This is one of those videos the entire audio community wanted to know the answers to, thanks for taking the time to explain it well! I've used both consoles many times, I tell people who are interested in them that the major difference outside of audio processing quality is physical build and long term use, but to now see what really is going on with the preamps really helps me understand just how much more they are different than I thought on the audio quality side of the console.
👍 cool cool and there are at least 7 more videos on these boards I have already done on the member side. Will release some or most to the public over the next few months
@Nathaniel Eck: If you've used both X32 and M32 extensively but still needed this video to find any differences in the audio, does it make any practical difference?
Hmmm, when I buy gear, and I (rat sound) owns loads of gear, like 6 arena systems worth, we look at many factors. Sound quality, durability, warranty, factory support, cost, rental rate, return on investment, resale value, demand, brand reputation, predictive life span of the product, ease of use, repairability, parts availability, country of manufacture and so on. There are many factors and the prioritization of those factors change based on application. And have changed over the years as our company grew from some speakers in my living room to being an international touring Sound company. I have been on all levels and am mainly trying to highlight aspects so people can prioritize aspects for their application
I thoroughly enjoyed this video and testing. I was a Navy Electronics Tech who lived with test equipment and dabbled in sound reinforcement. The way you tested the consoles was almost exactly how I would troubleshoot pseudo-random signals. Made. My. Day. Thank you.
Having had an X32 open a few times I would say the noise floor issues are lack of isolation / shielding from the digital components and that digital noise is being induced/picked up by the output devices. There is virtually no shielding / isolation of various sections within the case Any interesting feature of the X/M 32 is the floating point processing, once an audio signal has been converted into the digital domain within the console the potential gain structure is basically infinite. I tested this one time using some Potomac audio generators, analyzers, and a scope. As long as you don't clip the A/D you can i.e. keep cranking up the buses, DCA's, effects, etc. and as long as it's then brought back down to a normal level so you don't clip the D/A converter it won't distort. So as an example if you see your GEQ clipping but you've brought your bus master or LR master back down where it's not clipping on the output meter the signal will remain clean and unclipped due to the floating point processing. I did notice some 'twisting' of certain signals when severely overdriving some of the effects plug-ins so it's possible that some of those don't use the same floating point processing that the main console busses do.
The X32's primary selling point has always been its cut-rate price. Who would doubt Behringer's cost-cutting fervor extends down through cheap components to negligence of RFI shielding? Having run both X32 and M32 boards at dozens of live shows, I can confirm this video's findings of X32 excess noise floor and likewise both consoles' crappy channel overload behavior. Honestly, what do you expect in terms of sound quality from Behringer other than absence of anything to complain about? If it's the British sound you want, stick with Soundcraft or Allen & Heath.
Well I have just discovered this channel and I am super impressed! Great presentation, production and useful, no nonsense content that people can actually use to make decisions about gear to use and how to use it. My compliments Mr. Rat! Well done!
On the secondary market, was able to pick up a Midas M32R. Thanks for the review. I knew the pre-amps were different, but nice to hear it and get confirmation in an actual test.
I personally use an X32 with the Midas DL32 stage box, and noticed the noise floor difference when switching from the local preamps, to the stage box preamps. nice to see it confirmed! I have used both consoles extensively in live settings, and don't really notice a sonic difference at all. aside from ergonomics, I dont find much at all of a "real world" difference between them
Yeah, I'd like to know if the noise on the X32 goes away when you use the DL32 as the outputs. It felt like the DL32 drastically improved the sound of my X32 Rack when I started using it, but I've not got the time to test properly!
@@ExaviorMusic when I had my x32rack/ DL16 setup I definitely noticed a difference using the Midas branded preamps and outputs over the behringer branded ones. It definitely was not confirmation bias, as the x32 ones were fine. They most definitely would not ruin a show. The Midas was a subtle but not so subtle difference if that makes any sense. I can most definitely say that if you can’t mix a good sounding show on an x32 or m32, provided the bussing, matrices, channel counts, etc meet the needs of the show, then it’s not the board that’s the issue.
except the noise floor of the preamps isn't where the difference is, it's certainly negligible with any real-world source. The difference in noise is in the outputs, not the inputs. I also have a pro series stage box (dl152) and have A-B'ed them extensively.
i toured both with the X32 and the M32, same band, same microphones, different PAs but often similar setups, i saved the scene from the X32 and loaded in on the M32 for the next leg of the tour, i immediately noticed more depth and roundness in the low end and a better transient response from the M32. i might be biased but i had the same response from other people who did the same
I've done it blind with a single mic into 1 channel of each, and at least at -10db or so with, the m32 is much cleaner and less distorted. X32 may fare better at lower gain levels or input levels, didn't play around that much...
Great testing video's again. I really love the simplicity of the tests that are actually telling you a lot. In this streaming age I was "forced" to use more digital consoles and the M32 and X32 are the most used. I'm actually crazy enough more found of the x32 because the buttons and faders are lighter. This seems weird cause it would make it less durable but if you only use it for video streams that doesn't matter, what does matter is that it makes the console quicker since the buttons are less heavy to push and the faders are quicker in position. As said in another comment: you can hook up the m32 stagebox over the AES50 and you'll have the other preamps. Looking forward to the other test video's in this lockdown age here in the Netherlands.
Super cool and thank you! I love nuances like the lighter button aspect where real world function for the application is embraced over everything else.
@@DaveRat I mixed on tons of different mixers in theatre, band, festival, club and now livestream applications and if there’s one thing I learned it’s that the job and the application decide which mixer is best :)
As an audio tech I love knowing through testing the real differences in consoles but at the end of the day there are soo many things that go into the final sound product like PA and mic choice, position, room, the list goes on that I worry less about sound floor and more about user experience. Having said that however, I love these kind vids please continue to do more. P.S. just got a new sniffer sender from you arriving in the mail today excited to use it.
Hi Dave. Interesting set of tests. You've assumed that the analogue input stage is identical on ch1 and ch9. I'd wager that the tolerances in components in this stage is having more effect on the null than the 'colour' until clip. The x32 is known for having cheaper brand, wider tolerance components in its analogue stage, so whilst it is still of midas design, channel to channel, desk to desk there is much wider variation in real world specs in this stage. The same is true (if not more so) for the xenyx you are using to sum the two consoles. The noise floor is however very interesting. I bought the midas for the difference in faders alone. Keep making these videos there are so many concepts you used in this one that teach students things they'd never concider.
I did tests where I compared nulling two channels that were digitally split vs two channels that were driven by an analog Y and definitely the analog Y does not null as well on either console. But the analog Y nulls similarly on both consoles
Hey Dave, I know of two venues that had upgraded their X32 to the M32 desk. I was always curious to know how much of a difference there really is between them. Your real world tests were great!
DAVE - PLEASE make a video about doing "Sound in the round" ... where the audience is 360 degrees around the stage. Also, id love to see how you calculate time alignment
That would be cool! I had to do it for the first time last week and will again this coming Friday, and we made it work, but I’d be interested in being able to really set it up better.
@@DaveRat Talk to Jason Jon Anderson who did it for my team at Eaux Claires and for Bon Iver. I'm sure he'd love to do a Zoom chat or something. He's possibly one of the nicest guys in America.
I did cover some in the round stuff in a video about designing the system for a Bassnectar 360 gig where I did some really cool subwoofer stuff. The video is member's only and I don't see releasing it public though
@@DaveRat Maybe a basic "how to calculate time alignment" ? I find the my Smaart program is almost always inaccurate and have learned how to do it by ear. I have also tried recording a click track to use as a visual aid when trying to time align a woofer to a horn.
A couple of comments on some practical differences in these two consoles. First, while the Midas does cost more, it comes with a 10 year warranty versus 3 years for the Behringer. Second, Dave mentions the angle of the screen on the Midas as a positive feature but that is only true, for me at least, if you are seated when you're mixing. If you are standing at the consoles, then the Behringer's screen is at a better angle for viewing. I'm 6' 3" and I have to dip my head to get a good view of the Midas' display when I'm standing.
I just learned that Music Tribe has reduced the warranty period for the M32 to 3 years from 10, and that it is not transferable. I believe this change took effect last month. I specifically checked the warranty for the M32 Live, but the wording leads me to believe that the warranty period is now 3 years for all Midas products.
The church I volunteer for has an X32 Compact for broadcast and an M32 for FOH. Both are used on different days. Both use their own pre amps (M32 uses a DL32, but same pre amps). To me, the difference between both is night and day. I always felt the X32 "provided" more of a hiss, and your tests proved my theory. Thanks for the vid!
Thank my dude for the videos! Can you PLEASE do a video on WEDGES!! Ringing them out, mixing them from foh, do you y split vocals for wedges…. Would learn a lot from that, thanks man big love
Vocals in the wedge in the most important thing when mixing a gig, would love to know the approach form Dave who's seen it all! Solo, get the channel eq for the vocalist in the headphones first then ring out on the graphic I guess, then some general tips? I want to hear it all....
@@DaveRat Legend my man, hit me when you're in Ireland and I'll hook you up in return... if you need an assistant for the Chillis gig next summer you know where to find me, I might even be working there that day depending on the company who knows
A-weighted vs. un ... these are the sort of specs most techs don't catch, or overlook, when making comparisons. Thank you for pointing this simple but too often overlooked fact. keep the classes coming, love them.
Another gem, Dave! News we can use. As far as specs go, I remember my high school math teacher saying, "Figures lie, and liars figure." And so do salespeople.
Dave, thanks for doing this. Can you see what the noise from each console looks like bypassing the analog outputs? This could be a more isolated listen to the mic-pre differences. Maybe use the USB interface to record to a PC, or a Dante card. You could also link them over AES50 and essentially route the X32 pres to the M32 outs and see what it sounds like.
A test over AES50 would be interesting but there is a latency penalty on an AES50 link (admittedly only a few samples) so 3 consoles would be required to do a sample-accurate null test. The consoles in the video should really have been clocked from the same source too but that wouldn't make any difference to the noise performance.
