Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Junior Varsity
X32 Discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dan Mortensen" data-source="post: 80848" data-attributes="member: 2826"><p>Re: Monitor Whine</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hi Dave,</p><p></p><p>First, please confirm to Chase that I didn't coach you to write this question today. :lol:</p><p></p><p>That said, I have been researching this issue over the weekend, and have info to share. This will be a long post because there is a lot to say.</p><p></p><p>You should first know that I got 3 consoles in November which have a monitor-out whine. Chase had offered to have them go back to the service center to be fixed, but I wanted to compare them to the 6 consoles that came within the last two weeks (I have a music festival coming up at the end of the month that will be all X32's, 2 on each of 3 stages and 1 on 1 stage plus two spares) to see if there was a difference between old-ish consoles and new ones.</p><p></p><p>So over the weekend they all were examined with Meyer SIM, and here is the methodology and pictures of data, along with some descriptions of what I think I'm seeing. If you see something different, I welcome your comments. </p><p></p><p>Methodology: </p><p></p><p>Meyer SIM was used because that's what I have. Rather than using the Source Independent aspect of it, I just hooked up the monitor output to the line input and looked at "Line Spectrum", which is a single non-comparative analysis as opposed to "Frequency Response", which is a dual FFT comparison of one thing (device output) compared to another thing (device input) to see the device's effect on the signal. Since I wanted to see the output of the console with NO input signal, this seemed like the way to go.</p><p></p><p>The first test was to see how much EQ would be required to reduce the nasty whine, because I don't understand what a dbV is (the amplitude measurement done by SIM), but am familiar with the db boost/cut on EQ's, and so put a BSS Omnidrive Compact (355) in between the console and the SIM, to reduce the almost pure 6k tone (the highest one visible) so that it was down in the flat area of the frequency response curve.</p><p></p><p>You should know that the consoles are identified by the IP address that we have assigned, rather than by serial number, and the order of IP addresses does not precisely correspond to age. .11, .12, and .19 are the oldest consoles, and I forgot to measure .19 because I was listening to music through it while doing this. It was measured later, and it's performance is right in with all the others.</p><p></p><p>It's also important to understand that the Monitor output pot, which is labeled "Min" and "Max", is actually an attenuator and has no gain, so that "Max" is actually Unity rather than any kind of amplification. Therefore the default user position, if wanting that output to mirror the other analog outputs, is actually "Max".</p><p></p><p>Results:</p><p></p><p>So the first picture shows what console we are looking at, the second shows the un-EQ'd result, the third shows the result after EQ, and the fourth shows the face of the BSS with the frequency, amount of cut, and bandwidth. (The analyzer doesn't hit 6.00kHz exactly, and it was at its narrowest Q.)</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]151985[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151986[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151987[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151988[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>The other consoles were all similar to this one, within a couple db anyway, except for .16, which only needed 5 db reduction to get 6k to flat. (More about .16 in a minute.) And note that I had the overall amplitude too low, so that the trace is not up near the reference line so you could more easily see relative amplitudes of parts of the curve. I realized the mistake and positioned the rest of the measurements more in the middle of the screen.</p><p></p><p>So, to hopefully be clearer, all the measurements in the above group are the same display position relative to each other and vary only by differences from console to console, and the following measurements are the same way. In other words, for both sets, the female XLR was moved from console to console and the SIM settings stayed the same.</p><p></p><p>It turned out that dbV on the SIM was pretty much exactly the same as db on the BSS, so the BSS was removed.</p><p></p><p>The next set of pictures shows multiple traces superimposed upon each other, with all but console .19 visible. </p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]151989[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151990[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151991[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151999[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Note that they are quite similar, to the point of being nearly identical, with one glaring exception, and that is .16. The reason that it needed less EQ to flatten the 6k peak was that the noise floor was quite a bit higher than the others, and was audibly noisier, too. When I did the measurements I hadn't yet listened to it, and listening made it clear that it was a defective unit. I also found that its response varied over time, and the next two show it when first powered up (higher noise, stored trace) and after being powered up for a while (lower noise, live trace).