Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

This is an important topic and please allow me to offer some clarifications.

I'm not sure it is accurate to say that there is a difference in philosophy between MIDAS and BEHRINGER with respect to how each brand looks at digital audio. In fact, both brands are committed to the support of complete digital product eco-systems that meet the needs of their customers. This includes standards-based networking designed around the the specific needs of live sound; where low latency and clock stability are critically important performance parameters.

Where the brands differ is in the type of solutions they offer to their customers. MIDAS is a brand that is respected for decades of stellar sonic performance and rock-solid operational stability in the most demanding applications. MIDAS products are used in extremely high-profile events with sometimes hundreds of channels routed through several consoles. In this environment the unique attributes of 96 kHz sample rate, total redundancy with two independent network rings and up to three power supplies and sophisticated signal routing are mandatory.

The X32 uses the very same AES50 network topology as is found on MIDAS Digital consoles. This network is designed from the ground-up to offer the very lowest possible latency and highest stability because it is designed to carry live audio streams; not packet data. On the X32 the network is used not only to connect S16 stage boxes but also to link several consoles together, allowing them to share inputs. In this way one X32 can mix front of house while another mixes monitors for example.

The way in which channels are routed is determined by the intended application for the product. In the case of the X32 we opted for a scheme that makes sense for the way that buyers of this console will be using it. The result is a channel assignment method that allows a user to set up and operate the console quickly, efficiently and with enough flexibility to mix mains, monitors, recording and even a broadcast feed from one set of inputs.

Warm regards,

Uli
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Uli Behringer said:
This is an important topic and please allow me to offer some clarifications.

I'm not sure it is accurate to say that there is a difference in philosophy between MIDAS and BEHRINGER with respect to how each brand looks at digital audio. In fact, both brands are committed to the support of complete digital product eco-systems that meet the needs of their customers. This includes standards-based networking designed around the the specific needs of live sound; where low latency and clock stability are critically important performance parameters.

Where the brands differ is in the type of solutions they offer to their customers. MIDAS is a brand that is respected for decades of stellar sonic performance and rock-solid operational stability in the most demanding applications. MIDAS products are used in extremely high-profile events with sometimes hundreds of channels routed through several consoles. In this environment the unique attributes of 96 kHz sample rate, total redundancy with two independent network rings and up to three power supplies and sophisticated signal routing are mandatory.

The X32 uses the very same AES50 network topology as is found on MIDAS Digital consoles. This network is designed from the ground-up to offer the very lowest possible latency and highest stability because it is designed to carry live audio streams; not packet data. On the X32 the network is used not only to connect S16 stage boxes but also to link several consoles together, allowing them to share inputs. In this way one X32 can mix front of house while another mixes monitors for example.

The way in which channels are routed is determined by the intended application for the product. In the case of the X32 we opted for a scheme that makes sense for the way that buyers of this console will be using it. The result is a channel assignment method that allows a user to set up and operate the console quickly, efficiently and with enough flexibility to mix mains, monitors, recording and even a broadcast feed from one set of inputs.

Warm regards,

Uli
Click to expand...

Very understandable thank you Uli. You guys made an intresting product congrats on that! More the appearance of you here and in gearslutz shows that the company is willing to make a change so even audio pro's after getting some used to things out of the way will consider your products. That's a healthy change and with the X32 you really made the close competion look bad. I already am in the process in ordering one for a small venue i work for because for that place it's the best for the money.
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

lBrent Handy said:
I don't know why you couldn't just slay the whole freakin' industry by offering audio over ethernet....main-lining the audio from the ADA8200 (or whatever you want to call it) straight to the computer, eliminating the need for a sound card per se.
...
The ADAT toslink connector is a joke for touring, live, racks. Ethernet has to be the option.
Click to expand...

Dante gets the audio right into the computer over a gigabit (or for fewer channels, 100mb) Ethernet network.
No expensive cards to install at all.

I agree, ADAT over toslink is not useful out of the studio. The plastic connectors wear too soon.
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

lBrent Handy said:
I install and use Dante systems. Dante in most forms will not co-exist on IT networks. You can't use the same switchers simultaneously. What I am talking about is audio over the internet without the need for a front end and rear end interface like Dante, EtherSound, etc, that will work along side existing systems in large facilities (broadcasting, institutions, etc).