I have done 8 videos on the M/X32 so far and 7 are up on the member side already. I do measure AES50 latency as well as cover mic preamp noise. The noise in this video was with the outputs muted, so mic pre noise is not a factor
Hi! I wonder if what you refer to as phase / timing difference during the null test could simply be caused by a clock skew between the two consoles? I suppose they aren't synced up in some way of course. I would expect that kind of high frequency output on a null test for a simple clock skew that even two identical consoles will actually have. I may be wrong of course, I'm in no way an expert in that matter.
Since I am running analog into and out of both consoles, there is no impact of clocking them together. Using AES50 will add latency to the signal passing through the AES50. The two consoles do have slightly differing latencies inherent. I show the AES50 latency and differing console latencies in videos 7 and/or 8 of the series. I believe I am up to video 7 posted on the member side of my YT channel
@@DaveRat I disagree on your claim that there is no impact, what I'm not sure is if the impact is high enough to get on frequencies as low as what we heard on the null test. According to the specs these consoles sample at 44.1kHz/48kHz, which is probably low enough that if the two consoles aren't synced in some way, would introduce a skew which could impact higher frequencies. According to my theory you could even reboot the consoles and get different measurements. Unfortunately I have no way to test my claims so it may be complete BS. Trying the experiment on two identical consoles (including software version-wise) would be a good way to validate if there is actually an impact or not? I appreciate your content, thanks for your work!
Hmmm, so you are saying the latency of of the consoles drifts a substantial enough time to have an impact on the nulls? The actual latency of the consoles are different between the x and m. I think like 50 microseconds or so. Though I don't see any measurable drift between them.
Thats a really good video! But for the noise test, or in generell, having a XENYX at the end kills the whole test. I found even in one unit big differences
I doesn't matter what he has at the end because it is the same for both devices, unless what you are saying is that the inputs on the Xenyx are so wildly out of spec that it makes the comparison invalid. Chinese mass production of electronic components is not great for audio, but you tend to see the difference in terms of useful life more than audible tolerances.
Dave is real teacher, every theme of his chanel fascinating and instructive - this vid is a good example that a digital console is not just a bunch of preamps, softwares with control surface, even though it's the same manufacturer of them, you have to pay the difference...
Great video , A B testing these things is really the only way to understand if something is right for you or not right for you . Thanks for the simple facts .
Canceling out can be effected by fader resolution: The high driven low fader position probably makes 1 db steps and the high fader position can have lower resolution The results might be different when you use the high fader to match cancellation...
The fader steps are shown in db on the screen and can be matched. So either the screen readout is inaccurate or there is a differential. At lower gains with the inputs digitally linked I can get perfect or near perfect cancellation of one signal run through a subgroup to mix against another signal run straight to mix, as long as I stay low on the meters
How about another test, use an external analog pot on the input to the phase inverted channel as a trim to achieve the null? Thus removing the discrete digital steps in attenuation/gain of the consoles. That null sweet spot should be able to be found exactly this way revealing the "real" differences without any due to gain mismatch.
With a digital split, the null is perfect between channels. Testing various path nulls. Thee are 8 other videos up already on the member side of my RUclips. I will release more to the public over the next few months
First off, having toured the world doing 300+ shows with m32's and x32's in clubs to stadiums, I have to say, I love this video series you are doing. Have you tried an M32 vs another m32 or an x32 vs another x32? I am curious if some of the difference could just be from consistency in build quality from one console to the next. Also, are they running the same firmware? It probably doesn't make a difference, but I am just curious. Finally, I'd be curious for you to test one stage box and switching it from the x32 to m32 and seeing if the processing and output noise make a difference. I tried that at the Rave in Milwaukee one time for a band because we were curious if the processing sounded different. No one in the room could notice a difference, however we were listening at high volumes and not really listening for a slightly higher noise floor.
I have only tested these two and the M32 is 4 or 5 years old and the X32 is new with in the last few months. Software is the same. A lot of the direction I head is based on myth busting and clarifying confusions. I have done 10 XM32 comparison vids and am done with that side of things. Now doing X32 to QU16 for 2 or 3 vids and then X32 to SD11. Will see where that takes me.
I’ve used both in similar live show modes, and think they each sound pretty good. Though not in the market for this size console, if I were, the Midas physical layout, the tilt of its upper housing would be a must for me, even for $1500 extra. ‘Flat’ console surfaces are my pet peeve, as they demand long hours standing bent over the surface - the worst possible posture for a 6-10 hour day of concentration. The difference is, for me anyway, profound. My whole body starting with my ears does not appreciate that ridiculous oversight of a console designer. Imagine an expensive laptop computer whose screen will only fold 15 degrees above lying flat on the table. You’d throw that thing in the ocean. That is the X32 experience.
Agreed, the stronger build and better layout would be worth the $. That said, as a Rental company we do not own any of either except what I bought to do the video.
The Behringer X32 was actually a Midas product, as it was in the can already when they were acquired by Behringer. The reason for the low competitive price point is technical, because when Behringer bought Midas they were in financial distress, had already invested in all the research and development for this product (among others), which freed Behringer from having to build in this into the cost in order to see the return on investment. The fact that Behringer purchased a struggling brand with existing intellectual property and didn’t have to expend any resources to invent it, left them only with manufacturing costs for them to be produced, then relying on their distribution partners to supply the retailers afterwards.
It's kind of like buying Nike knock offs with a Chinese label on it that is made in the same factory as Nike. Similar shoe, maybe some cheaper materials, different branding but they both fit your foot and can run in them. People just need to decide if the brand name and improved build quality matters for their foot, their image and their preferences.
@@connshawnery6489 If all of that is true, then Behringer made a mighty and successful effort to screw up this slam-bang sure thing because they are as different as chalk and cheese. In either guise, it’s a frustrating experience to use this console which, on paper, seems awesome. I don’t recall any of that disappointment with the Pro 2. That the difference comes down to software design is the reason for my frustration. It’s a smaller console than I need, but that’s no excuse to make it ‘stupid’.
@@artysanmobile The format and configuration of the portable ‘smart’ digital mixer was novel in those days and all aspects in fact did come from Midas at the time. This info came directly from the product manager for Behringer at the time as we worked with them as dealer for many years. Of course we are talking years ago and old cheese can certainly be considered chalk nowadays, but we recall how quickly it was adopted in the industry by both professionals and average end users alike when it first hit the market. Many may recall, it being the sliced bread of its ilk at one point in time.
Hi Dave, I really appreciate this video a flat demonstration of the difference between the two. I’m a user of the Pro series console from Midas, I recently did a gig where I approached the M32 as I would the Pro series. The example here being driving the mic pre hard then attenuating the digital gain control to back off the AD converters. Wrongly i suppose I relate the input back to mixing on a heritage 2000 where a turn up and a high pass the source signal sounds mighty! Maybe an unrealistic expectation, however I have managed to get an input to sound as near as possible to this console on a Pro 2, different guitarist, input source and so on.. but a good gain, a high pass and there it was!I appreciate that the processes are vastly different but! I wondered from your opinion, given the historic, iconic maybe tonality of the pre Amps that state Pro pre amps in the M32 match the build quality of the original Pro pre amps? In my opinion it feels cheap, no character, no colour, no real personality.. I don’t want to appear to be bashing a brand here, as long as a channel has gain, EQ, and insert point and most importantly the source is good. It’s all good, we make it happen. But I guess my questions at it’s root is - regardless of the potential implications of the music group, is the M32 worthy in your opinion of describing the console as have pro series Pres accurate.? I have heard good things on the Heritage D I would like to see the a comparison from that to! A pro series console. Big fan Dave, learnt a lot from your videos and appreciate your no bill shit approach, thanks man! Much love
Ya know, I don't really know. I mixed for many years on a H3000 and these definitely don't sound or feel like that console. That said, I will test with a dl251 and see how that goes. Also my friend has an h3000nin his spare room and will try and test compare to that at some point
Dave, thank u for creating a lot of interesting content for a fairly small community….it‘s cool as hell. Thanks for some objective views on that topic! I love that!
Hey have you given the schematics for both a look? They are very telling, pres look very similar with better components in the m32 bom and probably an updated pcb layout to make room for better caps and stuff. The m32 uses better ADCs and DACs with better noise floors I've always suspected that most of the difference between the two was actually the change to those ADC/DACs especially when people bring up the hiss in the noise floor.
I’ve seen pictures of the preamps online, and they’re definitely a difference in design and construction. It’s not just the same design with better parts. But, they both sound good, with the Midas, to my ears, just slightly more flattering, where I felt that I could do less to channels to get them to sit in the mix. But I used an x32 rack with Midas DL16 stage box and there definitely was not a super drastic difference between them. I tend to be conservative with gains though, so I didn’t really slam either one.
I have seen pics of the differences but really, what does it matter if more expensive and pretty arts are inside if they make no difference? I guess what I am after is "what are the real world audio differences, can they be heard and what do they sound like"
Clarifying my comment- they look like different preamp designs, rather than the same preamp design where one just uses higher quality parts than the other. But sonically, they wind up in a similar place. When I bought my Midas stage box, for some reason it actually wound up being cheaper than the equivalent behringer one (DL16 vs S16). In using it on many gigs, I definitely heard the Midas as fuller and more pleasant, but once everyone started playing or speaking, the differences became less noticeable. Just speaking on the preamps themselves, not things like noise. At the time I got my X32 setup, I was mainly using an m7cl, soundcraft expression, or qsc mixers and hadn’t really gotten to use much else. Once I had a chance to use DiGiCo or newer yamaha, I clearly heard the difference between the Midas setup and those. Still, I’d take the X32 over a soundcraft expression any day. The expression sounds pretty good, but I really really dislike the workflow. No matter what, I’m happy we have choices, and with the X32 being relatively affordable it’s good to have a tool like that. I do generally like the x/m32 workflow, although the DiGiCo workflow is my favorite of anything I’ve been able to use. Thanks for this video, it was informative.
@@mrufino1 @Mark Rufino Visual differences don't mean much. The component changes in the bom would require a redesign of the pcb layout so components won't Visually match. I guess the point I was trying to bring up was just the m series pre seems like they took the X looked up better rated components on mouser spun a new pcb and went ok done And when you look at say a pro series schematic it's significantly different. It's also interesting to see what specs they pull from those chips data sheets because of the weighting choices.