</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]151993[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151994[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Then it occurred to me to measure the left outputs (output 15) of the consoles to see how the noise compared to the monitor outputs, and to measure it with the master fader down and with it up full travel. .14 was representative of the results:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]151995[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]151996[/ATTACH] </p><p></p><p>Nothing like the spikes of the monitor output.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Here are multiple consoles at max master fader travel, again with the outlier .16 which I didn't think to remove yet:</p><p></p><p> [ATTACH]152000[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151992[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>Finally, one console (.18) surprisingly measured exactly the same regardless of master up or down:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]151998[/ATTACH][ATTACH]151997[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>I did confirm that it was configured to pass signal. And all the consoles had been recently reloaded with the same program/routing/etc.</p><p></p><p>The conclusion I get is that the monitor output noise is for all intents and purposes identical from the "old" consoles to the "new" consoles, which says that more research is needed to determine the cause and solution(s). </p><p></p><p>Chase and Behringer have all these pictures, as well as the rest which I'm not showing because they don't add to the story, and I'm pleased that they will be looking into it further.</p><p></p><p>It is also important to me to point out that I bring this information not to do some kind of "gotcha", but to try to help solve a problem that we users are aware of and to make a wonderful console even better.</p><p></p><p>I honestly feel that even if this turns out to be an unsolvable problem (I don't think it will be because the rest of the bus outputs are so relatively quiet, but even if...), the X32 is still a phenomenal value and a wonderful sounding and performing piece of audio equipment, and I am very grateful to be able to use it. The willingness of Behringer to continually improve it and support it is really, really great.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for reading this.</p><p></p><p>Fake edit: This software doesn't load the pics in the same order they are uploaded, and the thumbnails made it hard to tell one pic from another; if they are different sizes to you, that is why: I had to make some bigger to see them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dan Mortensen, post: 80848, member: 2826"] Re: Monitor Whine Hi Dave, First, please confirm to Chase that I didn't coach you to write this question today. :lol: That said, I have been researching this issue over the weekend, and have info to share. This will be a long post because there is a lot to say. You should first know that I got 3 consoles in November which have a monitor-out whine. Chase had offered to have them go back to the service center to be fixed, but I wanted to compare them to the 6 consoles that came within the last two weeks (I have a music festival coming up at the end of the month that will be all X32's, 2 on each of 3 stages and 1 on 1 stage plus two spares) to see if there was a difference between old-ish consoles and new ones. So over the weekend they all were examined with Meyer SIM, and here is the methodology and pictures of data, along with some descriptions of what I think I'm seeing. If you see something different, I welcome your comments. Methodology: Meyer SIM was used because that's what I have. Rather than using the Source Independent aspect of it, I just hooked up the monitor output to the line input and looked at "Line Spectrum", which is a single non-comparative analysis as opposed to "Frequency Response", which is a dual FFT comparison of one thing (device output) compared to another thing (device input) to see the device's effect on the signal. Since I wanted to see the output of the console with NO input signal, this seemed like the way to go. The first test was to see how much EQ would be required to reduce the nasty whine, because I don't understand what a dbV is (the amplitude measurement done by SIM), but am familiar with the db boost/cut on EQ's, and so put a BSS Omnidrive Compact (355) in between the console and the SIM, to reduce the almost pure 6k tone (the highest one visible) so that it was down in the flat area of the frequency response curve. You should know that the consoles are identified by the IP address that we have assigned, rather than by serial number, and the order of IP addresses does not precisely correspond to age. .11, .12, and .19 are the oldest consoles, and I forgot to measure .19 because I was listening to music through it while doing this. It was measured later, and it's performance is right in with all the others. It's also important to understand that the