Behringer?

[Pt]

What Behringer stuff do you have?

I have a V-Tone GM108 15 watt SS practice amp.
Great little modeling amp for guitar.
I used it with my bass when practicing with MP3's.
Does the job with no distortion.
Been using it regularly for over 3 years.
No problems.

I have a Virtualizer Pro that I use mostly for vocals through the PA.
Had this for 6 years.
Indestructible with great DSP sounds.

8 channel Euro-something mixer.
Had this for 6 years too.
Never failed me and it has phantom power.
I forgot the wall wart one time and it also works on batteries.
Nice unit.

Last year I bought a BX4500H 450 watt bass amp head for practicing
with bands.
I like the sound so much that it is now my gigging bass amp.
Puts my silver SWR 350 to shame.

I have never had any problems with Behringer products.


Pt

[Tony Risotto]

"Pt" <peatea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178934485.553216.218860@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> What Behringer stuff do you have?


I've got a pair of Truth B2031A monitors, A MX2642A Eurorack mixer, a
HPM1000 headset, a Multigate Pro and a Mic200 Ultragain.

I had to have one of the B2031A's repaired once (still under warranty, thank
goodness). Half of the settings on my Ultragain malfunction.

I used to have two Behringer bass cabinets, a 1x15 and a 2x10, but I sold
both of those and bought an Ashdown 2x10 instead.

Tony

[js]

Wow, trolling sure ain't what it used to be...

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks









"Pt" <peatea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178934485.553216.218860@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>
> I have a V-Tone GM108 15 watt SS practice amp.
> Great little modeling amp for guitar.
> I used it with my bass when practicing with MP3's.
> Does the job with no distortion.
> Been using it regularly for over 3 years.
> No problems.
>
> I have a Virtualizer Pro that I use mostly for vocals through the PA.
> Had this for 6 years.
> Indestructible with great DSP sounds.
>
> 8 channel Euro-something mixer.
> Had this for 6 years too.
> Never failed me and it has phantom power.
> I forgot the wall wart one time and it also works on batteries.
> Nice unit.
>
> Last year I bought a BX4500H 450 watt bass amp head for practicing
> with bands.
> I like the sound so much that it is now my gigging bass amp.
> Puts my silver SWR 350 to shame.
>
> I have never had any problems with Behringer products.
>
>
> Pt
>

[Mike Rieves]

"Pt" <peatea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178934485.553216.218860@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>
> I have a V-Tone GM108 15 watt SS practice amp.
> Great little modeling amp for guitar.
> I used it with my bass when practicing with MP3's.
> Does the job with no distortion.
> Been using it regularly for over 3 years.
> No problems.
>
> I have a Virtualizer Pro that I use mostly for vocals through the PA.
> Had this for 6 years.
> Indestructible with great DSP sounds.
>
> 8 channel Euro-something mixer.
> Had this for 6 years too.
> Never failed me and it has phantom power.
> I forgot the wall wart one time and it also works on batteries.
> Nice unit.
>
> Last year I bought a BX4500H 450 watt bass amp head for practicing
> with bands.
> I like the sound so much that it is now my gigging bass amp.
> Puts my silver SWR 350 to shame.
>
> I have never had any problems with Behringer products.
>
>
We used a Berhinger EuroDesk 24 channel board at the club, had to repair
it twice, the first time it was a bad regulator IC in the power supply unit,
the second time it was the connector that connected the power supply to the
board. The board was used five or six nights a week, seven or eight hours a
night (band and DJ both ran through the board). Failures were about two
years apart. We used the board for eight years (1996-2004), a friend still
has it and it still works, but he rarely uses it.

[ptooner]

"Pt" <peatea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178934485.553216.218860@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> What Behringer stuff do you have?

let's see, I have an older 12 channel mixer, a 1622 mx I think (with
effects) a midi pedal board (FCB1010 comes to mind) a feedback destroyer
(1124?) and a compressor pedal. That's all I can remember off hand. Never
had any problem with any of it.
Gerry


>
> I have a V-Tone GM108 15 watt SS practice amp.
> Great little modeling amp for guitar.
> I used it with my bass when practicing with MP3's.
> Does the job with no distortion.
> Been using it regularly for over 3 years.
> No problems.
>
> I have a Virtualizer Pro that I use mostly for vocals through the PA.
> Had this for 6 years.
> Indestructible with great DSP sounds.
>
> 8 channel Euro-something mixer.
> Had this for 6 years too.
> Never failed me and it has phantom power.
> I forgot the wall wart one time and it also works on batteries.
> Nice unit.
>
> Last year I bought a BX4500H 450 watt bass amp head for practicing
> with bands.
> I like the sound so much that it is now my gigging bass amp.
> Puts my silver SWR 350 to shame.
>
> I have never had any problems with Behringer products.
>
>
> Pt
>

[Steve]

Pt wrote:
> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>

1) A 16-channel mixer (8 full mono plus 4 stereo), model MX2004. It's
about 7 years old, and has performed flawlessly for me, even serving as
the main board for our church worship band on occasion.

2) A 10-channel mixer that can run on batteries, model MXB1002. Used as
a sub-mixer at the church more or less continuously for a couple of
years. Never used it on battery power, however. Great little unit.

3) One of the Virtualizer effects units. Great reverbs & choruses.
Never a problem.

4) Had one of their stereo graphic EQ's for a short while, but decided I
didn't need it, so I returned it & got something else.

5) BXL-3000 bass combo amp. Bought it a few months ago, and have only
used it a few times. Sounds great with the EURB, but lacks a little bit
for electric bass because there's no tweeter. Great amp within it's
limitations.

I've never had any problems with any of these. When I have a need that
a Behringer unit can fulfil, I tend toward their stuff because my
experiences twith them have been so positive.

--Roseville (soon to be Lincoln) Steve

[Pt]

On May 11, 8:48 pm, Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What Behringer stuff do you have?