I’ve heard that the two consoles have different latencies. If that’s true, there’s no point nulling one against the other in the analog domain. I’d love to hear that test in the digital domain.
@@rdoursenaud it’s the same software so the algorithms are likely identical. The DACs introducing different latency is possible. Could also be a clock sync issue, as the chances of the two desks being aligned are very low.
They actually do have differing latencies< i think I discover and show that in the 6th or 7th video in the series where I also show the AES50 latency. I will be posting video 8 in the series next weekend to the member side of my RUclips channel
The result of your self-noise experiment reflects some of my own experience between Midas and Behringer. I briefly had a Behringer P-16M headphone mixer. I plugged headphones into it and noted a lot of hiss. Plugged the headphones into the M32R console headphone jack and it was dead silent.
Holy shit this is the guy who did the sound and roadie for the Black Flag tours!!!!! The name sounded familiar and I googled him and it confirmed it. Wow I’m definitely subscribing and willing to listen and learn everything I can from him. Thank you RUclips algorithm for dropping this Gem in my feed.
@@DaveRat I’ve listened to “Get in the Van” so many times and own the Book. The stories in there are absolutely insane. How you guys survived the 80’s punk rock scene it’s amazing!!!! My hats off to you and my deepest respect. I’ve always admired your story of learning how to build speakers and PA systems way back in 79’ and then made it your living and passion. So glad you are sharing your knowledge of live sound, I will definitely be checking out your other videos on the channel. Already subscribe d and turned on notifications. Thanks for saying hello and be well!!!
Super cool and those were some good times! And also would be tough to repeat the outlaw nature of those adventures. Will try and fit in some old stories into future vids
Nice. I noticed this was a single channel measurement. Will the relative level of this noise difference remain the same with 1 channel on each board being used or all 32 channels on the boards being used at the same time? I was just wondering about the Preamp power supply.
YOU ROCK DUDE! Thank you so much! I'm just in the process of deciding which one to buy for my band and that helps a lot. I'm wondering if I can conclude that they don't actually sound that different?
I have done 8 videos comparing these so far and released 7 of them on the member side of my RUclips. Eventually most of the vids will make it to the publis side but may be worth spending the $5 and watching them now, then canceling your membership. :)
@@DaveRat that's awesome! I definitely plan to join zoom. I would love if it would be around the same time as last call (2pm Pacific), because I'm from Poland and it would be 10pm here, see you! :)
Awesome comparison and specs are like Apples and Oranges if not measured in the same weights. It is like slew rates on amplifiers or wattage, peak, power or RMS. Dave you are the one we trust in making comparisons. Specifically real a/b tests and now we know why one has a significant price difference. Dave what is your favourite digital board for live work? Would be interested in why. Cheers for now. Looking forward to your next video.
Thank you! As far as my favorite, personally I never really transitioned from analog but as far as the rental company, we have lots of Digico, and Avid S6L as the ones most popular. We own some Midas and Yamaha but the Digico and Avids stay the most busy for us
Behringer (the company) didn't buy Midas, Music Group (now Music Tribe) did. Midas is now a subsidiary of Music Tribe, like Behringer, TurboSound, KlarkTechnik and TC Electronic are. Uli Behringer happens to be the CEO of Music Tribe, but don't mistake the person for the company. There have been collaborations between Behringer and Midas, and the X/M32 are the prime example. The two consoles have identical audio-processing hardware and software, but interfaces and A-D/D-A converters are different with much better quality on the Midas models. My experience in the past is that there would not be audible difference between the two if you use the X32 with a Midas DL16 or DL32 for I/O. There are quite a few people in the industry who prefer the X32 layout over the M32 and do just that. However, there have been minor changes to the platform over time, and this test seem to indicate that the M32 preamps no longer are no longer as good as they used to be. An older M32 I had would saturate almost like and old analog console into clipping, not producing the same nasty noise as the X32.
Actually Music Tribe is the Tech Support holding company. Music Group is the "parent." The impacts to near bankrupt Tannoy were to basically destroy it along with Turbosound. The companies falling in stress are KT, lake, TCE, TCH because the good is robbed and incorporated into all the other brands.
@@DaveRat Thanks Dave. I was researching about the benefits of using studio preamps with live digital consoles such as the M32 and came across your videos. May I ask your thoughts on this? I also have been trying using computer plugins (like the Waves suite) as inserts from the mics before the signal hitting the console. Do you think if there are benefits in doing this?
Hi Dave! I would be curious to hear many channels form one console together in a test. how is everything is reacting at the summing point where all the signal meeting. is it possible that the X32 do like the old M7CL did and leave some information behind at the summing point? I would be also interested to know what really is the parts tolerance in the M VS X. apparently the mic preamps are the same physical design with more affordable components. is it possible that 2 of the same console would have large difference in sound?
A friend sent me pics of the Midas vs the Behringer stage box circuit boards and they were quite different in components, layout and even the quality of the circuit board itself. I h will look into opening these up and looking inside as well.
@@DaveRat if you investigate this, can you do the 3 different versions of stagebox available? DL32, DL251,S32? I personally use the Blue box all the time as an upgrade form the DL32 and i believe had heard a difference between the 2 when I switch
What an interesting expariment! This perfectly aligns with my confirmation bias. I always assumed that the X32 would have cheaper components in it and therefore probably have more nonlinearities and a higher noise floor, and that seems to be exactly what this expariment seems to show. Really though I kinda hate both of those consoles, the software UI just doesn't jive with me. I could go off on a rant, but lets just say I'll take a Yamaha any day if I can get my hands on it!
I remember those days! And also remember the days when I started designing systems for arena and stadium tours 6 months before the first show. Spent 2 months in rehearsals before 2 weeks of production rehearsals before loading in 3 days before the first show. Ha! By the time we get to "doors at 6pm" we are a well oiled machine with time to burn and relaxing in catering. It's a long road between the two, a lot of work and attention to detail and striving for perfection, but the glory of the destination was goosebumps and thrilling to reach.
Really cool and interesting content Dave, good luck with your channel I own the X32 Compact which I bought at the start of the lockdowns from a Hire Company that decided to pack up, included the SD16/8 and cables. Before hand I did the research into what to buy, cost performance spec warranty (and listened to other peoples reviews and opinions) and considered various desks from Music Group. Allen Heath, Yamaha and even the QSC Touchmix. Originally I had intended to buy new but when the offer came in for the X32 it was a simple decision, jump in the car and collect !! My initial plan was to record acts live and then turn the recordings into marketable sales media as in CDs. So my priority was ease of use, portability, durability expandability performance and ease to record the multi tracks with cost subjective to the whole setup, console and extras. When you compare the X32 against the competition its a no brainer, including its half-brother the M32. They all might beat the X32 in all departments except none came close on price especially when you start expanding its capability with digital snakes. Remember these are designed to be used live not in a studio so you accept their sound quality is not comparable to studio quality, I already own hardware racked gear for that. You just cannot fault the X32 in any way its priced low for a reason, else it would be in direct competition to the Midas, they also do the Wing but that was way to big bulky and heavy. I never considered the X32 and M32 like for like. Internally they might be very similar, after all they both run the same software. You are paying a high premium for the M32, better faders Midas branded preamps and a much longer warranty but you pay for that, you pay a lot for it but in the end is it justified? I run the console into QSC RMX power amps so never need to push the output and have never heard any audible noise and the sound quality is more than acceptable. At home its also router through a RME interface with Adams Studio Monitors again no noise. My conclusion is that the X32 performs better than I expected and against much higher quality gear its surprisingly competitive. The Midas would have cost me 3 times what I paid for my X32 warranty new/old is irrelevant now since mine is over 2 years old and even if bought new the X32 is still less than half the price of a the M32 when you cost up console and snake boxes. Yes I know there is a M32 and M32R and the differences especially size and cost, I was just being lazy.
Thank you The sound company I work for we have a M32 and x32 as well as a x32 compact and it is awesome to see the difference or lack of the differences between them I will say I do enjoy getting around the M32 lil bit better !
I really enjoyed this clip thank you so much, your expertise is truly appreciated. Please consider to also do a comparison between the Allen and Heath Avantis and Midas . This is really a huge question between thousands....Im sure we will all enjoy it.Thanks
I use an M32r with a DL251 for FOH. I share the stagebox with an x32 rack for IEM’s. It’s a happy stable system. When I do a fly date and get an x32 with no stagebox I’m ok with it BECAUSE everything on stage is different except the iPod playing the program music. These consoles function best when the pre’s are trimmed to -18dB. Anything more than the main buss will overdrive give you less usable system headroom. Using different processing causes latency in subsequent channels so perfect nulls can be harder to achieve. Luckily it’s a not real life application to null. We’re in the make it louder business. Of course you were using these as a studio DAW then the difference could be crucial. For Live, both desks get the job done. Great video Dave!
I think its great that you took the time to do this type of test. I wish more people would take the initiative and try something different. Null testing can be difficult because you have to control everything but what you're actually testing. It may not tell you everything, but if done right, it can yield some valuable information, such as "is there a difference?". Yes or no. There's not that much information out there, especially real world examples of using null testing in audio. I'd like to share a video with you done by another youtuber. He did null testing to prove there can be an audible difference between different USB cables used for music transfer. You may his approach to be useful. He made recordings of the all the cables using the exact same music clip, both in and out of phase. When he played the same cable in and out of phase, it was silent. When he mixed the cables you could here some music. While the test was excellent, he's not an expert in recording. You are. With your knowledge and experience, I'm sure you can take it to the next level. Anyway, here's the link, and I hope you continue to make videos like this. ruclips.net/video/zncAhs44sp8/видео.html
Interesting. I believe the test setup is flawed. Getting a null is very difficult to do. To make this test not flawed, having an an identical output simultaneously run down two different cables and then summing them out of polarity afterwards would be a better plan. The manual post process manipulation is suspect. I would follow the opposite approach. I would look for all cable signals to cancel perfectly, I would look for differing lengths of the same cable to cancel perfectly. Any imperfections in cancelation would be suspect. And if and only if I failed to get differing lengths of the same cable and different cables to cancel, would I consider a possible difference exists. I look for math/science to align with testing. When it does not align, I am skeptical until it becomes explained.
