Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Daniel Rheaume said:
I'm looking at getting an x32 Compact in the next couple of months, so when I stumbled on this thread I had to register to throw in my .02 cents!

1. Autotune is a FANTASTIC idea. There are some people on this board who felt like it was "cheating", but the reality is it's in use everywhere. If the development team can give us autotune on every channel, they have essentially multiplied the value of the console. Antares rack units aren't cheap!I really hope this feature makes it.

2. Not sure if there was a technical reason preventing this, but if there is any way to be able to use all 17 motorized faders in DAW control, that would be extremely helpful.

-Daniel
Click to expand...

Autotune? I try to work with artists who do not need such things, or who might use it solely as an effect. The idea that I'd need it on every channel makes me cringe. Seriously.

Before there was Pro Tools there were pro-fessionals.
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Agreed! I've never head anyone use autotune live that didn't sound embarrassing. Please keep autotune out of the X32.
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Tim McCulloch said:
Autotune? I try to work with artists who do not need
such things, or who might use it solely as an effect. The idea that I'd need it
on every channel makes me cringe. Seriously.

Before there was Pro Tools there
were pro-fessionals.
Click to expand...

Hello!
I must say, I didn't expect to see such vocal opposition to a very modern and useful tool.
Okay, well auto tune on every channel may sound extreme. I really meant I would love the ability to have it on any vocal channel.
But, in the nicest possible way, who exactly are you working with that has such lofty musical ideals that they would refuse to use auto tune?
And do you mean to tell me you wouldn't take work from an artist who used autotune?? Business is either very, very good, or you are turning away clients based on a very strange prejudice.

I think perhaps you believe auto tune is a magic bullet that turns bad singers into great ones...and I assure you, no plugin will do that.
It can however take a great singer and make them sound live like they did on the record -- records where some of the best singers in the world sing take after
take on tracks that cost ungodly amounts of money with the biggest and best engineers and producers in the world, finally comping together a number of takes
into the perfect "take"...and then they still likely auto tuned it. And let's face it, the audience just wants to hear the song like they did on the
radio. If there is anything we can take away from the facade that is the super bowl halftime show, it's that people don't even care if you are singing at
all so long as it sounds like they remember. It's the equivalent of the photoshopped beauty magazines. Nobody really looks like that, just like nobody can sound perfect every night of their lives. In both situations great pains have been taken to showcase something in the very best light possible. But that's not real life.

I'm telling you, artists with great chops use it all the time. It's been in rack mount form selling very well
for years. I'm really not sure who's buying that hardware if it isn't real artists working on the road?
It reminds me of Creed. Millions of records sold, but no one seems to have ever bought one... i.e. there are a lot of closet creed fans out there.
The artists or their engineers may not want to admit to using it because of the stigma, but it is alive and well. Probably even in use among artists you respect. The digico consoles have had access to it for a long time too, btw, so it's a very natural inclusion on the part of Behringer.

And finally, before I get off my soapbox, I have to really say...what is inherently special about someone who can "really" sing vs someone who can sing with auto tune? Why is it cheating? If we are stringent with our ideas of talent, why shouldn't we just say no artist should sing multiple takes? Because that's not real either. You don't get to choose your best takes live.

Admiration for hard work and natural talent are good things, but they are also man made concepts. In many ways the things we put great value on in society are quite arbitrary. In my opinion, the person with the best product wins. If it takes auto tune, I don't really care. I imagine the "anti-autotuners" are probably a lot of the same individuals who think digital recording lacks soul, that digital cameras lack the aesthetic of film grain, etc. But that's antiquated thinking.
We need to adapt and be modern thinkers as engineers in a technically creative and cutting edge field like music entertainment. Half the records you hear are samples and auto tune. And they sell. And people listen and enjoy it. We can't be so reluctant to adopt new ideas, new tools. A great singer is a very cool
thing. A musician who knows how to use every tool at his disposal to sound great is also a very cool thing. No need to slam someone's use of technology to get an
edge.

So, if you are listening Uli, your dev team is definitely on the right track with an autotune plugin in my humble opinion!
Thanks!
-Daniel
Rheaume
 
Last edited:
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Daniel Rheaume said:


Hello!
I must say, I didn't expect to see such vocal opposition to a very modern and useful tool.
Okay, well auto tune on every channel may sound extreme. I really meant I would love the ability to have it on any vocal channel.
But, in the nicest possible way, who exactly are you working with that has such lofty musical ideals that they would refuse to use auto tune?
And do you mean to tell me you wouldn't take work from an artist who used autotune?? Business is either very, very good, or you are turning away clients based on a very strange prejudice.

