New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Jon Malmstrom said:
Hi all,

It seems clearly that Behringer will release a new speaker lineup today at WNAMM.

See sonic state´s newsflash:

WNAMM13: BEHRINGER Launches iQ Series Networked Loudspeakers, 2,500 Watts of iNuke DSP Power on tap -Sonicstate.com

What are your thoughts? Will they manage to compete with the current JBL SRX/QSC KW/YAMAHA DSR etc and the announced Presonus?

With the new quality approach and engineering from Turbosound/MIDAS and Klark i am as curious as when they released the X32. Will the speakers be a success as the X-series lineup?
How will drivers and processing compete?

After a long time i have decided on pulling the trigger on Yamaha DSR´s for my club rig. Maybe i should wait... or not.. ?
Click to expand...

They look OK but that 2500 watt rating is pure fiction. The Yamaha DSR's have proven to be a capable box and have a 7 year warranty.
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

jonthomas said:
They look OK but that 2500 watt rating is pure fiction. The Yamaha DSR's have proven to be a capable box and have a 7 year warranty.
Click to expand...

Pet peve: Digital or DSP-driven products like EQs, dynamics processors, FX units AND especially loudspeakers that don't have digital audio connections!

PS: The Behringer ones are a joke with just a regular RJ45 plug. Ethercon is a must on a live stage!
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Hi all!

I've been keeping my eye on the new iQ series of powered speakers that Behringer are working on. I am quite intrigued by them and at the right price point, they would give me problems. Why you ask? Well because despite being an X32 owner, I cannot quite bring myself to have an 'all Behringer' system. That is, console, digital multicore, amps and speakers. I think I need a little time to get my head around that idea. :-)

Jesting (slightly) aside, I think I fully understand the reason they've added Ultranet to their new speakers. It makes sense to me.

1. They wanted to offer digital connection to a console and they already had the technology in Ultranet. Why not use it? If they own Ultranet and all the software components then there is no licensing from other companies. That keeps their costs down and they can stick to their number one company motto - premium features at a low price.

2. Ultranet makes perfect sense because it allows more than just a stereo / main LR feed to come from the console digitally. These days, it's not uncommon to run complex systems in churches with multiple zones, line arrays, aux fed subs and fills. Sixteen channels is more than adequate for that.

I know what you're going to say - you lose the functionality of the P16 monitor system if you're using Ultranet for the main PA. I agree, but then I've never really understood why anyone would want to use the P16 system? On paper, it sounds wonderful and it's more than affordable, but check this:

a. If you are at the low end of the industry, then you cannot afford a digital desk and monitor system.

b. If you're higher up the food chain and you have an X32 or related console, you can mix monitors using buss sends from FoH and the guys on stage can tweak their mix in an emergency using iPhone, iPad or laptop. You can designate a technically minded musician to look after foldback from stage. Yes you could argue that you have the added expense of buying iPhones, iPads and laptops but every time I tried that tactic, everyone pulls out an iPad and an iPhone. Why not use what we already have?

c. The P16 ONLY gives you 16 channels to play with. My band has 11 channels of drums alone. Yes I can submix them, but as a drummer I wouldn't think that was ideal. What if the snare is bashing my IEM's and I have loads of HF coming from the cymbals? I don't want to be playing with the basic EQ on the P16 in the middle of a gig. I'd want the sound engineer to do that. With iPhone or iPad I can create a mix using all 32 channels and tweak it on the fly. No cables. No set up or take down time. This point alone makes Ultranet redundant in my system.

d. Going even higher up the food chain, the band is paying more money and they want a monitor engineer. This can be solved pretty much with a guy on stage wielding an iPad or laptop.

e. Going much further up the food chain, you might want to use two X32 consoles. You have an FoH engineer and a monitor engineer. What's more, you save £1,400.00 on buying S16 stageboxes because you can connect everything locally to the monitor console and route through AES50 to the FoH console.

f. Any further up the food chain than that and you're no longer in Behringer land. You're in Midas territory.

Going back to my original numbered list:

3. If the band is a simple band, chances are you're not going to need 16 channels of monitors and your PA is going to be pretty simple. That makes for a simple mix both through the PA and the monitors. You're therefore going to have P16 channels left over, so why not run the PA through Ultranet?