@@DaveRat I understand what you are saying, but if he's just swapping a single cable in and out of the system, there aren't any other variables. Unless I'm missing something, when he plays the recordings made with the same cable, both in and out of phase, its dead silent. Only when he plays 2 different cables, do you hear any music. "I look for math/science to align with testing. When it does not align, I am skeptical until it becomes explained." There's nothing wrong with that. You should be skeptical. The only thing I would add, is we don't know how to measure everything we hear. And that doesn't mean you can't use science, because you can. For example, we don't know how to measure timbre. I know of at least 2 universities that are trying to come up with a way, but haven't made much progress. Its very complicated because several variables go into the measurement, and they just don't have a solution yet. That said, you can still use science. When you make observations that go beyond what the measurements can explain, a scientific listening test can be done. And if done correctly, can prove if a difference can be heard, or not. Anyway, getting back on topic, this is exactly why I recommended the video. I suspect you would be able to improve on the test. Its your channel, and the video's you make are no one's business but your own. However, if you did decide to do one on this topic, I think we would all like to see it. I know I would.
But that is not what he did. He made multiple recordings with different cables and than manually time aligned the signals based on a visual indication of the sample pulse. In my opinion, this manual alignment is a potential flaw to the testing. The manual alignment assumes the visual indications of the waveforms is precise and there is no finding to the nearest pixel or that the visual indication as exact. Additionally the recording being made at differing times opens up possibilities of other variables. In my opinion, the probability that a copper wire can accurately pass a fairly non difficult to transmit digital signal over a short distance with no errors is quite high. The probability that there is a significant difference enough to creat differtials in the errors or digital signal transmitted between various copper wires of relatively the same length, is quite low. The probability that the test setup where multiple recordings were made at differing points in time and then manually aligned to cancel out, has some sort of oversight, error or miscalculation is quite high.
I may be mistaken but the scale on the input channel is dbFS meaning 0db is the hard digital clipping limit. The channel input should therefore be set much lower and Behringer recommend -18dbFS as do many digital input devices.
Not actually sure science proves anything other than radiating multiple sounds is more similar to actual acoustic sources. I think science would prove that trying to radiate a single sound in order to reproduce multiple sources is the flaw to existing systems
I think the X32 was a good business wise decision from Behringer, while the M32, with it's rather higher price to accomodate its higher quality, while it's a better device than the X32, have to compete (and in a not too 'advantageous position' either), vs some tough, if not, arguably, the ones who have better quality devices competitors - than the M32, namely A&H SQ Series, and maybe also Yamaha and some else.
I'm considering the X32 for our Church. We have used a Peavey 24 channel unity series analog board for over 20 years. It has served us well, but it is not very versatile. I haven't really decided yet, but the Church doesn't have a lot of money and most any upgrade would be an improvement. I do worry about noise with a digital console because we do have some grounding issues in the building.
Too many variables to count that out with any accuracy but well testing it I felt the X32 was on the noisy side of things. Especially because with digital consoles you have to stay very clear of clipping so you're sitting deeper into the noise floor. Whereas with an analog console you can drive them harder without as many negative ramifications and float farther above the noise floor
I used to drive around with a function generator In 1992 when I installed my 1st audio system in the vehicle. I had 2 big 15" woofers in the back seat of K car. Hook up the function generator to the head unit and and just roll around with one constant low note. lol.
the differences in noise depend almost exclusively on the output opamps/adders. It is expected that a more expensive console will have better amplifiers in critical parts of the circuit (outputs (monitor, stereo, subgroups, master, etc)); that also allows lower value resistors to be used (an opamp that can handle lower output impedances without distorting too much is more expensive), which added throughout the entire signal flow, means a little less thermal noise. Most likely, the Berhinger has "cheap" opamps throughout the schematic, and the Midas has much "finner" (lees noisy) opamps at the critical points (adders, faders, output channels, preamp, etc.) . The other big issue in consoles and equipment is crosstalk, it depends on the dimensions/physical space of copper tracks on the boards. That is why it is usual for the noise in the upper part of the frequency spectrum to be a little higher (the crosstalk is electromagnetic induction; it depends on the distance between 2 components/copper tracks, on the frequencies and on the input/output impedances of the punctual section. A cheap console is a little more permissive in the physical layout and/or shielding of the sections, so, noisy crosstalk can be a little higher . pd: noise cancellation will never be 100%, since the thermal noise of opamps and resistors is random. When we send the same signal (pink noise or any other) to 2 identical channels, then add them out of phase, the result will be the perfect cancellation of the main signal. But the residue remains, which is the difference in the thermal noise of each channel (thermal noise is inherent in every electronic component, and is random, so the cancellation is only partial. In many preamplifiers, transistors are used in parallel to attenuate their inherent thermal noise. (if the noise were not random, 2 identical transistors in parallel would achieve a noise attenuation (by cancellation) of 6dB; but since it's random, the improvement is only 3dB.) The same type of tricks are used in summing amplifiers: it is not the same to add 16 signals through resistors in a single node/opamp, than to divide the sum into partial sums per section, prior to the main node/sum. Those kinds of "partial additions" are inaccessible to the console user, and are usually present on more expensive consoles.
yup, of course, I'm only talking about the analog part of the chain (which is what I know best). DACs also have their own issues with internal noise, aliasing, dither, etc. ps: there is a book by Douglas Self, "Small Signal Audio Design", which has a whole section dedicated to mixers; it is electronic, of course, but it addresses and explains in a generic way the main morphologies used in consoles. Issues with noise, sum of signals, etc . Can be useful for someone (I reviewed it more than once when I was studying, years ago; it helps to better understand what happens with our signals inside of a mixing console)
Loved this video, as with many others on your channel. Greatful for your time and willingness to share your knowledge. Quite curious if these outcomes would be similar when using the corresponding digital stage boxes. 🤔
This is one of those videos the entire audio community wanted to know the answers to, thanks for taking the time to explain it well! I've used both consoles many times, I tell people who are interested in them that the major difference outside of audio processing quality is physical build and long term use, but to now see what really is going on with the preamps really helps me understand just how much more they are different than I thought on the audio quality side of the console.
👍 cool cool and there are at least 7 more videos on these boards I have already done on the member side. Will release some or most to the public over the next few months
@Nathaniel Eck: If you've used both X32 and M32 extensively but still needed this video to find any differences in the audio, does it make any practical difference?
Hmmm, when I buy gear, and I (rat sound) owns loads of gear, like 6 arena systems worth, we look at many factors.
Sound quality, durability, warranty, factory support, cost, rental rate, return on investment, resale value, demand, brand reputation, predictive life span of the product, ease of use, repairability, parts availability, country of manufacture and so on.
There are many factors and the prioritization of those factors change based on application. And have changed over the years as our company grew from some speakers in my living room to being an international touring Sound company.
I have been on all levels and am mainly trying to highlight aspects so people can prioritize aspects for their application
So you cannot hear anything off when you are using one versus the other?
And if you can't, then what difference does it make, and who cares?
I thoroughly enjoyed this video and testing. I was a Navy Electronics Tech who lived with test equipment and dabbled in sound reinforcement. The way you tested the consoles was almost exactly how I would troubleshoot pseudo-random signals. Made. My. Day. Thank you.
Awesome! Thank you and I used to test military gear when I was 18. Great to meet ya
I love dave's passion. He is able to motivate me to dive deeper into the neardy stuff of audio
Hell yes!!
Having had an X32 open a few times I would say the noise floor issues are lack of isolation / shielding from the digital components and that digital noise is being induced/picked up by the output devices. There is virtually no shielding / isolation of various sections within the case
Any interesting feature of the X/M 32 is the floating point processing, once an audio signal has been converted into the digital domain within the console the potential gain structure is basically infinite. I tested this one time using some Potomac audio generators, analyzers, and a scope. As long as you don't clip the A/D you can i.e. keep cranking up the buses, DCA's, effects, etc. and as long as it's then brought back down to a normal level so you don't clip the D/A converter it won't distort.
So as an example if you see your GEQ clipping but you've brought your bus master or LR master back down where it's not clipping on the output meter the signal will remain clean and unclipped due to the floating point processing. I did notice some 'twisting' of certain signals when severely overdriving some of the effects plug-ins so it's possible that some of those don't use the same floating point processing that the main console busses do.
The X32's primary selling point has always been its cut-rate price. Who would doubt Behringer's cost-cutting fervor extends down through cheap components to negligence of RFI shielding? Having run both X32 and M32 boards at dozens of live shows, I can confirm this video's findings of X32 excess noise floor and likewise both consoles' crappy channel overload behavior. Honestly, what do you expect in terms of sound quality from Behringer other than absence of anything to complain about? If it's the British sound you want, stick with Soundcraft or Allen & Heath.
In another video I look at differences in the preamp noise and sound of that noise.
I’ve been waiting for a video like this. Really great dave thank you!
Awesome and thank you Nick!
Everything you do and say is over my head, but love seeing you test audio gear. I’ve learned a lot and still have a lot to learn. Thanks Dave.
Great to meet you Dave!
This is my favorite RUclips channel, amazing video Dave as always ! Love your no anecdotal, hard evidence approach to pro audio.
Awesome and thank you Scotty!
Thank you very much! Such a pleasure to see a man so curious as a child but a great professional!
Thank you!!
That difference in the spec sheets is interesting. It reminds me of an old adage, "Statistics never lie, but liars use statistics."
Agreed. I really dont like deceptive specs
Like audio interface companies
👍
Well I have just discovered this channel and I am super impressed! Great presentation, production and useful, no nonsense content that people can actually use to make decisions about gear to use and how to use it. My compliments Mr. Rat! Well done!
Awesome and thank you!
This sort of video gives us a great explanation of why something costs more.
👍👍👍
On the secondary market, was able to pick up a Midas M32R. Thanks for the review. I knew the pre-amps were different, but nice to hear it and get confirmation in an actual test.