I am not trying to push Behringer stuff but my experience with their
products has been excellent.
Everything I have of theirs has worked flawlessly and seems to br
rugged construction.
Their pro gear is indeed pro gear.
Since I am retired from my day job I don't have the funds to buy an
Ampeg SVT or a Mackie mixer etc.
My main regret is that their stuff is made in China.
I just looked at the label on my new BVD shorts.
Guess where they are made?

Pt

[Mike Fleming]

In article <1178934485.553216.218860@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups. com>, Pt
<peatea@yahoo.com> writes:

> What Behringer stuff do you have?

AB100 A-B switch
ADI21 DI box
MIC200 pre-amp

Quite possibly going to get a CT100 lead tester soon as well. Might
get a Behringer head too.

--
Mike Fleming

[Larry Shaw]

BX450W amp
BX300W amp
1X15 cab
2X10 cab
Bass enhancer pedal
Rack tuner

Had a problem with a mains transformer on the BX3000T but replaced free of
charge by Behringer (after it was out of warranty period).

Good value for money - no good if you are badge orientated... cheap enough
to replace when it's earned its keep.

I also run Trace Elliot, Fender and Semer amps/cabs in different situations
so don't just think i'm a cheapskate :)

www.union-revival.com


"Pt" <peatea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178934485.553216.218860@e65g2000hsc.googlegr oups.com...
> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>
> I have a V-Tone GM108 15 watt SS practice amp.
> Great little modeling amp for guitar.
> I used it with my bass when practicing with MP3's.
> Does the job with no distortion.
> Been using it regularly for over 3 years.
> No problems.
>
> I have a Virtualizer Pro that I use mostly for vocals through the PA.
> Had this for 6 years.
> Indestructible with great DSP sounds.
>
> 8 channel Euro-something mixer.
> Had this for 6 years too.
> Never failed me and it has phantom power.
> I forgot the wall wart one time and it also works on batteries.
> Nice unit.
>
> Last year I bought a BX4500H 450 watt bass amp head for practicing
> with bands.
> I like the sound so much that it is now my gigging bass amp.
> Puts my silver SWR 350 to shame.
>
> I have never had any problems with Behringer products.
>
>
> Pt
>

[Guitarmakermark]

On May 11, 6:48 pm, Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>
I have a Behringer 1x15 cab which I used for about three years as an
extension cab for my SWR 2x10C combo amp. That cab served me well,
right up to the time (recently) I upgraded to my first component
separates rig.

Was looking at Behringer 4x10 cabs to go with my new GK amp, but
realized the power handling on the Behringer cabs was not quite enough
for the new amp. Went with GK cabs instead.

Based on my positive experiences with Behringer, I would not hesitate
to buy Behringer stuff again.

Mark

[Marc]

On 13 May, 01:22, Guitarmakermark <Guitarmakerm...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 6:48 pm, Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>
> I have a Behringer 1x15 cab which I used for about three years as an
> extension cab for my SWR 2x10C combo amp. That cab served me well,
> right up to the time (recently) I upgraded to my first component
> separates rig.
>
> Was looking at Behringer 4x10 cabs to go with my new GK amp, but
> realized the power handling on the Behringer cabs was not quite enough
> for the new amp. Went with GK cabs instead.
>
> Based on my positive experiences with Behringer, I would not hesitate
> to buy Behringer stuff again.
>
> Mark


This thread has inspired me to take the plunge on a Behringer 210
extension cab for my rig. Will let you know if it breaks :-)

[Thunderbroom]

I like the sound so much that it is now my gigging bass amp.
Puts my silver SWR 350 to shame.


When are you playing next? I may be up for a road trip out your way.

[Brian Running]

> What Behringer stuff do you have?

Seems like a kind of a personal question, ain't it? Oh, all right, I'll
tell you anyway:

UB1202FX mixer
Ultrafex Pro
CX2300 Active Crossover
Ultramizer Pro
Ultragain Pro

Seems like I've got one or two others, too, but they're not within
eyesight at the moment. Previously had a Composer compressor, which went
back to the store with unacceptable chatter problems. Other than that,
the only complaint I've ever had is that the Ultragain mic pre is
somewhat noisy, but it's certainly usable, and gets used all the time.
Whaddaya want in a $199 stereo mic pre, ya know?

Good value for the money.

[Stipo]

I have
two BX3000Ts
two EP2500
one 32 channel equalizer
one 32 channel mixer (sl3242?) It's a desk model
bass compressor stompbox

Bought most of it being cheap!! Found out I was doing good so I stuck with
it! Stipo




> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[coreybenson]

On May 11, 8:48 pm, Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>
> I have a V-Tone GM108 15 watt SS practice amp.
> Great little modeling amp for guitar.
> I used it with my bass when practicing with MP3's.
> Does the job with no distortion.
> Been using it regularly for over 3 years.
> No problems.
>
> I have a Virtualizer Pro that I use mostly for vocals through the PA.
> Had this for 6 years.
> Indestructible with great DSP sounds.
>
> 8 channel Euro-something mixer.
> Had this for 6 years too.
> Never failed me and it has phantom power.
> I forgot the wall wart one time and it also works on batteries.
> Nice unit.
>
> Last year I bought a BX4500H 450 watt bass amp head for practicing
> with bands.
> I like the sound so much that it is now my gigging bass amp.
> Puts my silver SWR 350 to shame.
>
> I have never had any problems with Behringer products.
>
> Pt

My entire studio is based around the Behringer MX9000 Eurodesk 24x8
console. I also have the following Behringer gear:

1- Multigate Pro MDX4400
1- Multicom Pro XR4400
1- ULTRA-DI DI20
2- ULTRA-DI DI00
2- EURORACK UB502
1- EURORACK UB802
POWERPLAY PRO-XL HA4700

I think that's all I personally own right now. I've used the following
gear:

ULTRAVOICE XM1800S - Cheaper than 58's, but sound almost identical.
EURODESK 2442A
EURODESK 3282A
B-CONTROL FADER BCF2000
ULTRA-CURVE PRO DSP8024
TUBE COMPOSER T1952

I can't think of any more right now.