Dante systems are far from inexpensive for the small time guy like Bob. Dante must be licensed. Dante then needs to be integrated into SAC. Bob is not into that. The average person is not going to buy 8 channel preamps/convertors with Dante. Most products are going to have some form of DSP in them, and require configuration/programming software, which makes the cost higher.

Symetrix, which we do allot of, doesn't have anything under 2k.
Focusrite RedNet stuff is about $2.5k for 8 channels.
There just aren't that many choices for SAC users.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the DANTE driver is not that good latencywise. So it might be a neat solution for recording, but for a low latency application like SAC you need the DANTE PCI card (see the Focusrite RedNet suff) for low latency. Correct me, when I'm wrong on this.
When going for remote gain, I would skip the idea of the ADA8200 and use the S-16 instead. I would like to see an dedicated AES50 PCIe card too, but I'm not aware, that Behringer ever build an computer card. So this might be virgin territory.
A cheap solution would be a convertor from AES50 to ADAT&MADI. Lot's of SAC user already own ADAT soundcards and if you don't like to use toslink cables in a live enviroment, than MADI would be an alternative. Used RME MADI PCI cards are quite cheap to get on evilbay.

Theoretical, what about this?--> I'm not familiar with the AES50 protocoll, anyone out there who knows, if it would be possible to connect the AES50 stream directly to the computer ethernetport and use it with SAC, if there was an dedicated AES50/Ethernet/ASIO driver? Could this work one way or the other?

Christian
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Christian Boche said:
Theoretical, what about this?--> I'm not familiar with the AES50 protocoll, anyone out there who knows, if it would be possible to connect the AES50 stream directly to the computer ethernetport and use it with SAC, if there was an dedicated AES50/Ethernet/ASIO driver? Could this work one way or the other?

Christian
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, an ethernetport is physically unable to handle the sync signals. RX+, RX-, TX+ and TX- are the same, but the four wires that do the sync are used for ground and Power Over Ethernet, so the sync signals are simply not available. I thought it would be possible to just buffer the datastream for recording, but the AES50 port won't transmit without sync. Seems to be a good reason why we can't have a really cheap interface, but then again, the S16 with two ports costs half of what the Lynx card costs, so the transceiver chip isn't that expensive. With the potential market for AES50 computer interfaces now virtually exploding, someone neshould really grasp the opportunity if Lynx can't.
I imagine Uli can get a card produced next door to his own factory if it is impractical to do it in house :)~:)~:smile:
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Uli Behringer said:
Thanks everyone for the great feedback.

We have just posted the latest firmware 1.06 with a number of minor bug fixes many of which were reported by you.

I am personally overseeing the implementation of fixes to any reported bugs and you can see our German software team are turning them around in a heartbeat.

Behringer: DIGITAL MIXER X32

Uli
Click to expand...

Oh, I bet they simply LOVE having the CEO hovering over their shoulders, pointing out incorrect 1s and 0s! :D~:-D~:grin:

Oh and you updated the pictures on the Behringer website so that the console is all lit up. It looks like a fighter aircraft cockpit and the reason I became a sound engineer was because I have a hearing loss and they wouldn't let me be a pilot! Haha.

Kind regards, Andrew
Mama - The UKs 'all era' Genesis tribute band!
Carillon Video - Professional Wedding Videographer & Wedding Video Production Services in Bolton, Manchester & all over the UK
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

lBrent Handy said:
You could get behind the SAC people and change the world for the better. The first thing we have to do is give the world a really pro interface for SAC.
Click to expand...

Brent,
I appreciate your enthusiasm and ideas you're sending to Uli, but the reality is that Uli has already been very gracious to even consider the SAC community, which is a very small blip on the radar within the audio market. Even if you were given exactly what you dream of for SAC, it is absolutely not going to "change the world" as you imply. The average end user doesn't have a clue about SAC, and the user experience is too foreign/clumsy for a vast percentage of its target market. What high-volume sales based company would see that as a great business opportunity? IMHO unless SAC makes a surprise turn into mainstream popularity, it will be forced to rely on existing technology envisioned for other purposes, as it has always done.
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Jeff Babcock said:
Brent,
I appreciate your enthusiasm and ideas you're sending to Uli, but the reality is that Uli has already been very gracious to even consider the SAC community, which is a very small blip on the radar within the audio market. Even if you were given exactly what you dream of for SAC, it is absolutely not going to "change the world" as you imply. The average end user doesn't have a clue about SAC, and the user experience is too foreign/clumsy for a vast percentage of its target market. What high-volume sales based company would see that as a great business opportunity? IMHO unless SAC makes a surprise turn into mainstream popularity, it will be forced to rely on existing technology envisioned for other purposes, as it has always done.
Click to expand...