🤙🤙🤙
I personally use an X32 with the Midas DL32 stage box, and noticed the noise floor difference when switching from the local preamps, to the stage box preamps. nice to see it confirmed!
I have used both consoles extensively in live settings, and don't really notice a sonic difference at all.
aside from ergonomics, I dont find much at all of a "real world" difference between them
When I changed the cross-over on our rig, the difference was astounding. When we went from an x23 to an M32, no difference.
Yeah, I'd like to know if the noise on the X32 goes away when you use the DL32 as the outputs. It felt like the DL32 drastically improved the sound of my X32 Rack when I started using it, but I've not got the time to test properly!
@@ExaviorMusic when I had my x32rack/ DL16 setup I definitely noticed a difference using the Midas branded preamps and outputs over the behringer branded ones. It definitely was not confirmation bias, as the x32 ones were fine. They most definitely would not ruin a show. The Midas was a subtle but not so subtle difference if that makes any sense.
I can most definitely say that if you can’t mix a good sounding show on an x32 or m32, provided the bussing, matrices, channel counts, etc meet the needs of the show, then it’s not the board that’s the issue.
except the noise floor of the preamps isn't where the difference is, it's certainly negligible with any real-world source. The difference in noise is in the outputs, not the inputs. I also have a pro series stage box (dl152) and have A-B'ed them extensively.
that seems pretty consistent with with the tests so far
i toured both with the X32 and the M32, same band, same microphones, different PAs but often similar setups, i saved the scene from the X32 and loaded in on the M32 for the next leg of the tour, i immediately noticed more depth and roundness in the low end and a better transient response from the M32. i might be biased but i had the same response from other people who did the same
Interesting. I have not found any clear sonic differences, only slight so far. But there are some differences.
I've done it blind with a single mic into 1 channel of each, and at least at -10db or so with, the m32 is much cleaner and less distorted. X32 may fare better at lower gain levels or input levels, didn't play around that much...
the end test tones and sweeps suddenly highlighted where I need to work on my rooms bass management, cheers!
🤙👍🤙
Excellent video, thanks for taking the time and sharing Mr. Rat….you rock!!
👍
Great testing video's again. I really love the simplicity of the tests that are actually telling you a lot. In this streaming age I was "forced" to use more digital consoles and the M32 and X32 are the most used. I'm actually crazy enough more found of the x32 because the buttons and faders are lighter. This seems weird cause it would make it less durable but if you only use it for video streams that doesn't matter, what does matter is that it makes the console quicker since the buttons are less heavy to push and the faders are quicker in position. As said in another comment: you can hook up the m32 stagebox over the AES50 and you'll have the other preamps. Looking forward to the other test video's in this lockdown age here in the Netherlands.
Super cool and thank you! I love nuances like the lighter button aspect where real world function for the application is embraced over everything else.
@@DaveRat I mixed on tons of different mixers in theatre, band, festival, club and now livestream applications and if there’s one thing I learned it’s that the job and the application decide which mixer is best :)
👍
As an audio tech I love knowing through testing the real differences in consoles but at the end of the day there are soo many things that go into the final sound product like PA and mic choice, position, room, the list goes on that I worry less about sound floor and more about user experience. Having said that however, I love these kind vids please continue to do more. P.S. just got a new sniffer sender from you arriving in the mail today excited to use it.
Thank you! And more to come!
yaaasssssss I'm so stoked to see you do a deep dive on this exact comparison!!
Thank you Lock!
I've had the M32 for a couple years now... Glad I did. Very good synopsis Mr Rat. Well done!
👍
Hi Dave. Interesting set of tests. You've assumed that the analogue input stage is identical on ch1 and ch9. I'd wager that the tolerances in components in this stage is having more effect on the null than the 'colour' until clip. The x32 is known for having cheaper brand, wider tolerance components in its analogue stage, so whilst it is still of midas design, channel to channel, desk to desk there is much wider variation in real world specs in this stage. The same is true (if not more so) for the xenyx you are using to sum the two consoles. The noise floor is however very interesting. I bought the midas for the difference in faders alone. Keep making these videos there are so many concepts you used in this one that teach students things they'd never concider.
I did tests where I compared nulling two channels that were digitally split vs two channels that were driven by an analog Y and definitely the analog Y does not null as well on either console. But the analog Y nulls similarly on both consoles
This doesn't make sense he nulled both channels which should take account of variations in component tolerances it is why the null test is useful.
👍
Hey Dave, I know of two venues that had upgraded their X32 to the M32 desk. I was always curious to know how much of a difference there really is between them. Your real world tests were great!
Thank you Peter!
This goes into testing way beyond my tech knowledge but totally fascinating nonetheless! The way noise level is documented is a real eye opener.
👍👍
Love this dudes practical approach to audio.
👍👍
DAVE - PLEASE make a video about doing "Sound in the round" ... where the audience is 360 degrees around the stage.
Also, id love to see how you calculate time alignment
That would be cool! I had to do it for the first time last week and will again this coming Friday, and we made it work, but I’d be interested in being able to really set it up better.
I will ponder that adventure
@@DaveRat Talk to Jason Jon Anderson who did it for my team at Eaux Claires and for Bon Iver. I'm sure he'd love to do a Zoom chat or something. He's possibly one of the nicest guys in America.
I did cover some in the round stuff in a video about designing the system for a Bassnectar 360 gig where I did some really cool subwoofer stuff.
The video is member's only and I don't see releasing it public though
@@DaveRat Maybe a basic "how to calculate time alignment" ?
I find the my Smaart program is almost always inaccurate and have learned how to do it by ear. I have also tried recording a click track to use as a visual aid when trying to time align a woofer to a horn.
A couple of comments on some practical differences in these two consoles. First, while the Midas does cost more, it comes with a 10 year warranty versus 3 years for the Behringer. Second, Dave mentions the angle of the screen on the Midas as a positive feature but that is only true, for me at least, if you are seated when you're mixing. If you are standing at the consoles, then the Behringer's screen is at a better angle for viewing. I'm 6' 3" and I have to dip my head to get a good view of the Midas' display when I'm standing.
👍👍
You get what you pay for.
I just learned that Music Tribe has reduced the warranty period for the M32 to 3 years from 10, and that it is not transferable. I believe this change took effect last month. I specifically checked the warranty for the M32 Live, but the wording leads me to believe that the warranty period is now 3 years for all Midas products.
Lame
That was the best thing I've seen on RUclips in ages!
Thank you Ryan!
The church I volunteer for has an X32 Compact for broadcast and an M32 for FOH. Both are used on different days. Both use their own pre amps (M32 uses a DL32, but same pre amps). To me, the difference between both is night and day. I always felt the X32 "provided" more of a hiss, and your tests proved my theory. Thanks for the vid!
Cool cool and thank you for the info!
I’d like to see you do the cancellation/preamp additive test between an M32 and an actual Midas Pro series console, pre Behringer buyout.
I will grab a DL251 and link that as a stagebox at some point. That should give us the other Midas preamp sound
That will never work even with two exact consoles. Analog doesn't ever sound exactly the same. A qualitative test is more relevant.
👍
Thank my dude for the videos!
Can you PLEASE do a video on WEDGES!! Ringing them out, mixing them from foh, do you y split vocals for wedges…. Would learn a lot from that,
thanks man big love
I will work on a plan for that. If I can figure out a way to demo it on a small scale from where I do the vids, I will do it sooner.
Yes would love this!! Thanks!
Vocals in the wedge in the most important thing when mixing a gig, would love to know the approach form Dave who's seen it all! Solo, get the channel eq for the vocalist in the headphones first then ring out on the graphic I guess, then some general tips? I want to hear it all....
@@DaveRat Legend my man, hit me when you're in Ireland and I'll hook you up in return... if you need an assistant for the Chillis gig next summer you know where to find me, I might even be working there that day depending on the company who knows
Get rid of the wedges... nobody should be riding a horse to work any more.
A-weighted vs. un ... these are the sort of specs most techs don't catch, or overlook, when making comparisons. Thank you for pointing this simple but too often overlooked fact. keep the classes coming, love them.
Thank you Kent!
Another gem, Dave! News we can use. As far as specs go, I remember my high school math teacher saying, "Figures lie, and liars figure." And so do salespeople.
Cool cool Todd!
@@DaveRat I just love seeing honest-to-God tests rather than hearing Oh-my-God opinions...
👍 agreed, me too!
Dave, thanks for doing this. Can you see what the noise from each console looks like bypassing the analog outputs? This could be a more isolated listen to the mic-pre differences. Maybe use the USB interface to record to a PC, or a Dante card. You could also link them over AES50 and essentially route the X32 pres to the M32 outs and see what it sounds like.
A test over AES50 would be interesting but there is a latency penalty on an AES50 link (admittedly only a few samples) so 3 consoles would be required to do a sample-accurate null test.
The consoles in the video should really have been clocked from the same source too but that wouldn't make any difference to the noise performance.
I have done 8 videos on the M/X32 so far and 7 are up on the member side already. I do measure AES50 latency as well as cover mic preamp noise. The noise in this video was with the outputs muted, so mic pre noise is not a factor
Thank you for such a cogent and unbiased demonstration, Onya!!
Thank you Dave
Dave Rat, Gear Whisperer. Love this video!! I own both consoles and I was glued to the screen the whole time. Great job Dave. You are bad ass!!
Awesome! And many more to come. Just recorded vid "9 in the series
The boards are so clean and lean looking! Great video!
👍
Hi! I wonder if what you refer to as phase / timing difference during the null test could simply be caused by a clock skew between the two consoles? I suppose they aren't synced up in some way of course. I would expect that kind of high frequency output on a null test for a simple clock skew that even two identical consoles will actually have. I may be wrong of course, I'm in no way an expert in that matter.
Yeah good call, sync them both to a master clock, that would eliminate jitter as a culprit.