I think perhaps you believe auto tune is a magic bullet that turns bad singers into great ones...and I assure you, no plugin will do that.
It can however take a great singer and make them sound live like they did on the record -- records where some of the best singers in the world sing take after
take on tracks that cost ungodly amounts of money with the biggest and best engineers and producers in the world, finally comping together a number of takes
into the perfect "take"...and then they still likely auto tuned it. And let's face it, the audience just wants to hear the song like they did on the
radio. If there is anything we can take away from the facade that is the super bowl halftime show, it's that people don't even care if you are singing at
all so long as it sounds like they remember. It's the equivalent of the photoshopped beauty magazines. Nobody really looks like that, just like nobody can sound perfect every night of their lives. In both situations great pains have been taken to showcase something in the very best light possible. But that's not real life.

I'm telling you, artists with great chops use it all the time. It's been in rack mount form selling very well
for years. I'm really not sure who's buying that hardware if it isn't real artists working on the road?
It reminds me of Creed. Millions of records sold, but no one seems to have ever bought one... i.e. there are a lot of closet creed fans out there.
The artists or their engineers may not want to admit to using it because of the stigma, but it is alive and well. Probably even in use among artists you respect. The digico consoles have had access to it for a long time too, btw, so it's a very natural inclusion on the part of Behringer.

And finally, before I get off my soapbox, I have to really say...what is inherently special about someone who can "really" sing vs someone who can sing with auto tune? Why is it cheating? If we are stringent with our ideas of talent, why shouldn't we just say no artist should sing multiple takes? Because that's not real either. You don't get to choose your best takes live.

Admiration for hard work and natural talent are good things, but they are also man made concepts. In many ways the things we put great value on in society are quite arbitrary. In my opinion, the person with the best product wins. If it takes auto tune, I don't really care. I imagine the "anti-autotuners" are probably a lot of the same individuals who think digital recording lacks soul, that digital cameras lack the aesthetic of film grain, etc. But that's antiquated thinking.
We need to adapt and be modern thinkers as engineers in a technically creative and cutting edge field like music entertainment. Half the records you hear are samples and auto tune. And they sell. And people listen and enjoy it. We can't be so reluctant to adopt new ideas, new tools. A great singer is a very cool
thing. A musician who knows how to use every tool at his disposal to sound great is also a very cool thing. No need to slam someone's use of technology to get an
edge.

So, if you are listening Uli, your dev team is definitely on the right track with an autotune plugin in my humble opinion!
Thanks!
-Daniel
Rheaume
Click to expand...

I don't have the neurosis needed to be a "studio guy" (been there, tried that, didn't like it) but that's not why I dislike the entire concept of AutoTune as it is too often used - fixing the performance of a singer who hasn't got the chops to sing a single verse or chorus on pitch. Do that make it inherently bad? No. What it has done, though, is make it possible for those with less than the necessary talent have it shot at a career in entertainment.

What artists would eschew AutoTune? 99.7% of the acts I mix. But as a band engineer, the touring guy who rides on the bus, if my act wants or needs it, I'll use it because I'm hired to deliver a particular representation of the act. There's a difference between genuine art and the commercial representation of art, and I don't have a philosophical problem with either but I do have a preference to work with musicians of the requisite caliber to not *need* such device.

As for artists wanting AutoTune used live... I can count on 1 hand the number of acts that I know have AT plugins running on the FOH console (or using the physical device) and for the most part their reliance on it is pretty well known in professional circles... those who need it, do, and those who do not, will not use it unless it's for the pseudo-vocoder effect that is easily created with AutoTune.

Daniel, it's my *preference* to work with musicians who possess the skill, talent, craft and artistry to present themselves without artifice. I like my performances organic, not GMO/anti-biotic infused/hormone laden. I'll mix anybody who can pay my fee and to the best of my ability, give them what they want with the tools provided (even autotune), but that doesn't mean I'll like AutoTune.

As for the public recognizing that fashion magazines are not real... I beg to differ. Unless something is labeled as being modified there is an innate human assumption that what you see is a genuine representation. This has led to a number of issues regarding body image and self esteem among young people who haven't figured out that they're being shown a falsehood.