For the record, I also own $3k Focusrite Mic Preamps, and other very
expensive gear. What I like about Behringer is it often works just as
well, but doesn't cost me a fortune. At the same time, I have no
problem paying premium prices for gear that makes my world
substantially better! I do love my Focusrite ISA110's... VERY nice
preamps. Two of that flavor is enough for me, however.

Corey

[crow]

> On May 11, 8:48 pm, Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>>

MX3242 mixer
1 pr Truth 8" Bi amp powered monitors (Love 'em, btw...)
ADA8000 ( 8 Ch mic pre with adat output - brilliant! allows me to record 16
live trax @ once on my Fostex 160ex)
8 pr headphones - (@ < $20/pr, it was a no brainer)
Composer tube compressor - (hands down the BEST snare drum compressor I have
ever used...I can hardly believe it, myself...doesn't suck on male vocals
either!)

I doubt the stuff is roadworthy the way some other brands are but for a
fixed install, you'd have to spend a LOT more dough to get something better!
ymmv.

-- jepp
if it sounds good...IT IS GOOD!

[Guitarmakermark]

Go for it!!!

Mark

> This thread has inspired me to take the plunge on a Behringer 210
> extension cab for my rig. Will let you know if it breaks :-)

[Jim Carr]

"Steve" <smcyr@sureNOSPAMwest.net> wrote in message
news:134bqjpfjij1ia9@corp.supernews.com...

> 3) One of the Virtualizer effects units. Great reverbs & choruses.

Compared to what other units? I think the Virtualizer effects are pretty
lousy compared to the TC Electronics equivalent for about $150.

I found the Feedback Destroyer Pro to be junk, though. It's way too stupid
to actually pick out feedback, which is probably true of all of those kinds
of units. It ends up notching out useful frequencies and gutting the vocals.
I've tested this in a controlled situation before just by playing bass
directly into it. After about 30 seconds it had set up four filters when
there was no way there could have been any feedback at all.

That said, I've never had any issues with either unit in terms of
reliability.

[ptooner]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:LNa2i.489574$Pi4.88451@newsfe14.lga...
> "Steve" <smcyr@sureNOSPAMwest.net> wrote in message
> news:134bqjpfjij1ia9@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> 3) One of the Virtualizer effects units. Great reverbs & choruses.
>
> Compared to what other units? I think the Virtualizer effects are pretty
> lousy compared to the TC Electronics equivalent for about $150.
>
> I found the Feedback Destroyer Pro to be junk, though. It's way too stupid
> to actually pick out feedback, which is probably true of all of those
> kinds of units. It ends up notching out useful frequencies and gutting the
> vocals. I've tested this in a controlled situation before just by playing
> bass directly into it. After about 30 seconds it had set up four filters
> when there was no way there could have been any feedback at all.
>
> That said, I've never had any issues with either unit in terms of
> reliability.

The feedback destroyers work by spotting individual frequencies that are
much higher level that the surrounding frequencies. They begin hunting when
some level goes above the selectable input level. If you input nothing but
bass, then you are setting yourself up for failure. When your input level
goes above the unit's threshold frequency it will set a filter to attenuate
that frequency. It's not that hard to outsmart it if that's what you want
to do. Used properly these units can be helpful in difficult sound areas -
if you carefully read the manuals and don't try to outsmart the machine.

Gerry
>

[Justice]

On 11 May 2007 18:48:05 -0700, Pt <peatea@yahoo.com> wrote:

>What Behringer stuff do you have?

OK, here we go.....

Bass Vamp Pro
BTR2000 Rack Tuner
EP1500 Poweramp
BB210 bass cab
BB115 Bass Cab

V-amp 2
Headphone amp (forgot model, it an older one)
Ultradyne multi band compressor
Mic 2000 tube preamp
Multicom Pro-XL 4 channel compressor
Autocom Pro-XL 2 channel compressor
FCB1010 Midi controller pedal
Guitar Pack (the Behringer strat guitar with the GM108 amp)

UB802 mixer*
DDX3216 Digital Mixer w/adat card**

C1 condensor mic
ECM1000 reference mic

BDI21 Bass DI
ADI21 Acoustic DI
GDI21 Guitar DI
Ultra-G G100 active DI with cab sim

Vintage Phaser pedal
Bass OD Pedal
Ultra Octave pedal
Bass Chorus pedal
Ultra Flanger pedal
Blues OD pedal
FX100 multi effects pedal
Acoustic simulator pedal
Ultra Chorus pedal
OD100 Overdrive Distortion pedal
UT100 Ultra Tremelo
Hell Babe Wah pedal.

*this is my second UB802, the first one died after being left on 24
hours a day for 2 years.

** this is the only Behringer item I have ever needed repaired, the
unit was spiked by a faulty Furman power strip when it was a little
over a year old. When the local repair shop could not fix it (under
the extended warranty that I had purchased from Musicians Friend)
Behringer stepped up and got it repaired for me even covering shipping
to and from the shop that did the repairs.

I have previously owned
Virtualiser Pro effects unit (sold because I picked up a Lexi MPX110
and a TC Electronics M300)
Ultramizer Pro - Sold when I purchased the Ultradyne listed above.

I'm currently looking/waiting for...
one of the Tube Composers (that Derek mentioned)
several of the new effects pedals that were just launched
and this monster ...The BVT2500H
http://www.behringer.com/BVT25000H/index.cfm?lang=eng

[Justice]

On 11 May 2007 18:48:05 -0700, Pt <peatea@yahoo.com> wrote:

>What Behringer stuff do you have?

I did forget to mention that my experiences with Behringers gear and
customer service have made it so that when I'm looking for a new piece
of gear, if Behrigner makes something that fits the bill, i'll
morethan likely give it a shot. I have only been dissapointed with 2
Behringer items that I have purchased, the FX100 multi effect pedal
(which I bought primarily for the pitch shifter, but it had too much
latency) and the Multicom Pro XL (which was not as flexible as I would
have liked it to be, but it still gets used for the Limiters which
work nice, there was no defect with the product itself)

[klaw]

tube ultragain
powerplay pro
multigain pro
denoiser
hps3000 headphones
mx 2004a mixer
composer pro
autocom pro
virtualizer pro
ultragraph pro

no problems with any of it.