Just connect the 2 consoles via AES50 and set one to master and other to use the AES50 clock
Since I am running analog into and out of both consoles, there is no impact of clocking them together. Using AES50 will add latency to the signal passing through the AES50. The two consoles do have slightly differing latencies inherent. I show the AES50 latency and differing console latencies in videos 7 and/or 8 of the series. I believe I am up to video 7 posted on the member side of my YT channel
@@DaveRat I disagree on your claim that there is no impact, what I'm not sure is if the impact is high enough to get on frequencies as low as what we heard on the null test. According to the specs these consoles sample at 44.1kHz/48kHz, which is probably low enough that if the two consoles aren't synced in some way, would introduce a skew which could impact higher frequencies. According to my theory you could even reboot the consoles and get different measurements. Unfortunately I have no way to test my claims so it may be complete BS. Trying the experiment on two identical consoles (including software version-wise) would be a good way to validate if there is actually an impact or not? I appreciate your content, thanks for your work!
Hmmm, so you are saying the latency of of the consoles drifts a substantial enough time to have an impact on the nulls?
The actual latency of the consoles are different between the x and m. I think like 50 microseconds or so. Though I don't see any measurable drift between them.
Thats a really good video! But for the noise test, or in generell, having a XENYX at the end kills the whole test. I found even in one unit big differences
I did bunch more videos and tests with and without the xenyx. That I will release over the next few months
I doesn't matter what he has at the end because it is the same for both devices, unless what you are saying is that the inputs on the Xenyx are so wildly out of spec that it makes the comparison invalid. Chinese mass production of electronic components is not great for audio, but you tend to see the difference in terms of useful life more than audible tolerances.
Yes, and also the Xenyx tests better than the x32 with lower noise, higher output and wider freq response
Dave is real teacher, every theme of his chanel fascinating and instructive - this vid is a good example that a digital console is not just a bunch of preamps, softwares with control surface, even though it's the same manufacturer of them, you have to pay the difference...
Great video , A B testing these things is really the only way to understand if something is right for you or not right for you . Thanks for the simple facts .
👍
Canceling out can be effected by fader resolution: The high driven low fader position probably makes 1 db steps and the high fader position can have lower resolution
The results might be different when you use the high fader to match cancellation...
The fader steps are shown in db on the screen and can be matched. So either the screen readout is inaccurate or there is a differential. At lower gains with the inputs digitally linked I can get perfect or near perfect cancellation of one signal run through a subgroup to mix against another signal run straight to mix, as long as I stay low on the meters
Both consoles work in .3 dB increments. You can view the channel screen and use an encoder to set the level very accurately.
👍
How about another test, use an external analog pot on the input to the phase inverted channel as a trim to achieve the null? Thus removing the discrete digital steps in attenuation/gain of the consoles. That null sweet spot should be able to be found exactly this way revealing the "real" differences without any due to gain mismatch.
With a digital split, the null is perfect between channels. Testing various path nulls.
Thee are 8 other videos up already on the member side of my RUclips. I will release more to the public over the next few months
First off, having toured the world doing 300+ shows with m32's and x32's in clubs to stadiums, I have to say, I love this video series you are doing. Have you tried an M32 vs another m32 or an x32 vs another x32? I am curious if some of the difference could just be from consistency in build quality from one console to the next. Also, are they running the same firmware? It probably doesn't make a difference, but I am just curious. Finally, I'd be curious for you to test one stage box and switching it from the x32 to m32 and seeing if the processing and output noise make a difference. I tried that at the Rave in Milwaukee one time for a band because we were curious if the processing sounded different. No one in the room could notice a difference, however we were listening at high volumes and not really listening for a slightly higher noise floor.
I have only tested these two and the M32 is 4 or 5 years old and the X32 is new with in the last few months. Software is the same. A lot of the direction I head is based on myth busting and clarifying confusions. I have done 10 XM32 comparison vids and am done with that side of things. Now doing X32 to QU16 for 2 or 3 vids and then X32 to SD11. Will see where that takes me.
Dave, you have excellent teaching skills. Can't wait to watch more of your videos.
Thank you K D!
Thanks for the inspiration Dave! Super useful video as always.
👍
I’ve used both in similar live show modes, and think they each sound pretty good. Though not in the market for this size console, if I were, the Midas physical layout, the tilt of its upper housing would be a must for me, even for $1500 extra. ‘Flat’ console surfaces are my pet peeve, as they demand long hours standing bent over the surface - the worst possible posture for a 6-10 hour day of concentration. The difference is, for me anyway, profound. My whole body starting with my ears does not appreciate that ridiculous oversight of a console designer. Imagine an expensive laptop computer whose screen will only fold 15 degrees above lying flat on the table. You’d throw that thing in the ocean. That is the X32 experience.
Agreed, the stronger build and better layout would be worth the $. That said, as a Rental company we do not own any of either except what I bought to do the video.
The Behringer X32 was actually a Midas product, as it was in the can already when they were acquired by Behringer. The reason for the low competitive price point is technical, because when Behringer bought Midas they were in financial distress, had already invested in all the research and development for this product (among others), which freed Behringer from having to build in this into the cost in order to see the return on investment. The fact that Behringer purchased a struggling brand with existing intellectual property and didn’t have to expend any resources to invent it, left them only with manufacturing costs for them to be produced, then relying on their distribution partners to supply the retailers afterwards.
It's kind of like buying Nike knock offs with a Chinese label on it that is made in the same factory as Nike.
Similar shoe, maybe some cheaper materials, different branding but they both fit your foot and can run in them.
People just need to decide if the brand name and improved build quality matters for their foot, their image and their preferences.
@@connshawnery6489 If all of that is true, then Behringer made a mighty and successful effort to screw up this slam-bang sure thing because they are as different as chalk and cheese. In either guise, it’s a frustrating experience to use this console which, on paper, seems awesome. I don’t recall any of that disappointment with the Pro 2. That the difference comes down to software design is the reason for my frustration. It’s a smaller console than I need, but that’s no excuse to make it ‘stupid’.
@@artysanmobile The format and configuration of the portable ‘smart’ digital mixer was novel in those days and all aspects in fact did come from Midas at the time. This info came directly from the product manager for Behringer at the time as we worked with them as dealer for many years. Of course we are talking years ago and old cheese can certainly be considered chalk nowadays, but we recall how quickly it was adopted in the industry by both professionals and average end users alike when it first hit the market. Many may recall, it being the sliced bread of its ilk at one point in time.
Hi Dave, I really appreciate this video a flat demonstration of the difference between the two. I’m a user of the Pro series console from Midas, I recently did a gig where I approached the M32 as I would the Pro series. The example here being driving the mic pre hard then attenuating the digital gain control to back off the AD converters. Wrongly i suppose I relate the input back to mixing on a heritage 2000 where a turn up and a high pass the source signal sounds mighty! Maybe an unrealistic expectation, however I have managed to get an input to sound as near as possible to this console on a Pro 2, different guitarist, input source and so on.. but a good gain, a high pass and there it was!I appreciate that the processes are vastly different but! I wondered from your opinion, given the historic, iconic maybe tonality of the pre Amps that state Pro pre amps in the M32 match the build quality of the original Pro pre amps?
In my opinion it feels cheap, no character, no colour, no real personality.. I don’t want to appear to be bashing a brand here, as long as a channel has gain, EQ, and insert point and most importantly the source is good. It’s all good, we make it happen. But I guess my questions at it’s root is - regardless of the potential implications of the music group, is the M32 worthy in your opinion of describing the console as have pro series Pres accurate.?
I have heard good things on the Heritage D I would like to see the a comparison from that to! A pro series console. Big fan Dave, learnt a lot from your videos and appreciate your no bill shit approach, thanks man! Much love
Ya know, I don't really know. I mixed for many years on a H3000 and these definitely don't sound or feel like that console.
That said, I will test with a dl251 and see how that goes. Also my friend has an h3000nin his spare room and will try and test compare to that at some point
Dave, thank u for creating a lot of interesting content for a fairly small community….it‘s cool as hell. Thanks for some objective views on that topic! I love that!
Thank you Frank!
Another great video. Thanks, Dave.
Thank you Greg!
Hey have you given the schematics for both a look? They are very telling, pres look very similar with better components in the m32 bom and probably an updated pcb layout to make room for better caps and stuff. The m32 uses better ADCs and DACs with better noise floors I've always suspected that most of the difference between the two was actually the change to those ADC/DACs especially when people bring up the hiss in the noise floor.
I’ve seen pictures of the preamps online, and they’re definitely a difference in design and construction. It’s not just the same design with better parts. But, they both sound good, with the Midas, to my ears, just slightly more flattering, where I felt that I could do less to channels to get them to sit in the mix. But I used an x32 rack with Midas DL16 stage box and there definitely was not a super drastic difference between them. I tend to be conservative with gains though, so I didn’t really slam either one.
I have seen pics of the differences but really, what does it matter if more expensive and pretty arts are inside if they make no difference? I guess what I am after is "what are the real world audio differences, can they be heard and what do they sound like"
Clarifying my comment- they look like different preamp designs, rather than the same preamp design where one just uses higher quality parts than the other. But sonically, they wind up in a similar place. When I bought my Midas stage box, for some reason it actually wound up being cheaper than the equivalent behringer one (DL16 vs S16). In using it on many gigs, I definitely heard the Midas as fuller and more pleasant, but once everyone started playing or speaking, the differences became less noticeable. Just speaking on the preamps themselves, not things like noise.
At the time I got my X32 setup, I was mainly using an m7cl, soundcraft expression, or qsc mixers and hadn’t really gotten to use much else. Once I had a chance to use DiGiCo or newer yamaha, I clearly heard the difference between the Midas setup and those.
Still, I’d take the X32 over a soundcraft expression any day. The expression sounds pretty good, but I really really dislike the workflow.
No matter what, I’m happy we have choices, and with the X32 being relatively affordable it’s good to have a tool like that. I do generally like the x/m32 workflow, although the DiGiCo workflow is my favorite of anything I’ve been able to use.
Thanks for this video, it was informative.
👍👍👍
@@mrufino1 @Mark Rufino Visual differences don't mean much. The component changes in the bom would require a redesign of the pcb layout so components won't Visually match. I guess the point I was trying to bring up was just the m series pre seems like they took the X looked up better rated components on mouser spun a new pcb and went ok done And when you look at say a pro series schematic it's significantly different. It's also interesting to see what specs they pull from those chips data sheets because of the weighting choices.