4. If you're a big, complex band then why are you even running the P16 system? You should be running Midas consoles or two X32 consoles so you can have a monitor engineer.

5. From a marketing point of view, using their own Ultranet system in all of their products ties them together. What's more, they're not trying to sell you a console or a monitor system or even a PA system. They're trying to sell you a full solution. So you're not saving £2,000.00 by buying an X32 over a Soundcraft. You're saving £10,000.00 buying an all Behringer system over a Soundcraft desk, Crown power amps, JBL speakers etc.

What Behringer have effectively done by buying Midas, Klark Technik and Turbosound is take a predominantly second rate, cheapo manufacturer of unreliable pro audio gear and built entire concert solutions at a price point that nobody else can touch. They've turned their customer base around and got all their competitors shaking in their boots. Finally, they've managed to build a manufacturing base that is second to none which will future proof their prices and quality control. That's nothing short of astonishing.

So yeah, I get Ultranet on these boxes. I think it's a little stroke of genius on Behringers part. Actually, the word 'little' couldn't hope to come close to how much genius there is in TMG at the moment. I'd love to get Uli Behringer in a one to one situation and pull his mind apart purely from a business point of view, if not the pro audio angle.
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

There's actually one more thing to consider using ultranet.

Using the s16 one get up to two additional ultranet busses since the ultranet bus on the s16 (A/B) be re-assigned. This means you can have one ultranet bus dedicated to personal monitoring and you can have up to two ultranet busses running (mostly) whatever FoH you want.

Problem solved!
 
Last edited:
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Andrew,

You know the band I work with.
We're not all that far up the food chain.
We use P16-Ms for all the band members and use all 16 channels.
We submix the drums and the keyboards.
The drummer hasn't mentioned any problems.
We're working out how to have the keyboards (pre/post fade/EQ, etc), but it's been a success.
The S16's are fantastic.
Every venue we've used them at, the house techs have been relieved not to have had to haul 32+ channels of copper from the stage to FOH.
What can I say? They work.

What's not to like?

I like the idea of the IQ speakers, and can even get over losing two Ultranet channels (you can create a second Ultranet system using the P16-i and some ADAT optical cables).
The price would have to be right and they would have to sound amazing.
With $ prices usually equalling the £ price, we'd be spending £4k on subs alone.
If we're going to drop that much money on a system, we'll be shopping around, as they're in a similar price range to the JBL PRX and new Yamaha ranges. In fact, going on what you guys use, the IQ stuff would have to outperform the SRX range for you to be interested...!

HTH.

Karl.
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Karl Barnes said:
Andrew,

You know the band I work with.
We're not all that far up the food chain.
We use P16-Ms for all the band members and use all 16 channels.
We submix the drums and the keyboards.
The drummer hasn't mentioned any problems.
We're working out how to have the keyboards (pre/post fade/EQ, etc), but it's been a success.
The S16's are fantastic.
Every venue we've used them at, the house techs have been relieved not to have had to haul 32+ channels of copper from the stage to FOH.
What can I say? They work.

What's not to like?

I like the idea of the IQ speakers, and can even get over losing two Ultranet channels (you can create a second Ultranet system using the P16-i and some ADAT optical cables).
The price would have to be right and they would have to sound amazing.
With $ prices usually equalling the £ price, we'd be spending £4k on subs alone.
If we're going to drop that much money on a system, we'll be shopping around, as they're in a similar price range to the JBL PRX and new Yamaha ranges. In fact, going on what you guys use, the IQ stuff would have to outperform the SRX range for you to be interested...!

HTH.

Karl.
Click to expand...

Hey Karl,

I currently run DSR112's over PRX618S-XLF's. The prices on these boxes are in the same range as the new Behringer counter parts.

There would have to be a pretty compelling sonic difference (and a proof of reliability over time) for me to consider changing things.

Also, the idea of using ethernet cables to connect to my speakers is a little odd. It is nice that I have a ton of inexpensive XLR cables to run to my powered speakers. I am not sure what the advantage would be of using ethernet?
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Karl Barnes said:
You know the band I work with. We're not all that far up the food chain. We use P16-Ms for all the band members and use all 16 channels. We submix the drums and the keyboards. The drummer hasn't mentioned any problems.
Click to expand...