BTW - don't they don't make any amateur stuff?

[Jim Carr]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:t0k2i.5496$ub.913@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

> The feedback destroyers work by spotting individual frequencies that are
> much higher level that the surrounding frequencies. They begin hunting
> when some level goes above the selectable input level. If you input
> nothing but bass, then you are setting yourself up for failure. When your
> input level goes above the unit's threshold frequency it will set a filter
> to attenuate that frequency. It's not that hard to outsmart it if that's
> what you want to do. Used properly these units can be helpful in
> difficult sound areas - if you carefully read the manuals and don't try to
> outsmart the machine.

What you describe is a dumb definition of feedback, which is my point. It's
way more than just a frequency that's louder than others. Hell, that's the
definition of a snare hit! Feedback will usually be a frequency that is not
centered around a musical frequency. An octave is a doubling of the
frequency with 12 notes spread over it, so there are more non-musical
freqencies. Feedback usually doesn't have undertones and overtones. Based on
my tests it tends to be a single frequency, which is very different than a
musical note. Furthermore, the feedback frequency will remain constant as
the musical frequencies around it change. A feedback destroyer has to
analyze amplitude and frequency over a time domain. Our brains do it much
better because in an instant we know that a particular sound doesn't belong.
Good luck getting a $99 box that is that smart.

If a band is running its own sound, a lot of times the only thing going
through the PA is the vocals. This is no different than my test using a bass
plugged in directly. Faced with a dumb definition of feedback, the unit will
start notching out non-feedback frequencies. This starts eating away at the
vocals.

Pro sound guys don't use them. Check out alt.audio.pro.live-sound for
numerous threads on the subject. The consensus there is that it is junk,
regardless of who makes it.

The thing is, it *might* be killing feedback, but it's also killing your
sound in the process. I've used the unit to catch frequencies while ringing
out the system. I this case I *know* it's getting feedback. I've then left a
few "auto filters" to catch feedback as it comes up. Invariably those those
filters are all used up by the end of the first song. Have you ever taken
the time to remove those new filters and do an A/B test on how it sounds? I
have. In every case no feedback resulted, and the sound was improved. I've
also found that the filters it set during ringing out sometimes notched
deeper and wider as the music moved around those frequencies.

I studied the manual. I ran tests in controlled conditions and under live
conditions. The end result is that *I* do a better job using my 31 band EQ
and getting my levels right, then leaving the rig alone while we play. If I
am just running the board, I can get more gain out of the system by tweaking
as I go along. I don't even turn on the Feedback Destroyer anymore.

[ptooner]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:sap2i.162749$nh4.98395@newsfe20.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:t0k2i.5496$ub.913@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
>> The feedback destroyers work by spotting individual frequencies that are
>> much higher level that the surrounding frequencies. They begin hunting
>> when some level goes above the selectable input level. If you input
>> nothing but bass, then you are setting yourself up for failure. When
>> your input level goes above the unit's threshold frequency it will set a
>> filter to attenuate that frequency. It's not that hard to outsmart it if
>> that's what you want to do. Used properly these units can be helpful in
>> difficult sound areas - if you carefully read the manuals and don't try
>> to outsmart the machine.
>
> What you describe is a dumb definition of feedback, which is my point.
> It's way more than just a frequency that's louder than others. Hell,
> that's the definition of a snare hit! Feedback will usually be a frequency
> that is not centered around a musical frequency. An octave is a doubling
> of the frequency with 12 notes spread over it, so there are more
> non-musical freqencies. Feedback usually doesn't have undertones and
> overtones. Based on my tests it tends to be a single frequency, which is
> very different than a musical note.

In what way is a single frequency different from a musical note?

Furthermore, the feedback frequency will remain constant as
> the musical frequencies around it change. A feedback destroyer has to
> analyze amplitude and frequency over a time domain. Our brains do it much
> better because in an instant we know that a particular sound doesn't
> belong. Good luck getting a $99 box that is that smart.

That's true. And good luck buying a dedicated soundman for $99. I don't
know what algorithms they are using, but I think you are asking for
performance way beyond what you can get for what we are willing to pay.
Maybe someday.

>
> If a band is running its own sound, a lot of times the only thing going
> through the PA is the vocals. This is no different than my test using a
> bass plugged in directly. Faced with a dumb definition of feedback, the
> unit will start notching out non-feedback frequencies. This starts eating
> away at the vocals.

Only if you have the input levels too high. It isn't magic, it's just a
tool.

>
> Pro sound guys don't use them. Check out alt.audio.pro.live-sound for
> numerous threads on the subject. The consensus there is that it is junk,
> regardless of who makes it.

No kidding! Pro drummers don't use drum machines either.

>
> The thing is, it *might* be killing feedback, but it's also killing your
> sound in the process. I've used the unit to catch frequencies while
> ringing out the system. I this case I *know* it's getting feedback. I've
> then left a few "auto filters" to catch feedback as it comes up.

Up till now you are using it as it was intended.

Invariably those those
> filters are all used up by the end of the first song.

If that's true your input level is too high.

Have you ever taken
> the time to remove those new filters and do an A/B test on how it sounds?

Yes I have. In fact if it is latching up new filters I check it as soon as
possible and meantime turn down my input level.

> have. In every case no feedback resulted, and the sound was improved. I've
> also found that the filters it set during ringing out sometimes notched
> deeper and wider as the music moved around those frequencies.
>
> I studied the manual. I ran tests in controlled conditions and under live
> conditions. The end result is that *I* do a better job using my 31 band EQ
> and getting my levels right, then leaving the rig alone while we play. If
> I am just running the board, I can get more gain out of the system by
> tweaking as I go along. I don't even turn on the Feedback Destroyer
> anymore.
>
I can do a better job too, but not while singing and playing bass.