Exactly, cheap consoles with digital snakes like the S16/X32 are going to make the whole SAC thing pretty pointless anyway.
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Jeff Babcock said:
Brent,
I appreciate your enthusiasm and ideas you're sending to Uli, but the reality is that Uli has already been very gracious to even consider the SAC community, which is a very small blip on the radar within the audio market. Even if you were given exactly what you dream of for SAC, it is absolutely not going to "change the world" as you imply. The average end user doesn't have a clue about SAC, and the user experience is too foreign/clumsy for a vast percentage of its target market. What high-volume sales based company would see that as a great business opportunity? IMHO unless SAC makes a surprise turn into mainstream popularity, it will be forced to rely on existing technology envisioned for other purposes, as it has always done.
Click to expand...

Remoteable micpres with slick computer connection aren't just interessting for SAC heads. They could be very useful for live recording or big studios too! Otherwise Focusrite might never build the RedNet stuff.
In my eyes a Win/Win situation;-)
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Silas Pradetto said:
Exactly, cheap consoles with digital snakes like the S16/X32 are going to make the whole SAC thing pretty pointless anyway.
Click to expand...

SAC can still do things, that no "normal" console ist able to. I still use my SAC rig side by side to the X32, just what the event needs:)
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Christian Boche said:
SAC can still do things, that no "normal" console ist able to. I still use my SAC rig side by side to the X32, just what the event needs:)
Click to expand...

+1 on SAC. My little rig will do 48 inputs and 24 outputs. 8 seperate wireless remotes with full function including two .2 octave assignable Real Time Analyzers (I use one to follow the solo out which lets me instantly see any issues and one on the assigned output.) Remote control of the reverb plug in parameters, assignable lockout for the remotes so no one can accidently access anything I don't want them to. Full recording capability for all channels. The list goes on and on and on.

One of the SAC forum members came up with the idea to run his aux fed sub on a full function output tied to post fade on the mains. He then gated his toms only on this output which gets rid of the low end ringing (which is usually the problem) but leaves the high frequency attack and any subtle hits alone. I sometimes will use the top EQ on a floor tom mic to bring out the ride cymbal when not using overheads and this is an amazing tool for me (thanks Donnie!) The point is it will do things all the digital mixers we currently have available combined will not and the audio is incredible and upgradable to any level you want to take it to. I fantasize daily about a rack of API preamps and a couple of Apogee AD16x analog to digital converters as my front end.

Another thing I find useful. Lets say someone wants a feed for a video camera. I can assign them 2 outputs, lock out the rest, hand them a laptop to do their own mix and away they go. If they can't do their own mix I will set it up post fade at unity off of the FOH mix and make a couple of adjustments to balance for the feed on the things that are light or heavy at FOH and they are ready to go in a couple of minutes. I even have full function EQ, dynamics, and effects if I want to use any of them. The possibilities are almost endless.

I am still planning on buying Two X32's for next season to replace my analog main and monitor consoles for situations involving guest engineers etc but I will be keeping my SAC rig as well (at least at this time) for alot of the things I use it for. If it had a full function road worthy control surface I would not even be looking. Right now there is really nothing that I know of that is anywhere near it in raw capability. It is not for everyone and every situation but it is exceptionally cool for what it is. Maybe one day Uli can buy the company and take it to the next level or perhaps integrate more of the SAC features into the x32 or other platform like the multiple remote option. The X32 is such a bargain for what it is I find it hard not to buy a pair and yes it will do about 95+ percent (and it is still gaining features) of everything that I use plus it has real knobs and moving faders.
 
Last edited:
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Eric Cagle said:
Lets say someone wants a feed for a video camera. I can assign them 2 outputs, lock out the rest, hand them a laptop to do their own mix and away they go.
Click to expand...


Right now there is really nothing that I know of that is anywhere near it in raw capability.
Click to expand...

I'll quit with the SAC tangent after this post, but seriously, what camera crew do you know that will accept you giving them a laptop with SAC and expect them to do a mix. Most of them wouldn't want to/be able to do this if you gave them a Mixwiz, let alone a computer running software with what IMHO is a less than desirable 1987 UI. It's just not reality, unless you are talking about a camera crew of some local buddies that you've trained. The video companies I regularly deal with would laugh at me if I tried that approach.