Monitor output pot, which is labeled "Min" and "Max", is actually an attenuator and has no gain, so that "Max" is actually Unity rather than any kind of amplification. Therefore the default user position, if wanting that output to mirror the other analog outputs, is actually "Max". Results: So the first picture shows what console we are looking at, the second shows the un-EQ'd result, the third shows the result after EQ, and the fourth shows the face of the BSS with the frequency, amount of cut, and bandwidth. (The analyzer doesn't hit 6.00kHz exactly, and it was at its narrowest Q.) [ATTACH=CONFIG]151985.vB5-legacyid=5985[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151986.vB5-legacyid=5986[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151987.vB5-legacyid=5987[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151988.vB5-legacyid=5988[/ATTACH] The other consoles were all similar to this one, within a couple db anyway, except for .16, which only needed 5 db reduction to get 6k to flat. (More about .16 in a minute.) And note that I had the overall amplitude too low, so that the trace is not up near the reference line so you could more easily see relative amplitudes of parts of the curve. I realized the mistake and positioned the rest of the measurements more in the middle of the screen. So, to hopefully be clearer, all the measurements in the above group are the same display position relative to each other and vary only by differences from console to console, and the following measurements are the same way. In other words, for both sets, the female XLR was moved from console to console and the SIM settings stayed the same. It turned out that dbV on the SIM was pretty much exactly the same as db on the BSS, so the BSS was removed. The next set of pictures shows multiple traces superimposed upon each other, with all but console .19 visible. [ATTACH=CONFIG]151989.vB5-legacyid=5989[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151990.vB5-legacyid=5990[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151991.vB5-legacyid=5991[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151999.vB5-legacyid=5999[/ATTACH] Note that they are quite similar, to the point of being nearly identical, with one glaring exception, and that is .16. The reason that it needed less EQ to flatten the 6k peak was that the noise floor was quite a bit higher than the others, and was audibly noisier, too. When I did the measurements I hadn't yet listened to it, and listening made it clear that it was a defective unit. I also found that its response varied over time, and the next two show it when first powered up (higher noise, stored trace) and after being powered up for a while (lower noise, live trace). [ATTACH=CONFIG]151993.vB5-legacyid=5993[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151994.vB5-legacyid=5994[/ATTACH] Then it occurred to me to measure the left outputs (output 15) of the consoles to see how the noise compared to the monitor outputs, and to measure it with the master fader down and with it up full travel. .14 was representative of the results: [ATTACH=CONFIG]151995.vB5-legacyid=5995[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]151996.vB5-legacyid=5996[/ATTACH] Nothing like the spikes of the monitor output. Here are multiple consoles at max master fader travel, again with the outlier .16 which I didn't think to remove yet: [ATTACH=CONFIG]152000.vB5-legacyid=6000[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151992.vB5-legacyid=5992[/ATTACH] Finally, one console (.18) surprisingly measured exactly the same regardless of master up or down: [ATTACH=CONFIG]151998.vB5-legacyid=5998[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]151997.vB5-legacyid=5997[/ATTACH] I did confirm that it was configured to pass signal. And all the consoles had been recently reloaded with the same program/routing/etc. The conclusion I get is that the monitor output noise is for all intents and purposes identical from the "old" consoles to the "new" consoles, which says that more research is needed to determine the cause and solution(s). Chase and Behringer have all these pictures, as well as the rest which I'm not showing because they don't add to the story, and I'm pleased that they will be looking into it further. It is also important to me to point out that I bring this information not to do some kind of "gotcha", but to try to help solve a problem that we users are aware of and to make a wonderful console even better. I honestly feel that even if this turns out to be an unsolvable problem (I don't think it will be because the rest of the bus outputs are so relatively quiet, but even if...), the X32 is still a phenomenal value and a wonderful sounding and performing piece of audio equipment, and I am very grateful to be able to use it. The willingness of Behringer to continually improve it and support it is really, really great. Thanks for reading this. Fake edit: This software doesn't load the pics in the same order they are uploaded, and the thumbnails made it hard to tell one pic from another; if they are different sizes to you, that is why: I had to make some bigger to see them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Junior Varsity
X32 Discussion
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