For the record (no pun intended) I've never purchased a Creed recording and never will.
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Hi Tim,
Thanks for your reply. I just wanted to clarify a few things, and also say I do respect your position, although I still firmly believe auto tune would be a great addition to the V3 software.

Most of my "soapboxing" was at 3:30am and fueled by seeing people recommend NOT incorporating a feature that I would find useful, merely because they don't find it musically ethical. So I may have come off a bit stronger than intended.

Tim McCulloch said:
What artists would eschew AutoTune? 99.7% of the acts I mix. But as a band engineer, the touring guy who rides on the bus, if my act wants or needs it, I'll use it because I'm hired to deliver a particular representation of the act. There's a difference between genuine art and the commercial representation of art, and I don't have a philosophical problem with either but I do have a preference to work with musicians of the requisite caliber to not *need* such device.
Click to expand...

This I understand completely. My favorite artists are all extremely capable and talented singers. Like you, I'm a guy with a bunk on a bus on a tour, but I'm seeing more and more Autotune with artists you wouldn't expect, or who may not really even need it for that matter! For a lot of artists with skill, it's about confidence. Knowing that all those cell phone videos that end up on youtube are going to sound okay no matter what night they are having. Because touring hundreds of dates a year, even a Whitney Houston can't always be a Whitney Houston. As a touring engineer, you must also know that cancelling for a small cold is a big no no with the promoter. The show must go on. So a little confidence boost with autotune can be a great thing. Autotune is not an all or nothing affair, either. You can set it to be extremely gentle. You probably wouldn't even know if it was on in most cases of proper use. As is this case with most corrective processing, if I can hear it working, it's too much!
Plus, I think it's funny when I hear that people shouldn't need devices like this, because I then have to ask, why is some processing like EQ, compression, and reverb ok? We put reverbs and delays on people to make them sound better than dry, to help them sound full, to give vocal notes a musicality. Singer has a nasal quality? We'll notch that out. Singer's dynamics are unpredictable? -- put a compressor on them.
Isn't it all very much the same?

As for artists wanting AutoTune used live... I can count on 1 hand the number of acts that I know have AT plugins running on the FOH console (or using the physical device) and for the most part their reliance on it is pretty well known in professional circles... those who need it, do, and those who do not, will not use it unless it's for the pseudo-vocoder effect that is easily created with AutoTune.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is more rare in the genre you work in? There are a lot of artists who say they don't use it who use it. I will argue this point again -- if so few professional FOH engineers use it for big artists, why is it on the consoles that only big artists can afford to rent? Surely not for some rogue artist here or there. It can only mean there is a very real demand for it. Additionally, many artists do not use rack or console autotune, but instead it is employed in pedal based vocal processing, like the TC Voicelive, so you don't always see it at FOH. I've even seen pitch correcting vocal stomp boxes patched at monitor world before the splitter. It comes in many shapes and forms and can be found all throughout the chain.

As for the public recognizing that fashion magazines are not real... I beg to differ. Unless something is labeled as being modified there is an innate human assumption that what you see is a genuine representation. This has led to a number of issues regarding body image and self esteem among young people who haven't figured out that they're being shown a falsehood.
Click to expand...
I probably wasn't very clear with my analogy, so I'll rephrase, because I think we actually agree on this 100%! I also believe people absolutely assume models look like their magazine covers. But it isn't real. Even "untouched" photos are manipulated through the use of position, color, hair stylists, lighting, etc... so on any given day you will not find a person who looks quite like the photo shoot. Likewise, the process of recording is in itself an act of musical "retouching" through EQ, compression, multiple takes etc... and the result is something that the public believes is 100% real, just like they believe the model really looks like the magazine cover. So, as a result they expect the musician to sound like the record.
Where we differ is that I'm totally ok with recreating that "perfect" album sound through the use of autotune, triggering samples, etc. So long as the artist is really there and not lip syncing, I don't mind the use of tools to make it sound like the public expects it to sound in their mind's ear.

I would never force anyone to use autotune, and I certainly can appreciate the purist stand point of a raw sound. There are some amazing bands and great singers that don't use autotune. I just also believe there are some amazing bands and great singers who do. And if it's possible to have all the current tools I might possibly need in the console, I'm all for it!

Best,
-Daniel
 
Last edited:
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Autotune should be a desirable feature for the kind of customers that these attract...