Gerry

[Misifus]

Justice wrote:
> On 11 May 2007 18:48:05 -0700, Pt <peatea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What Behringer stuff do you have?
>
> I did forget to mention that my experiences with Behringers gear and
> customer service have made it so that when I'm looking for a new piece
> of gear, if Behrigner makes something that fits the bill, i'll
> morethan likely give it a shot. I have only been dissapointed with 2
> Behringer items that I have purchased, the FX100 multi effect pedal
> (which I bought primarily for the pitch shifter, but it had too much
> latency) and the Multicom Pro XL (which was not as flexible as I would
> have liked it to be, but it still gets used for the Limiters which
> work nice, there was no defect with the product itself)
>


I've had two Behringer products, a 1204FX-pro mixer and a UB802. The
1204 was noisy, too noisy to use, but the 802 has been a dream.

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rafseibert@suddenlink.net
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

[Jim Carr]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:LYp2i.5031$ya.110@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

> In what way is a single frequency different from a musical note?

What musical instrument produces a single frequency besides a synth creating
a sine wave?

> That's true. And good luck buying a dedicated soundman for $99. I don't
> know what algorithms they are using, but I think you are asking for
> performance way beyond what you can get for what we are willing to pay.
> Maybe someday.

I'd rather pay nothing for something that doesn't work.

>> If a band is running its own sound, a lot of times the only thing going
>> through the PA is the vocals. This is no different than my test using a
>> bass plugged in directly. Faced with a dumb definition of feedback, the
>> unit will start notching out non-feedback frequencies. This starts eating
>> away at the vocals.
>
> Only if you have the input levels too high. It isn't magic, it's just a
> tool.

That's simply wrong. I've done the tests, you obviously haven't. Go plug
your bass or any single instrument into a preamp and then directly into the
unit. Play something for a couple of minutes. Watch how many filters are
automatically created.


> Invariably those those
>> filters are all used up by the end of the first song.
>
> If that's true your input level is too high.

No, it's not. Do the above test and keep your input levels down.

>
> Have you ever taken
>> the time to remove those new filters and do an A/B test on how it sounds?
>
> Yes I have. In fact if it is latching up new filters I check it as soon
> as possible and meantime turn down my input level.

Feedback is independent of input level. If you were right, why would you
want a piece of junk in your system that has input indicators showing an
acceptable level when they are not? Why would you then want to decrease the
input level and therefore increase the signal to noise ratio? You then have
to make up that gain somewhere after the FBD. which means adjusting two or
more things, not just one.

I'd pay $99 to *not* have to deal with that.

[ptooner]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:Ejr2i.103410$jt2.78898@newsfe13.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:LYp2i.5031$ya.110@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
>> In what way is a single frequency different from a musical note?
>
> What musical instrument produces a single frequency besides a synth
> creating a sine wave?

Most instruments produce a fundamental frequency and a series of harmonics.
The harmonics
BEGIN at the octave above point. In other words, in a discussion of
frequencies like this they simply aren't relevant.

>
>> That's true. And good luck buying a dedicated soundman for $99. I don't
>> know what algorithms they are using, but I think you are asking for
>> performance way beyond what you can get for what we are willing to pay.
>> Maybe someday.
>
> I'd rather pay nothing for something that doesn't work.
>
>>> If a band is running its own sound, a lot of times the only thing going
>>> through the PA is the vocals. This is no different than my test using a
>>> bass plugged in directly. Faced with a dumb definition of feedback, the
>>> unit will start notching out non-feedback frequencies. This starts
>>> eating away at the vocals.
>>
>> Only if you have the input levels too high. It isn't magic, it's just a
>> tool.
>
> That's simply wrong. I've done the tests, you obviously haven't.

Hmmm, I do the tests an average of three times a week. How about you?

Go plug
> your bass or any single instrument into a preamp and then directly into
> the unit.

That would be a ridiculous hookup. What do you think would happen if I
plugged my bass directly into a speaker? I've never had a feedback problem
that came from my bass, what would be the point of such a setup?

Play something for a couple of minutes. Watch how many filters are
> automatically created.
>
>
>> Invariably those those
>>> filters are all used up by the end of the first song.
>>
>> If that's true your input level is too high.
>
> No, it's not. Do the above test and keep your input levels down.
>
>>
>> Have you ever taken
>>> the time to remove those new filters and do an A/B test on how it
>>> sounds?
>>
>> Yes I have. In fact if it is latching up new filters I check it as soon
>> as possible and meantime turn down my input level.
>
> Feedback is independent of input level.

Say what??????

If you were right, why would you
> want a piece of junk in your system that has input indicators showing an
> acceptable level when they are not? Why would you then want to decrease
> the input level and therefore increase the signal to noise ratio? You then
> have to make up that gain somewhere after the FBD. which means adjusting
> two or more things, not just one.
>
> I'd pay $99 to *not* have to deal with that.

Feel free to do that.
Gerry
>
>

[Jim Carr]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:_Gs2i.207$5w.179@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

>>> In what way is a single frequency different from a musical note?
>>
>> What musical instrument produces a single frequency besides a synth
>> creating a sine wave?
>
> Most instruments produce a fundamental frequency and a series of
> harmonics. The harmonics
> BEGIN at the octave above point. In other words, in a discussion of
> frequencies like this they simply aren't relevant.

The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a feedback
signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics. If there are
none, it's very likely to be feedback. If you find them, then it's probably
a musical note. It's but one test I would think necessary in detecting
feedback.

The fact that the FBD thinks that my playing single notes on the bass is
feedback very likely means that the FBD is *not* checking for harmonics
since we all know that bass notes have lots of very strong harmonics.

>> That's simply wrong. I've done the tests, you obviously haven't.
>
> Hmmm, I do the tests an average of three times a week. How about you?

Bullshit. You *use* it. You're not actually running tests. Like you said,
you don't have time to do all that.

> Go plug
>> your bass or any single instrument into a preamp and then directly into
>> the unit.
>
> That would be a ridiculous hookup. What do you think would happen if I
> plugged my bass directly into a speaker? I've never had a feedback
> problem that came from my bass, what would be the point of such a setup?