I’ve heard that the two consoles have different latencies. If that’s true, there’s no point nulling one against the other in the analog domain. I’d love to hear that test in the digital domain.
Not sure if that is true as they use exactly the same CPU and FPGAs
@@ewsclass6679 Can be at the ADC and DAC level if they are different. Also, same hardware architecture doesn't necessarily mean same algorithms.
@@rdoursenaud it’s the same software so the algorithms are likely identical. The DACs introducing different latency is possible. Could also be a clock sync issue, as the chances of the two desks being aligned are very low.
They actually do have differing latencies< i think I discover and show that in the 6th or 7th video in the series where I also show the AES50 latency. I will be posting video 8 in the series next weekend to the member side of my RUclips channel
The result of your self-noise experiment reflects some of my own experience between Midas and Behringer. I briefly had a Behringer P-16M headphone mixer. I plugged headphones into it and noted a lot of hiss. Plugged the headphones into the M32R console headphone jack and it was dead silent.
Interesting. Seems it's easier to make something 20 to 20k than it is to make it quite and 20 to 20k
Holy shit this is the guy who did the sound and roadie for the Black Flag tours!!!!! The name sounded familiar and I googled him and it confirmed it. Wow I’m definitely subscribing and willing to listen and learn everything I can from him. Thank you RUclips algorithm for dropping this Gem in my feed.
hey hey Matt!
@@DaveRat I’ve listened to “Get in the Van” so many times and own the Book. The stories in there are absolutely insane. How you guys survived the 80’s punk rock scene it’s amazing!!!! My hats off to you and my deepest respect. I’ve always admired your story of learning how to build speakers and PA systems way back in 79’ and then made it your living and passion. So glad you are sharing your knowledge of live sound, I will definitely be checking out your other videos on the channel. Already subscribe d and turned on notifications. Thanks for saying hello and be well!!!
Super cool and those were some good times! And also would be tough to repeat the outlaw nature of those adventures. Will try and fit in some old stories into future vids
Nice. I noticed this was a single channel measurement. Will the relative level of this noise difference remain the same with 1 channel on each board being used or all 32 channels on the boards being used at the same time? I was just wondering about the Preamp power supply.
Hmmm, more videos coming, there are 6 or 7 more on the member side of my YT channel currently. I will make some or most public at some point
YOU ROCK DUDE! Thank you so much! I'm just in the process of deciding which one to buy for my band and that helps a lot. I'm wondering if I can conclude that they don't actually sound that different?
I have done 8 videos comparing these so far and released 7 of them on the member side of my RUclips. Eventually most of the vids will make it to the publis side but may be worth spending the $5 and watching them now, then canceling your membership. :)
@@DaveRat I'm singing up 100% :)
Cool cool and welcome! I also do a video zoom chat every few weeks or so for the channel members.
Maybe see ya there?
@@DaveRat that's awesome! I definitely plan to join zoom. I would love if it would be around the same time as last call (2pm Pacific), because I'm from Poland and it would be 10pm here, see you! :)
👍
Awesome comparison and specs are like Apples and Oranges if not measured in the same weights. It is like slew rates on amplifiers or wattage, peak, power or RMS. Dave you are the one we trust in making comparisons. Specifically real a/b tests and now we know why one has a significant price difference. Dave what is your favourite digital board for live work? Would be interested in why. Cheers for now. Looking forward to your next video.
Thank you! As far as my favorite, personally I never really transitioned from analog but as far as the rental company, we have lots of Digico, and Avid S6L as the ones most popular. We own some Midas and Yamaha but the Digico and Avids stay the most busy for us
This is the lord's work... Cause Dave is God. Thanks for everything Dave!
Oh my, or just a bunch o cool sound stuff
Hi Dave, would love to see you do something similar with the Behringer wing. Would love to see the input/review from a pro like you on that board.
Maybe at some point
Behringer (the company) didn't buy Midas, Music Group (now Music Tribe) did. Midas is now a subsidiary of Music Tribe, like Behringer, TurboSound, KlarkTechnik and TC Electronic are. Uli Behringer happens to be the CEO of Music Tribe, but don't mistake the person for the company.
There have been collaborations between Behringer and Midas, and the X/M32 are the prime example. The two consoles have identical audio-processing hardware and software, but interfaces and A-D/D-A converters are different with much better quality on the Midas models. My experience in the past is that there would not be audible difference between the two if you use the X32 with a Midas DL16 or DL32 for I/O. There are quite a few people in the industry who prefer the X32 layout over the M32 and do just that. However, there have been minor changes to the platform over time, and this test seem to indicate that the M32 preamps no longer are no longer as good as they used to be. An older M32 I had would saturate almost like and old analog console into clipping, not producing the same nasty noise as the X32.
Actually Music Tribe is the Tech Support holding company. Music Group is the "parent." The impacts to near bankrupt Tannoy were to basically destroy it along with Turbosound. The companies falling in stress are KT, lake, TCE, TCH because the good is robbed and incorporated into all the other brands.
All good info.
Just for fun I typed in "who owns music tribe"
And this is what came up
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Tribe
Love this video and love Dave. Mischa mentioned his passion and it is dead on. I also find the video is hilarious. Will follow this channel.
Hello and welcome!!
@@DaveRat Thanks Dave. I was researching about the benefits of using studio preamps with live digital consoles such as the M32 and came across your videos. May I ask your thoughts on this?
I also have been trying using computer plugins (like the Waves suite) as inserts from the mics before the signal hitting the console. Do you think if there are benefits in doing this?
A good mic pre will gain up the mic with minimal noise and warm overload. 2 things the x32 is not great at
Thanx Dave. always confirming or debunking what is. love it. great info always,
👍
Hi Dave!
I would be curious to hear many channels form one console together in a test.
how is everything is reacting at the summing point where all the signal meeting.
is it possible that the X32 do like the old M7CL did and leave some information behind at the summing point?
I would be also interested to know what really is the parts tolerance in the M VS X.
apparently the mic preamps are the same physical design with more affordable components.
is it possible that 2 of the same console would have large difference in sound?
A friend sent me pics of the Midas vs the Behringer stage box circuit boards and they were quite different in components, layout and even the quality of the circuit board itself. I h will look into opening these up and looking inside as well.
@@DaveRat if you investigate this, can you do the 3 different versions of stagebox available?
DL32, DL251,S32?
I personally use the Blue box all the time as an upgrade form the DL32 and i believe had heard a difference between the 2 when I switch
I will try and grab and test a DL251 from the Rat shop. As far as the others, just using one console as the stage box for the other should suffice
What an interesting expariment! This perfectly aligns with my confirmation bias. I always assumed that the X32 would have cheaper components in it and therefore probably have more nonlinearities and a higher noise floor, and that seems to be exactly what this expariment seems to show.
Really though I kinda hate both of those consoles, the software UI just doesn't jive with me. I could go off on a rant, but lets just say I'll take a Yamaha any day if I can get my hands on it!
These do a lot for the price and not enough for top pro levels.
First time viewer, instant subscriber. What a fantastic video.
Awesome and thank you!!
YES! Been waiting for this
👍
Every M32 I can remember using has a 16k ring when the faders automate.
Yes, I test and show that in one of the other videos. I have done 8 so far and 7 are up on the member side of my channel.
Lmao
Its not the tool its the fool. Pick a desk and line check. I got doors at 6pm.
Haha
I remember those days! And also remember the days when I started designing systems for arena and stadium tours 6 months before the first show. Spent 2 months in rehearsals before 2 weeks of production rehearsals before loading in 3 days before the first show.
Ha! By the time we get to "doors at 6pm" we are a well oiled machine with time to burn and relaxing in catering.
It's a long road between the two, a lot of work and attention to detail and striving for perfection, but the glory of the destination was goosebumps and thrilling to reach.
Years ago you answered an email from me. I always wanted to learn from you. Here we are!
Cool cool Dan!
Really cool and interesting content Dave, good luck with your channel
I own the X32 Compact which I bought at the start of the lockdowns from a Hire Company that decided to pack up, included the SD16/8 and cables. Before hand I did the research into what to buy, cost performance spec warranty (and listened to other peoples reviews and opinions) and considered various desks from Music Group. Allen Heath, Yamaha and even the QSC Touchmix. Originally I had intended to buy new but when the offer came in for the X32 it was a simple decision, jump in the car and collect !! My initial plan was to record acts live and then turn the recordings into marketable sales media as in CDs. So my priority was ease of use, portability, durability expandability performance and ease to record the multi tracks with cost subjective to the whole setup, console and extras.
When you compare the X32 against the competition its a no brainer, including its half-brother the M32. They all might beat the X32 in all departments except none came close on price especially when you start expanding its capability with digital snakes. Remember these are designed to be used live not in a studio so you accept their sound quality is not comparable to studio quality, I already own hardware racked gear for that. You just cannot fault the X32 in any way its priced low for a reason, else it would be in direct competition to the Midas, they also do the Wing but that was way to big bulky and heavy.
I never considered the X32 and M32 like for like. Internally they might be very similar, after all they both run the same software. You are paying a high premium for the M32, better faders Midas branded preamps and a much longer warranty but you pay for that, you pay a lot for it but in the end is it justified? I run the console into QSC RMX power amps so never need to push the output and have never heard any audible noise and the sound quality is more than acceptable. At home its also router through a RME interface with Adams Studio Monitors again no noise. My conclusion is that the X32 performs better than I expected and against much higher quality gear its surprisingly competitive. The Midas would have cost me 3 times what I paid for my X32 warranty new/old is irrelevant now since mine is over 2 years old and even if bought new the X32 is still less than half the price of a the M32 when you cost up console and snake boxes.
Yes I know there is a M32 and M32R and the differences especially size and cost, I was just being lazy.
👍👍
Thank you The sound company I work for we have a M32 and x32 as well as a x32 compact and it is awesome to see the difference or lack of the differences between them I will say I do enjoy getting around the M32 lil bit better !