Success in the music business is only partly about skill or talent.

Really pretty girls who can't sing deserve a chance too... :)

JR
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

I appreciate Tim's willingness to step up and present another view of the auto-tune topic. I saw that post and simply thought to myself "in someone else's dreams" and I doubt I was the only one with that reaction. My only response is the comments regarding lofty aspirations and the purist side of performance...or whatever the hell all that was, I've already forgotten, so never mind.

My only question at this point is what expensive digital console includes on each channel an autotune feature? I'm not surprised to hear that a plug-in for auto-tune is available.
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Geri O'Neil said:
My only question at this point is what expensive digital console includes on each channel an autotune feature? I'm not surprised to hear that a plug-in for auto-tune is available.
Click to expand...

Geri,
Since I was probably the source of this confusion, I'll clarify.
When I first researched the x32 I mistakenly thought it had a dedicated FX engine for every channel. This led me to write the comment I did about
"autotune on every channel". In reality, of course, there are 8 FX engines. But that still means you could theoretically auto tune 8 vox tracks! ;)

So, no, I'm not aware of any console at any price that has auto tune on every channel.
There is of course the option of using waves racks plugins. Then you could theoretically do it.

Best,
-Daniel
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Can we please stop with the autotune business?

If you want it. Call antares. They will happily sell you what you need.


I need the combinator comp in a different place. And I need the fx returns to have patchable inputs OR just defeatable. So we don't create an internal feedback loop.

This is a real issue on this desk that needs addressing.
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Tim Weaver said:
Can we please stop with the autotune business?

If you want it. Call antares. They will happily sell you what you need.


I need the combinator comp in a different place. And I need the fx returns to have patchable inputs OR just defeatable. So we don't create an internal feedback loop.

This is a real issue on this desk that needs addressing.
Click to expand...

All very real issues which I completely agree should be either in v2 fix or high priority v3.

But...to say it isn't worth it to have auto tune doesn't mean it isn't worth it for other users. Having what you need doesn't mean we can't have other requests.
Besides, Behringer will happily sell you a hardware rack combinator. If you want it be able to put it anywhere in the chain, there are plenty of aux outs...:twisted:
Best,
-Daniel
 
Last edited:
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

I'm with Ivan and Daniel on this one. Like it or not, lots of folks want autotune. TC Helicon sells tons of their boxes (I even own one (Mic Mechanic), and it's great). There is a market. In some genres it is a part of the vocal sound. My own opinion about those genres is irrelevant. Autotune in the X series would be a great tool for some folks. Let's leave personal taste out of the equation. One man's rubbish is another man's art.

The other artistically semi-controversial one I want is a drum replacement plug-in, which I've already mentioned in this thread.

I'd also like to see an update to the control app (or maybe a separate app) that would allow it to scale and support a large touchscreen display at a higher resolution, along the lines of the new stuff Presonus is doing. With multi-touch support of course. Basically a slicker way to see and control all of the essentials from a single pane of glass, optimized for mixing rather than editing.
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Jeff Babcock said:
The other artistically semi-controversial one I want is a drum replacement plug-in, which I've already mentioned in this thread.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that's interesting! I had never even thought about live drum replacement. But considering bands like Garbage already use midi trigger pads on their acoustic kits to retrigger samples, this is actually a really cool idea.

-Daniel
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Daniel Rheaume said:
But...to say it isn't worth it to have auto tune doesn't mean it isn't worth it for other users. Having what you need doesn't mean we can't have other requests.
Click to expand...
Well. Its been requested. Thats what this thread is for. Requests for future firmware releases. Its not a place to discuss the merits of autotune or any other effect.


Let's get on with the requests
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Tim Weaver said:
Well. Its been requested. Thats what this thread is for. Requests for future firmware releases. Its not a place to discuss the merits of autotune or any other effect.


Let's get on with the requests
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I've shared my thoughts on autotune.

But for the record...

A) All I originally did was make a request for autotune, and only after others specifically requested it NOT be included did we go on to discuss its "merits". We really didn't stray far from the point of the thread.

B) We had already moved on to talking about a drum replacement feature request.
so why are you even bringing this back up?

Anyhow, I'm excited to see what other new feature requests we can come up with.
Cheers,
-Daniel
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

Daniel Rheaume said:
Fair enough. I've shared my thoughts on autotune.