Indeed I do. I think you're further up the food chain than you realise. I mean, we have something in common in what we do which is basically offering our audiences more than they pay for. When you consider the time, money and effort that goes into these gigs the financial payback doesn't justify it. However, we don't do this for money which is why we run £2k+ digital consoles and digital multicores. We put improving the show above everything else.

I'm not saying it will cause you problems or even that it will cause me problems. I personally don't use Ultranet on my X32. I don't have any S16's either. I'm running a 24/8 copper snake. I cannot justify the spend required to upgrade to a digital multicore when I already own a more than capable multicore, just because it's a little bit of a bugger to coil and transport. I probably need the exercise anyway.

All I'm really saying is, as an engineer I have yet to experience any issues with simply running analogue foldback using the direct outs, with the guys on stage using tried and trusted hand signals to tell me what they want or fiddling with their iPads / iPhones (mainly during sound check). I could buy five P16's but I think I'd be wasting my money. That is to say, the money would be much better spent on something else, like decent drum mics or proper IEM's.

As a drummer, I have zero experience of using the P16's so I cannot say for sure. BUT, as a drummer I have used headphones and with a submix, it's impossible to get it right without involving the FoH or monitor engineer. In which case, why am I bothering with P16?

The S16's are fantastic. Every venue we've used them at, the house techs have been relieved not to have had to haul 32+ channels of copper from the stage to FOH. What can I say? They work. What's not to like?
Click to expand...

If you already have them, then I guess there is very little to dislike and a wholly good reason to use them with the X32. I'm sure you're right - the S16's are wonderful. Maybe when I've got a spare couple of grand lying around and I have nothing better to spend it on. :)

I like the idea of the IQ speakers, and can even get over losing two Ultranet channels (you can create a second Ultranet system using the P16-i and some ADAT optical cables). The price would have to be right and they would have to sound amazing. With $ prices usually equalling the £ price, we'd be spending £4k on subs alone.
Click to expand...

As always, it's about the sound they produce. Ultranet doesn't make diddly squat difference to how it sounds methinks. Are these iQ boxes REALLY that expensive? If they are, I'm disappointed.

If we're going to drop that much money on a system, we'll be shopping around, as they're in a similar price range to the JBL PRX and new Yamaha ranges. In fact, going on what you guys use, the IQ stuff would have to outperform the SRX range for you to be interested...!
Click to expand...

I doubt the iQ stuff will outperform our JBL SRX system. Those JBL's just keep on surprising me at every gig. The problem I have is, I'd like my own PA. One of these days, I'll buy a van and some boxes and I'll do some cool PA jobs, just for fun (because it's impossible to make real money doing this). Ideally, I'd use the bands JBL SRX system and buy the other half of it back so that I could run four subs and four tops. The PA as it stands doesn't give me any useable headroom with the band (using two subs and two tops).
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Andrew,

We got our S16's to stop the guys on the stage giving out hand signals!
It was also too much hassle coiling up 2 x 16/4 snakes at the end of the night.
It would take ages as they were so heavy.
Using the S16's has saved time as well as space in the truck. Don't forget, it's only one connection at the desk end, not 40.
The hassle factor was what spurred me into getting the S16's (I pre-ordered from Thomann before they put the prices up 8)~8-)~:cool:)
As for iPads, I never had reason to own one before the X32. After trying one out at a gig, I went and bought one, just for the XiControl software.
It's very useful.

Before we got the X32 and the P16-M's, the guys were still using IEMs, but it was a bodge. A stereo feed from two aux channels was sent to a 5 way splitter which then went out to each band member, to a Rolls PM351. Their instrument DIs would split out to FOH and local submixers which fed the PM351 instrument inputs. Vocal mics would then go into the PM351 and the THRU to FOH. Complicated? Yes, but each band member had 'more me' available to them.
All they had to agree on was the basic mix. Suffice so say, that was always a compromise.
The PM16-Ms are an extension of this.
They are simpler to set up and therefore quicker. Each band member now has more control over what they can hear.
Tapping into their boxes during soundchecks, it's interesting to hear the differences between the mixes.
Now they each get what they want.

Back to the IQ speakers (which is what this thread is about; didn't want to hijack it. Not too much anyway....!), I am only speculating about the UK pricing.
But based on previous experience, the $ price usually ends up being the same as the £ price. Check out some prices at Sweetwater and compare them to DV247, Studiospares, etc on various things. You'll see the trend for yourself.

From my point of view, the guys in the band are seriously considering pulling the trigger on a fairly large system.
Price and sound quality are the defining factors.
With the X32 being around a third of the price of the comparitively featured LS9-32, yet it outperforms it (imo), would it be unreasonable to assume that they've done the same with their new speaker range?
Are the IQ's the same or better sounding than SRX's, yet a third of the price?
Time will tell, but the price and sound quality would have to be right for them to be considered, when looked at against the competition.

As I've said before, the X32 may have changed the game for mixing desks, but can the IQ speakers do the same in that part of the market?
Then again, is that Behringers intention?
I don't know their business plan in that regard.

Karl.
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Andrew Prince said:
Hi all!

I've been keeping my eye on the new iQ series of powered speakers that Behringer are working on. I am quite intrigued by them and at the right price point, they would give me problems. Why you ask? Well because despite being an X32 owner, I cannot quite bring myself to have an 'all Behringer' system. That is, console, digital multicore, amps and speakers. I think I need a little time to get my head around that idea. :-)
Click to expand...

If the iQ12 is a NuQ-12DP at a quarter price, I'll probably buy a pair. Even if they are not I'll get a pair anyway, but I can't see myself ever being all Behringer even if I'm quite happy with everything Behringer I own so far.
My reasons for not wanting to go exclusively with one make are not all rational.
There is of course the stigma of being all Behringer, there is the "one manufacturer can't be good at everything" argument against going one-make. There is the satisfaction of finding the "best" (price/performance/fits-my-needs etc.) of every single item you purchase rather than going with a package. Then of course you have the practical side of already owning something and not wanting to replace it all in one go.
There is one question I need an answer to though: Are they loud enough? Sound quality and everything else are moot points if a speaker will not play loud enough for the needs ;)~;-)~:wink:
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

We got our S16's to stop the guys on the stage giving out hand signals!
Click to expand...

Yeah I see your point. But equally, in Mama we only have one guy that gives out hand signals and he only does that because one of the other guys and himself have patches that swing all over the place in terms of volume. So I'll let them do that until they fix their instrument patches and in the meantime I'll just take care of FoH.

It was also too much hassle coiling up 2 x 16/4 snakes at the end of the night. It would take ages as they were so heavy.
Click to expand...

Again, completely understand the point you're making. We have a 1.5 inch thick 24/8 multicore. It takes 10 minutes to lay it out, 5 minutes to connect it up, 15, minutes to put it away and it's fairly heavy. However, is it worth replacing it for £1,400.00? I don't think so. At £10.00 an hour, it would take us 300 gigs just to break even on the purchase.

Before we got the X32 and the P16-M's, the guys were still using IEMs, but it was a bodge. A stereo feed from two aux channels was sent to a 5 way splitter which then went out to each band member, to a Rolls PM351. Their instrument DIs would split out to FOH and local submixers which fed the PM351 instrument inputs. Vocal mics would then go into the PM351 and the THRU to FOH. Complicated? Yes, but each band member had 'more me' available to them.
Click to expand...

Yuck! I would never refer to that kind of setup as complicated, in front of a band member. I'd refer to it as wrong. Just plain wrong! I know there are different ways of doing things in pro audio, but some things are just wrong. Wrong enough that I would turn them down as a PA hire company (which I am not). We used to use a similar kind of setup for the keys foldback. It took me three months and now I have him down to using five DI's and an iPad. Much easier and much better for everyone.

From my point of view, the guys in the band are seriously considering pulling the trigger on a fairly large system. Price and sound quality are the defining factors.
Click to expand...

Exciting times ahead for your good self then? Personally, I'd go for price AFTER sound quality.

With the X32 being around a third of the price of the comparitively featured LS9-32, yet it outperforms it (imo), would it be unreasonable to assume that they've done the same with their new speaker range? Are the IQ's the same or better sounding than SRX's, yet a third of the price?
Click to expand...