I thought you tested it three times per week? I don't care *what* instrument
you choose (hence the "any single instrument" part). By going directly into
the unit you eliminate any chance of feedback. Therefore, any filter
automatically created is done so in error. Hell, run your mic into a preamp
and then into FBD and sing. If you can sing a whole song without any auto
filters coming on, I'll buy you a beer when we meet.


>> Feedback is independent of input level.
>
> Say what??????

Whether a signal contains a feedback frequency or not is completely
independent on the input level going into the FBD. You could send a signal
that is -25dB into the FBD and generate feedback through your PA system. The
algorithm to detect it shouldn't care at all how high the overall signal is,
only the relative levels.

You ears do this all the time. You can determine if something is feedback
whether you're on stage or at the back of the room. If somebody made a FBD
that was any good, it would do the same thing.

The guys in my old band who had the FBD before me thought it was great
because they weren't getting that much feedback. Then they started
listening critically and realized it was adversely affecting the sound. Then
when I deliberately induced feedback while the band was playing and the
system was engaged, they saw that it did *not* detect it. The reason they
had no feedback was because they had their levels set appropriately.

This is not an anti-Behringer thing. In fact I was *excited* to get my hands
on one. I was looking forward to it. I didn't start running any tests on it
until *after* I started noticing sound quality issues and hearing the
occasional squeal during a gig that was not getting picked up. Only then did
I discover that what I thought was a great product was actually snake oil.

[ptooner]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:hsu2i.56186$OT4.42442@newsfe19.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:_Gs2i.207$5w.179@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>>>> In what way is a single frequency different from a musical note?
>>>
>>> What musical instrument produces a single frequency besides a synth
>>> creating a sine wave?
>>
>> Most instruments produce a fundamental frequency and a series of
>> harmonics. The harmonics
>> BEGIN at the octave above point. In other words, in a discussion of
>> frequencies like this they simply aren't relevant.
>
> The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
> musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
> fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a feedback
> signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics. If there are
> none, it's very likely to be feedback. If you find them, then it's
> probably a musical note. It's but one test I would think necessary in
> detecting feedback.
>

Well, Jim, that might well be a good way to design a FBD, why don't you give
it a go? It's not how they do it now, but it sounds like a good idea.

> The fact that the FBD thinks that my playing single notes on the bass is
> feedback very likely means that the FBD is *not* checking for harmonics
> since we all know that bass notes have lots of very strong harmonics.

Yep, that sounds reasonable

>
>>> That's simply wrong. I've done the tests, you obviously haven't.
>>
>> Hmmm, I do the tests an average of three times a week. How about you?
>
> Bullshit. You *use* it. You're not actually running tests. Like you said,
> you don't have time to do all that.
>
>> Go plug
>>> your bass or any single instrument into a preamp and then directly into
>>> the unit.
>>
>> That would be a ridiculous hookup. What do you think would happen if I
>> plugged my bass directly into a speaker? I've never had a feedback
>> problem that came from my bass, what would be the point of such a setup?
>
> I thought you tested it three times per week? I don't care *what*
> instrument you choose (hence the "any single instrument" part). By going
> directly into the unit you eliminate any chance of feedback. Therefore,
> any filter automatically created is done so in error. Hell, run your mic
> into a preamp and then into FBD and sing. If you can sing a whole song
> without any auto filters coming on, I'll buy you a beer when we meet.

Okay, that I do at least once a week. I prefer Corona.


>
>
>>> Feedback is independent of input level.
>>
>> Say what??????
>
> Whether a signal contains a feedback frequency or not is completely
> independent on the input level going into the FBD. You could send a signal
> that is -25dB into the FBD and generate feedback through your PA system.
> The algorithm to detect it shouldn't care at all how high the overall
> signal is, only the relative levels.

Bullshit. Now you are dreaming up how you wished they work and ignoring how
they really work. A feedback loop is self regenerating and the input
amplitude increases in amplitude continuously. That's what the current
generation of FBD's are looking for. And, that's why they will determine
that any input signal above a preset level is feedback. I told you before,
they are not magic, they are simple devices.

>
> You ears do this all the time. You can determine if something is feedback
> whether you're on stage or at the back of the room. If somebody made a FBD
> that was any good, it would do the same thing.
>
> The guys in my old band who had the FBD before me thought it was great
> because they weren't getting that much feedback. Then they started
> listening critically and realized it was adversely affecting the sound.
> Then when I deliberately induced feedback while the band was playing and
> the system was engaged, they saw that it did *not* detect it. The reason
> they had no feedback was because they had their levels set appropriately.

That sounds like a good reason to me.

>
> This is not an anti-Behringer thing. In fact I was *excited* to get my
> hands on one. I was looking forward to it. I didn't start running any
> tests on it until *after* I started noticing sound quality issues and
> hearing the occasional squeal during a gig that was not getting picked up.
> Only then did I discover that what I thought was a great product was
> actually snake oil.
I think I said at the outset, it's just a tool. It's not omniscient and it
doesn't cure every possible feedback situation. It DOES cure some of them.
If you keep your input levels set properly it won't effect your sound.

Gerry
>

[Jim Carr]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:Llv2i.5149$ya.748@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>> Whether a signal contains a feedback frequency or not is completely
>> independent on the input level going into the FBD. You could send a
>> signal that is -25dB into the FBD and generate feedback through your PA
>> system. The algorithm to detect it shouldn't care at all how high the
>> overall signal is, only the relative levels.
>
> Bullshit. Now you are dreaming up how you wished they work and ignoring
> how they really work. A feedback loop is self regenerating and the input
> amplitude increases in amplitude continuously.

Not quite. Haven't you ever rung out a system? When the ringing starts, you
could go get a sandwich and come back to find it virtually no louder than
before. That's still feedback no matter how you slice it.

I'm not telling you how they work. I'm telling you how they *should* work.
See the word "should" above? That means should. Got it? Feedback is
detectable without it having to enter into a loop that increases the
amplitude so fast it bursts your eardrums in three seconds.

>That's what the current generation of FBD's are looking for. And, that's
>why they will determine that any input signal above a preset level is
>feedback. I told you before, they are not magic, they are simple devices.