👍
I really enjoyed this clip thank you so much, your expertise is truly appreciated. Please consider to also do a comparison between the Allen and Heath Avantis and Midas . This is really a huge question between thousands....Im sure we will all enjoy it.Thanks
Cool, I will look into that
Thank you for your objective analysis. I have an M32 Live and the sonic accuracy is sweet.
🤙👍🤙
Not sure how I get here, but I am very glad to have found your channel. Just subscribed. 😎👍🏻
Cool cool and welcome!
Thank you so much for what you do Dave.
👍👍👍
It's about time u made this one
👍👍👍
Dear Dave,
We love you.
THANK YOU!!!!!
I use an M32r with a DL251 for FOH. I share the stagebox with an x32 rack for IEM’s. It’s a happy stable system. When I do a fly date and get an x32 with no stagebox I’m ok with it BECAUSE everything on stage is different except the iPod playing the program music.
These consoles function best when the pre’s are trimmed to -18dB. Anything more than the main buss will overdrive give you less usable system headroom.
Using different processing causes latency in subsequent channels so perfect nulls can be harder to achieve. Luckily it’s a not real life application to null. We’re in the make it louder business. Of course you were using these as a studio DAW then the difference could be crucial.
For Live, both desks get the job done.
Great video Dave!
👍
I think its great that you took the time to do this type of test. I wish more people would take the initiative and try something different. Null testing can be difficult because you have to control everything but what you're actually testing. It may not tell you everything, but if done right, it can yield some valuable information, such as "is there a difference?". Yes or no. There's not that much information out there, especially real world examples of using null testing in audio. I'd like to share a video with you done by another youtuber. He did null testing to prove there can be an audible difference between different USB cables used for music transfer. You may his approach to be useful. He made recordings of the all the cables using the exact same music clip, both in and out of phase. When he played the same cable in and out of phase, it was silent. When he mixed the cables you could here some music.
While the test was excellent, he's not an expert in recording. You are. With your knowledge and experience, I'm sure you can take it to the next level. Anyway, here's the link, and I hope you continue to make videos like this.
ruclips.net/video/zncAhs44sp8/видео.html
Interesting. I believe the test setup is flawed.
Getting a null is very difficult to do. To make this test not flawed, having an an identical output simultaneously run down two different cables and then summing them out of polarity afterwards would be a better plan. The manual post process manipulation is suspect.
I would follow the opposite approach. I would look for all cable signals to cancel perfectly, I would look for differing lengths of the same cable to cancel perfectly. Any imperfections in cancelation would be suspect. And if and only if I failed to get differing lengths of the same cable and different cables to cancel, would I consider a possible difference exists.
I look for math/science to align with testing. When it does not align, I am skeptical until it becomes explained.
@@DaveRat I understand what you are saying, but if he's just swapping a single cable in and out of the system, there aren't any other variables. Unless I'm missing something, when he plays the recordings made with the same cable, both in and out of phase, its dead silent. Only when he plays 2 different cables, do you hear any music.
"I look for math/science to align with testing. When it does not align, I am skeptical until it becomes explained."
There's nothing wrong with that. You should be skeptical. The only thing I would add, is we don't know how to measure everything we hear. And that doesn't mean you can't use science, because you can. For example, we don't know how to measure timbre. I know of at least 2 universities that are trying to come up with a way, but haven't made much progress. Its very complicated because several variables go into the measurement, and they just don't have a solution yet. That said, you can still use science. When you make observations that go beyond what the measurements can explain, a scientific listening test can be done. And if done correctly, can prove if a difference can be heard, or not.
Anyway, getting back on topic, this is exactly why I recommended the video. I suspect you would be able to improve on the test. Its your channel, and the video's you make are no one's business but your own. However, if you did decide to do one on this topic, I think we would all like to see it. I know I would.
But that is not what he did. He made multiple recordings with different cables and than manually time aligned the signals based on a visual indication of the sample pulse.
In my opinion, this manual alignment is a potential flaw to the testing.
The manual alignment assumes the visual indications of the waveforms is precise and there is no finding to the nearest pixel or that the visual indication as exact.
Additionally the recording being made at differing times opens up possibilities of other variables.
In my opinion, the probability that a copper wire can accurately pass a fairly non difficult to transmit digital signal over a short distance with no errors is quite high.
The probability that there is a significant difference enough to creat differtials in the errors or digital signal transmitted between various copper wires of relatively the same length, is quite low.
The probability that the test setup where multiple recordings were made at differing points in time and then manually aligned to cancel out, has some sort of oversight, error or miscalculation is quite high.
Thanks man, love your videos & personality :)
Thank you!
Never been a fan of either console, but I found this very interesting.
Amazing job as always!
Agreed and thank you!
Very helpful, useful info. Thanks! 😊
👍🤙👍
Excellent, thank you.
👍🤙👍
Yo Dave. Thank you brother!!
👍🤙👍
Very Cool Video..Cheers Dave,I would Definitely go with The Midas just for clarity alone.. Excellent content as Always..
Thank you Mark!!
One of the few guys I just enjoy hearing. He could be talking about how to cut an orange or peel a banana and I’d still listen!
Topic notef
delightful knowledge you have, thanks!
👍🤙👍
I may be mistaken but the scale on the input channel is dbFS meaning 0db is the hard digital clipping limit. The channel input should therefore be set much lower and Behringer recommend -18dbFS as do many digital input devices.
True, and probably the biggest sonic issue with digital is engineers overloading.
Really interesting thanks. Even though science proves one thing, people still hear otherwise. Cool content 👍🏻
Not actually sure science proves anything other than radiating multiple sounds is more similar to actual acoustic sources.
I think science would prove that trying to radiate a single sound in order to reproduce multiple sources is the flaw to existing systems
I think the X32 was a good business wise decision from Behringer, while the M32, with it's rather higher price to accomodate its higher quality, while it's a better device than the X32, have to compete (and in a not too 'advantageous position' either), vs some tough, if not, arguably, the ones who have better quality devices competitors - than the M32, namely A&H SQ Series, and maybe also Yamaha and some else.
Very interesting comparison. Thanks for sharing.
👍👍
I'm considering the X32 for our Church. We have used a Peavey 24 channel unity series analog board for over 20 years. It has served us well, but it is not very versatile. I haven't really decided yet, but the Church doesn't have a lot of money and most any upgrade would be an improvement. I do worry about noise with a digital console because we do have some grounding issues in the building.
X32 would probably be a good choice
Love these videos, but also…what a song from Riarosa! Love that song.
I used to build the Midas XL3. Very interesting & insightful video. Subscribed.
Very cool! And cool console the xl3!
Great video Dave! Thank you!
Thank You Mr. G Superman
Well that was interesting, I love coming here, wish I had more time.
👍
Great video I learned so much I've got a way to be comfortable and I don't know where I can find the consoles to practice on.
👍🤙👍
How are the X32's 'technical audio specs' (noise, preamp noise, etc), compared to comparable/similar priced analog mixers?
Too many variables to count that out with any accuracy but well testing it I felt the X32 was on the noisy side of things.
Especially because with digital consoles you have to stay very clear of clipping so you're sitting deeper into the noise floor.
Whereas with an analog console you can drive them harder without as many negative ramifications and float farther above the noise floor
I used to drive around with a function generator In 1992 when I installed my 1st audio system in the vehicle. I had 2 big 15" woofers in the back seat of K car. Hook up the function generator to the head unit and and just roll around with one constant low note. lol.
I like live that!
the differences in noise depend almost exclusively on the output opamps/adders. It is expected that a more expensive console will have better amplifiers in critical parts of the circuit (outputs (monitor, stereo, subgroups, master, etc)); that also allows lower value resistors to be used (an opamp that can handle lower output impedances without distorting too much is more expensive), which added throughout the entire signal flow, means a little less thermal noise.
Most likely, the Berhinger has "cheap" opamps throughout the schematic, and the Midas has much "finner" (lees noisy) opamps at the critical points (adders, faders, output channels, preamp, etc.)
.
The other big issue in consoles and equipment is crosstalk, it depends on the dimensions/physical space of copper tracks on the boards. That is why it is usual for the noise in the upper part of the frequency spectrum to be a little higher (the crosstalk is electromagnetic induction; it depends on the distance between 2 components/copper tracks, on the frequencies and on the input/output impedances of the punctual section. A cheap console is a little more permissive in the physical layout and/or shielding of the sections, so, noisy crosstalk can be a little higher
.
pd: noise cancellation will never be 100%, since the thermal noise of opamps and resistors is random. When we send the same signal (pink noise or any other) to 2 identical channels, then add them out of phase, the result will be the perfect cancellation of the main signal. But the residue remains, which is the difference in the thermal noise of each channel (thermal noise is inherent in every electronic component, and is random, so the cancellation is only partial. In many preamplifiers, transistors are used in parallel to attenuate their inherent thermal noise. (if the noise were not random, 2 identical transistors in parallel would achieve a noise attenuation (by cancellation) of 6dB; but since it's random, the improvement is only 3dB.) The same type of tricks are used in summing amplifiers: it is not the same to add 16 signals through resistors in a single node/opamp, than to divide the sum into partial sums per section, prior to the main node/sum. Those kinds of "partial additions" are inaccessible to the console user, and are usually present on more expensive consoles.
And also could it be related to the less expensive d to a converters in the x32?
yup, of course, I'm only talking about the analog part of the chain (which is what I know best). DACs also have their own issues with internal noise, aliasing, dither, etc.
ps: there is a book by Douglas Self, "Small Signal Audio Design", which has a whole section dedicated to mixers; it is electronic, of course, but it addresses and explains in a generic way the main morphologies used in consoles. Issues with noise, sum of signals, etc . Can be useful for someone (I reviewed it more than once when I was studying, years ago; it helps to better understand what happens with our signals inside of a mixing console)
Very cool, thank you.
Nice one Dave, keep them coming!
Cool cool, thank you and will do
Loved this video, as with many others on your channel. Greatful for your time and willingness to share your knowledge. Quite curious if these outcomes would be similar when using the corresponding digital stage boxes. 🤔
Doing tests with the m32 as the stagebox for the m32 and testing the AES50 as well
Informative AND entertaining! Well done.
Awesome thank you!