I think it's doubtful that these iQ speakers will out perform our SRX system. But then, how old is the SRX design? They don't make them anymore to my knowledge. Let us also bear in mind the iQ system is powered - build in matched amps with custom DSP can really make a difference these days. In fact, the majority of the stadium systems that the big PA hire companies use these days, it's all in the electronics. Anyone can build a sturdy wooden box from a set of plans and plans don't stay secret if the product is available to buy. The hard part is the electronics.

I can't see myself ever being all Behringer even if I'm quite happy with everything Behringer I own so far.
My reasons for not wanting to go exclusively with one make are not all rational. There is of course the stigma of being all Behringer, there is the "one manufacturer can't be good at everything" argument against going one-make.
Click to expand...

Same as me then. I guess that stigma may not be around for much longer if Behringer keep on changing the game? They really have gone from the bottom of the pile to the innovation club. It's reassuring. Do you think the same stigma would exist if we bought all Soundcraft?
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

£10 an hour?
You're underselling yourself!

That half an hour is time I don't need to be on site. I don't need to leave as early.
It's an extra half an hour with the wife and kids.
Try putting a price on that.......!

Seriously though, as I would be the one to do the lifting, etc with the snakes, to me it was worth the expense to go CAT5.
Our analog snakes were only 30m, which limited us.
We've played two venues in the past 6 weeks that required 50m.
That was simple. One CAT5 drum. Job done.
We have a spare as well, so we could link them and go for the full 100m. I've tested this configuration and it's stable.
And while I think of it, I got my S16's on pre-order, before the price went up. They were around £500 per unit, iirc. 8)~8-)~:cool:

Isn't this thread about speakers?

We can speculate all we like, but until they materialise, that's all we can do.
What would be good would be a field test like the one Christian did with the X32.
I had initial reservations about the desk, the same as many people.
It was Christian's road test blog that opened my eyes to the possibility that Behringer had delivered.
OK, so it was a leap of faith to actually fork out my own money back in August, but so far I haven't been disappointed.

Karl.

P.S. If we could put sound quality before price, we'd be looking at D&B.....
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Andrew Prince said:
Same as me then. I guess that stigma may not be around for much longer if Behringer keep on changing the game? They really have gone from the bottom of the pile to the innovation club. It's reassuring. Do you think the same stigma would exist if we bought all Soundcraft?
Click to expand...

The thing is you can't go all Soundcraft, you can be allmost exclusively Harman as I have been at one stage (JBL, AKG, Soundcraft), and these days you can of course be fairly exclusively Music Group, and that is a different proposal altogether. The typical one-make configurations are very MI; Mackie, Peavey, Behringer, Alto, Nady, Samson etc., all with their stigmas attached. Even Yamaha couldn't quite hack it, allthough they were fairly close. Only make that comes to mind that ever was able to do the complete chain from mikes to big mains was EV.
Still, I hope the iQ series are fantastic, because I have no good rational reason not to go all Behringer, with no riders to think of and no clients that I need to satisfy. My gratest liability is myself, the equipment will never change that ;)~;-)~:wink:.
 
Re: New Behringer iQ series networked speaker lineup

Per Søvik said:
The thing is you can't go all Soundcraft, you can be allmost exclusively Harman as I have been at one stage (JBL, AKG, Soundcraft), and these days you can of course be fairly exclusively Music Group, and that is a different proposal altogether. The typical one-make configurations are very MI; Mackie, Peavey, Behringer, Alto, Nady, Samson etc., all with their stigmas attached. Even Yamaha couldn't quite hack it, allthough they were fairly close. Only make that comes to mind that ever was able to do the complete chain from mikes to big mains was EV.
Still, I hope the iQ series are fantastic, because I have no good rational reason not to go all Behringer, with no riders to think of and no clients that I need to satisfy. My gratest liability is myself, the equipment will never change that ;)~;-)~:wink:.
Click to expand...

Since I worked for one of the names on your short list for 15 years I know a little about it. It is difficult (impossible) for one brand to inhabit both a high and low market position in end user's minds. Trying to be both, generally turns off, one segment or the other. Since no company in it's right mind would give up the high volume value segment to dominate the low volume, lower profit, high end, the common strategy is to buy a smaller high end brand to exploit that segment. It is not a secret why the high end brands are smaller companies (there's less money there).

Do your own math... Behringer seems well on their way to accumulating a portfolio of high end brands to pursue professional customers with, but what would I know? :-)

JR
 
Top Bottom