But for the record...

A) All I originally did was make a request for autotune, and only after others specifically requested it NOT be included did we go on to discuss its "merits". We really didn't stray far from the point of the thread.

B) We had already moved on to talking about a drum replacement feature request.
so why are you even bringing this back up?

Anyhow, I'm excited to see what other new feature requests we can come up with.
Cheers,
-Daniel
Click to expand...

I never said it shouldn't be included. I said I don't like working with performers that depend on it to make them appear to be competent and that most of the acts I work with reject using it as anything other than SFX.

For the market the X32 was aimed at I'm sure that many owners would find it useful (or even a marketing tool) for clients that need it (or think they do). "Yes, I can make you sing like Taylor Swift!" "Don't worry that you're consistently flat/sharp, we'll fix that with a plug in."

Bah, Humbug.

Tim "formally trained musician & music education major" Mc
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

I generally don't "chime in" on this forum but couldn't resist. In regards to "Auto-tune", I am in complete agreement with Tim M but I offer a different slant. I would not want to give up DSP or firmware & software development time just to get what many consider a "trick" or "gimmick".

First and foremost, I am a FOH engineer--I've been one for over 35 years, and, in most cases, I use a dedicated FOH console with someone else mixing monitors on a separate console. I would much rather see firmware & other software development offer configuration options that would better facilitate the X32 (and M32) for use as a dedicated FOH console. Generally, I need to develop more than a single stereo FOH mix--I have front (or lip) fills, rear fills, ADA mixes, multiple balcony feeds, etc. The audio content for each of these mixes is considerably different. The most straight-forward way to accomplish this is through the use of DCAs, Subgroups, & an output Matrix.

At present, setting up the X32 for such a configuration (dedicated FOH) is quite "mechanical". Not only do inputs & Fx returns need to be mechanically unassigned from the main L-R bus and subgroups mechanically assigned to the L-R bus, the setup Bus Pre-Configuration options are not at all conducive for setting up an X32 as a dedicated FOH console. If I'm setting up subgroups, I will usually want more that 4 of them and I would rather not have them across multiple layers. In those cases where I need more than 8 subgroups, I am usually using a pair of stereo subgroups for mixing my stereo Fx returns, using buses 9-12 as stereo subgroups. I can live with these on a second layer as I am also using a two DCAs assigned to the Fx feeds (not returns and assigned to the appropriate MixBuses--13 thru 16). I would like to see the Bus Pre-Configuration option of "0 + 12 + 4" be added with an additional option to change the L-R bus assignments for input channels, Fx returns, and subgroups to reflect a better configuration for using the X32 as a dedicated FOH console.

I would also like to see in the individual channel workflow where BOTH the Gate & Compressor can be moved post EQ. Whether they are treated as a pair or individually, I don't care but I do believe that I am wasting a gate if I am having to use a Key Filter on an audio signal that I could have first dealt with any problem that proper channel EQ could have better dealt with.

I also agree with Tim W regarding the Combinator comps. I would much rather use them strictly as an insert, usually on a single channel but sometimes on a subgroup without giving up an effect. The X32 only has 4 Fx buses and, although I do want to use the Combinator, I am not usually willing to give up one of only 4 Fx.

Finally, like many others, I would like to have the X32-Edit updated to reflect the current firmware release. I have multiple Motion Computing Tablet PCs, each with a Stylus-pen which works incredibly well. They give me the precision needed to mix and have the added benefit of having a GUI that is very similar to the physical X32 work surface. Some users have stated that X32-Edit should not be used for mixing and I disagree. Having to toggle between an over-abundance of layers on an iPad or Android app is definitely an annoyance. With X32-Edit, my workflow is similar to that on the physical console.

Tony Martin
 
Re: Behringer X32 Firmware v3.0 Feature Requests

I think autotune gets used too much these days to hide the crapness of some singers to sell it to people who don't know better. I believe if you really do need it to make you sound anyway near decent then you either need better training or a new career.

I much prefer someone like howard jones who can't sing all that well (and doesn't really try to hide the fact) to someone who is just as bad but has been autotuned to make it sound like they are actually a better singer.

Even more annoying is the fact that properly good singers (i.e. Susanne Sundfor) get less success than someone who needs to use technology to make them seem talented. It seems to be a case that as long as you look the part everything else can be fixed by a computer later.
 
Top Bottom