I never said they were magic. I said they were a waste of money because you
could do just as well without it and not adversely affect your sound. Until
they come up with a smart one, I won't waste my money.

If you're right then any frequency rising in amplitude above a preset level
is a stupid way to do it. Nothing in the Behringer manual says anything
about it working that way. They say it "intelligently" figures it out. So,
tell me how many dB the feedback has to get above the average musical signal
in order to trigger a filter? How long does it have to stay there? What's
the average level for your music that you use?

As for making one myself, I don't do DSP programming. My gut tells me that
it would require an incredible amount of processing power to do what I
describe. I think you'd have to take a different approach entirely and try
to mimic what the human brain does. That's no small feat. We can do it
because we know what belongs and what doesn't belong because that's what
we've learned. You might be able to do it with speech, but with live music
it would be incredibly difficult to do in realtime.

If I had to improve what's currently out there, I'd add the additional step
of checking for harmonics like I described before. You could do this after
making the notch (better safe than sorry) if you kept the last few seconds
of audio in memory for performing the check. I would also analyze the
amplitude curve of that frequency since in theory it should ramp up in a
consistent manner over time. This would probably require some sort of
secondary processor. I would also gradually turn off the notch and monitor
that frequency to see if starts to feed back again. If not, I would simply
release the filter.

[Mike Rieves]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:4Qx2i.3178$wv7.2081@newsfe18.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:Llv2i.5149$ya.748@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
>>> Whether a signal contains a feedback frequency or not is completely
>>> independent on the input level going into the FBD. You could send a
>>> signal that is -25dB into the FBD and generate feedback through your PA
>>> system. The algorithm to detect it shouldn't care at all how high the
>>> overall signal is, only the relative levels.
>>
>> Bullshit. Now you are dreaming up how you wished they work and ignoring
>> how they really work. A feedback loop is self regenerating and the input
>> amplitude increases in amplitude continuously.
>
> Not quite. Haven't you ever rung out a system? When the ringing starts,
> you could go get a sandwich and come back to find it virtually no louder
> than before. That's still feedback no matter how you slice it.
>
> I'm not telling you how they work. I'm telling you how they *should* work.
> See the word "should" above? That means should. Got it? Feedback is
> detectable without it having to enter into a loop that increases the
> amplitude so fast it bursts your eardrums in three seconds.
>
>>That's what the current generation of FBD's are looking for. And, that's
>>why they will determine that any input signal above a preset level is
>>feedback. I told you before, they are not magic, they are simple devices.
>
> I never said they were magic. I said they were a waste of money because
> you could do just as well without it and not adversely affect your sound.
> Until they come up with a smart one, I won't waste my money.
>
> If you're right then any frequency rising in amplitude above a preset
> level is a stupid way to do it. Nothing in the Behringer manual says
> anything about it working that way. They say it "intelligently" figures it
> out. So, tell me how many dB the feedback has to get above the average
> musical signal in order to trigger a filter? How long does it have to stay
> there? What's the average level for your music that you use?
>
> As for making one myself, I don't do DSP programming. My gut tells me that
> it would require an incredible amount of processing power to do what I
> describe. I think you'd have to take a different approach entirely and try
> to mimic what the human brain does. That's no small feat. We can do it
> because we know what belongs and what doesn't belong because that's what
> we've learned. You might be able to do it with speech, but with live music
> it would be incredibly difficult to do in realtime.
>
> If I had to improve what's currently out there, I'd add the additional
> step of checking for harmonics like I described before. You could do this
> after making the notch (better safe than sorry) if you kept the last few
> seconds of audio in memory for performing the check. I would also analyze
> the amplitude curve of that frequency since in theory it should ramp up in
> a consistent manner over time. This would probably require some sort of
> secondary processor. I would also gradually turn off the notch and monitor
> that frequency to see if starts to feed back again. If not, I would simply
> release the filter.
>

Feedback destroyers do have their uses, They will help in a difficult
room when you have to play really loudly and you don't have a sound man.
Running a single instrument directly into one isn't a fair test, because
they aren't designed for that. They're designed to be a component in an
electro-acoustic loop and by eliminating the acoustic part of the loop, you
defeat the effectiveness of the feedback finding algorythms. If a band has a
soundman and he is using a feedback destroyer, then it's time to get a new
soundman. However, for a band without a soundman that has to play difficult
rooms, or has to setup and play without having time to do a real sound check
and ring out the PA, they can be helpful. I agree that they are junk, but
sometimes even junk can be useful.

[Jim Carr]

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:Mhz2i.10430$163.5602@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .

> They're designed to be a component in an electro-acoustic loop and by
> eliminating the acoustic part of the loop, you defeat the effectiveness of
> the feedback finding algorythms.

So what you're saying is that there needs to be feedback for the thing to
work. So what happens when it's notched a couple of filters and there's no
more feedback? Does that screw up its feedback finding algorithms, too?

The *last* place I would use one is in a difficult room where I had to play
loud. The only place I would consider one would be in something like a
ballroom at a hotel. I'd make it part of the standard setup for speeches and
presentations.

[timbo]

On 2007-05-16, Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote:
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:Mhz2i.10430$163.5602@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>> They're designed to be a component in an electro-acoustic loop and by
>> eliminating the acoustic part of the loop, you defeat the effectiveness of
>> the feedback finding algorythms.
>
> So what you're saying is that there needs to be feedback for the thing to
> work. So what happens when it's notched a couple of filters and there's no
> more feedback? Does that screw up its feedback finding algorithms, too?
>
> The *last* place I would use one is in a difficult room where I had to play
> loud. The only place I would consider one would be in something like a
> ballroom at a hotel. I'd make it part of the standard setup for speeches and
> presentations.
>
>


been vaguely lurking on this discussion & i have only one thing to add:

try & see what a feedback destroyer does to a piano accordian.

amazing the way the filters zero in on certain frequencies as feedback &
notch them out. in that regard they do a great job. used a behringer
deq2496, & while i have absolute admiration for the capabilities of this
unit as far as eq/compressor/limiter/parametric go, i will never use it as a
feedback destroyer again. better to properly ring out a system & run it
properly in the first place than to rely on a fbd.

on the other hand, a seriously well notched & muted piano accordian can't
always be a bad thing...

cheers,

timbo.