I'm not slamming SAC, it does have useful potential in some circumstances with a tech savvy trained operator. But I have often gotten the impression that some folks in the SAC community tend to think that because it works for them that it should work for everyone. It does not, and on a personal note, I have a pretty solid I.T. background and I have more than casually investigated and experimented with SAC, still to determine that it was not suitable for my typical usage requirements (festivals and other quick turnaround events). YMMV, but I find that though it has excellent "raw capability", the "raw" aspect is still a significant barrier to entry.
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Dear all,

here are a few quick updates:

1.) We have just released new firmware 1.07 which provides further improvements.

2.) There will be a more comprehensive manual available beginning of next week.

3.) The S16 Digital Snake is now in pre-production stage. We have planned for mass production in September.

4.) We are now working on a dramatically improved iPad app which will provide much deeper functionality.

Uli​
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

lBrent Handy said:
The problem with people using SAC out of it's intended market or application is that it will be bashed when it does not work. I would NEVER capture audio on a set or out in the field with anything that was not an industry standard, or without redundancy. Besides, if you are on a pro shoot, and you are union, you are pretty much going to use what everyone uses anyway to get the call. However, if it is someone at a show that wants a board mix, or their own board mix printing to camera, who cares? It is simple. You can show them 24 faders and tell them to go for it. If they can't handle 24 faders on a screen (and who can't, we have been mixing in the box since Digidesign hit the scene) they should not be operating anything tech related. It is absurd to think that someone needs a console to do what is graphically represented in that specific scenario.
Click to expand...

Mixing is no easy task, and dismissing it as one is not cool. I've been mixing for 10 years, and still have plenty of room for improvement. Most sound guys I see couldn't mix cake batter, and you expect a video guy to? Sending them a pre-mixed board feed is your job, so do it.
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Wow, I never meant to get the SAC thing stirred up like this. I forgot we are in Varsity. I have been reading the X32 thread in JV for so long I forgot where I was. SAC is a JV product period. It is super functional and I was merely stating some unique applications I have ran into. The X32 is a JV product so it seems the comment was appropriate. I would never even attempt to use SAC for any national although the first time I saw it was with Colt Ford. Of course guys, a pro video shoot would have a pro audio engineer. I carry 64 tracks of Pro Tools plus a redundant back up with SMPTE capability in all frame rates for things like that. Think JV and festivals with local and regional bands and somebody's buddy (who just happened to be a respected studio engineer) with a camcorder who wants a board feed. It is also real easy to get a nice sound from a post fade tapped mixer when all you have to do is move a few faders up or down to balance what is coming from the board. The EQ work and rough mix has already been done by the FOH engineer. Again JV, Local Bands, etc. Shouldn't have posted this in Varsity. My Bad.
 
Last edited:
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Jeff Babcock said:
What camera crew do you know that will accept you giving them a laptop with SAC and expect them to do a mix. Most of them wouldn't want to/be able to do this if you gave them a Mixwiz, let alone a computer running software with what IMHO is a less than desirable 1987 UI. It's just not reality, unless you are talking about a camera crew of some local buddies that you've trained. The video companies I regularly deal with would laugh at me if I tried that approach.
Click to expand...

I'm a pro sound engineer and a videographer. I also have a strong background in IT and I've built hundreds of computers personally over the years. One of my main interests in the X32 is multitrack recording off a live desk for video productions. The other main interest is purely for doing live sound for my Genesis tribute band. Of course, both of these uses will be severely intertwined.

Granted I don't know anything about SAC, but I can confirm that despite my video, sound and IT skills, I wouldn't be interested in a SAC laptop to mix my own sound. My best option is a Reaper or Cubase multitrack taken pre fader so I can do a pretty good mix myself in post, then lay that down on a video timeline in stereo, sync it and do a multicam edit over the top with the pictures. My second best option is several independent camera mics alongside several condensors mics feeding digital recorders. I wouldn't consider attempting to create a professional video of a concert with anything less than this.

So whilst it's probably not true that I (as a video guy) would laugh at you (the sound engineer), I just wouldn't be interested in trying to work SAC out. I've got enough to do making sure I'm exposing correctly, focusing, white balanced and I always have a good safe shot to work with.

Kind regards, Andrew
www.mama-genesis.co.uk
www.carillonvideo.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom