spend on your camera? Lets keep this whole picture in focus.

March 18th, 2004, 11:26 PM	#4
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	Bryan -- Well, the mixer is pretty much just acting as a phantom power preamp for my new NT1-A (thanks again for the help), so I can get the signal into my computer for my voiceovers. The only reason I didn't just get a preamp like the AudioBuddy is that the local store dropped the price of the Tapco close enough to the cost of the AudioBuddy plus shipping. I like to be frugal and smart with my money -- $50 is 10 PQ63 miniDV tapes y'know. And honestly, I really don't know what to expect from a $50 mixer. It was recommended to me by a musician. Maybe it makes a great preamp, even if it sucks as a mixer. Or maybe it's noisy as heck. I'm clueless on this...

March 18th, 2004, 11:38 PM	#5
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	I can almost guarantee a $50 mixer will be substandard to our needs. Music and dialog are two totally different things. The NT1A is one of the quietist mics there is , why put it through a cheap mixer.

March 19th, 2004, 02:36 AM	#9
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	I'm sorry but I can't believe a sub $100 preamp/ mixer is worth the powder to blow it to hell !

March 19th, 2004, 02:40 AM	#10
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	So... has anyone bothered to objectively measure this mixer or do an A/B comparison to another mixer?

March 19th, 2004, 08:35 AM	#12
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	In a chat last night with one of the engineers at Mackie, who happens to be a close friend, the Tapco uses the same prechips that the lower end Mackie boards use, which is what I'd suspected. As Brian comments, the price point dictates the quality you're gonna get. I've used the Behringer products, not specifically the 802 for any length of time, but in the few times I've had to use one, it's noisy. All of the lower end mixers are, including the Samson and MidiMan. The question isn't how noisy it is, the question is whether it's too noisy to use. Generally, they aren't. When they are set up correctly with the level set to unity, and then the trim set, they are fine. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

March 19th, 2004, 12:30 PM	#13
Jan Roovers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Amsterdam NL -Turnhout BE Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by Dan Brown : I don't understand the derrogatory remark about amateurs, if this is a professional-only board, I'm sure in the worng place. -->>> you may rest assured: Lucky I am, I ám an amateur. __________________ ___________ Jan Roovers www.jtv.be

March 19th, 2004, 12:34 PM	#14
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	I think this is one of those times where Bryan got a little too intense. This board is for amateurs and professionals alike. Bryan, too much coffee this morning? :-) __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

March 19th, 2004, 02:21 PM	#15
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	I'm sorry for referring to my friend as a rank amateur, I'm an amateur as well but I'm also realistic about what one can expect from an "inexpensive" piece of gear. The chip at issue may well be perfectly acceptable but what about the power supply and components. How long will the controls last? Switches and pots will wear and create no end of sorrow. Cheap jacks will lose their tension and hiss and crackle, then just stop working when the leaf bends. There is a lot more to a audio chain than just a chip. There's also a matter of shielding and grounding. I have been around for a few years and have experienced the pitfalls of buying cheap gear. I guess it's a rite of passage. For a mixer to sell for $50 it has to have a manufacturing cost of about $15 - $20, maybe less. Now a Quad is a very high end amp, somewhat of a classic. I have a 306 with a 34 control unit running my monitors.