--

http://www.skyrockats.com

[Jim Carr]

"timbo" <tim@nospam-number26.org> wrote in message
news:f2faov$jl5$3@birgitte.twibble.org...

> on the other hand, a seriously well notched & muted piano accordian can't
> always be a bad thing...

LOL! I think you just stumbled upon a new marketing campaign!

[timbo]

On 2007-05-16, Jim Carr <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote:
> "timbo" <tim@nospam-number26.org> wrote in message
> news:f2faov$jl5$3@birgitte.twibble.org...
>
>> on the other hand, a seriously well notched & muted piano accordian can't
>> always be a bad thing...
>
> LOL! I think you just stumbled upon a new marketing campaign!
>
>

heh, i don't think it'd sell more accordians however...

i'm sure Monster could market it in a positive light though. something along
the lines of it's one-directional oxygen-free copper cable. perhaps an
oxygen-free piano accordian player... "absolutely noiseless reproduction.."

NEW! the behringer accordian destroyer! only $5000. Customer comments:
"Far cheaper than paying a real accordian player to go away! Bargain!" -
Michael Q Smedley, Hell, Norway.

;)

cheers,

timbo.

--

http://www.skyrockats.com

[Mike Rieves]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:pyE2i.113961$jt2.92438@newsfe13.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:Mhz2i.10430$163.5602@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>> They're designed to be a component in an electro-acoustic loop and by
>> eliminating the acoustic part of the loop, you defeat the effectiveness
>> of the feedback finding algorythms.
>
> So what you're saying is that there needs to be feedback for the thing to
> work. So what happens when it's notched a couple of filters and there's no
> more feedback? Does that screw up its feedback finding algorithms, too?

Musicians use the term "Feedback" to mean a ring or squeal, but in
actuality, feedback is any of the signal getting back into the system, as
with an open mic. Fedback can be in phase with the original signal, in which
case the signal builds, eventually resulting in a ring or squeal if there's
enough gain, or out of phase, sometimes resulting resulting in partial
cancellation of the signal. What the algorythms do depend on is there being
a loop, some of the output signal getting back to the input, which always
happens in a room with a PA system and open mics, but never happens when you
feed an instrument directly into the feedback destroyer. It's kind of like
the keyboard player picking a sinewave patch and playing one high note
loudly, the soundman will go nuts trying to stop what he is hearing as
feedback, even though there is no feedback (I speak from experience! :-)). A
good soundman is much smarter than the feedback detection circuitry in a
feedback destroyer, but it's possible to fool him if you really want to.
That is, in effect, what you're doing when you run an instrument directly
into a feedback destroyer. In the first place, especially with a bass
playing single notes, the FD is seeing one frequency stand out well above
the rest, which is exactly what it is looking for in a live mix, remember a
live band is producing a broad band of frequencies,and the FD is looking for
spikes at single frequencies. FD's will usually do a fair job in a room that
only has a few problem frequencies, provided the mix is well balanced. If
the guitar player is way too loud on a lead, the FD may pick up on some of
the louder notes as being feedback, and notch those frequencies, at the
expense of the overall sound. FD's are not replacements for soundmen, but in
some circumstances, properly used, thay can avoid those pitchy squealy
feedback spikes that audiences hate, so they can be useful sometimes.


> The *last* place I would use one is in a difficult room where I had to
> play loud. The only place I would consider one would be in something like
> a ballroom at a hotel. I'd make it part of the standard setup for speeches
> and presentations.

Hopefully, in a difficult room where you have to play loudly, you'll have
a soundman, but if you don't, and none of the band is in a position to hear
the FOH and play with the board, you're better off with a decent FD than
with nothing at all. The alternative is either to turn down the mix to well
below the feedback threshold and have the audience pissed off because you
aren't loud enough, or have the audience pissed off about the squeals, rings
and growls. I can assure you, the audience will prefer a loud, somewhat
unbalanced sound to loud feedback, whether you do or not.
In a ballroom or conference room at a hotel, the sound reinforcement
system is usually a permanent installation and it should be properly
designed and EQ'ed so that there is no possibility of feedback, so there
would be no need for an FD, especially since usually there are only one or
two open mics and no foldback monitors are necessary.

[Mike Rieves]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:FxG2i.163402$nh4.157610@newsfe20.lga...
> "timbo" <tim@nospam-number26.org> wrote in message
> news:f2faov$jl5$3@birgitte.twibble.org...
>
>> on the other hand, a seriously well notched & muted piano accordian can't
>> always be a bad thing...
>
> LOL! I think you just stumbled upon a new marketing campaign!
>
Try using a feedback destroyer on bagpipes, the poor thing would go nuts!

[ptooner]

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:bHJ2i.31$Dk.11@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
> news:pyE2i.113961$jt2.92438@newsfe13.lga...
>> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Mhz2i.10430$163.5602@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
>>
>>> They're designed to be a component in an electro-acoustic loop and by
>>> eliminating the acoustic part of the loop, you defeat the effectiveness
>>> of the feedback finding algorythms.
>>
>> So what you're saying is that there needs to be feedback for the thing to
>> work. So what happens when it's notched a couple of filters and there's
>> no more feedback? Does that screw up its feedback finding algorithms,
>> too?
>
> Musicians use the term "Feedback" to mean a ring or squeal, but in
> actuality, feedback is any of the signal getting back into the system, as
> with an open mic. Fedback can be in phase with the original signal, in
> which case the signal builds, eventually resulting in a ring or squeal if
> there's enough gain, or out of phase, sometimes resulting resulting in
> partial cancellation of the signal. What the algorythms do depend on is
> there being a loop, some of the output signal getting back to the input,
> which always happens in a room with a PA system and open mics, but never
> happens when you feed an instrument directly into the feedback destroyer.
> It's kind of like the keyboard player picking a sinewave patch and playing
> one high note loudly, the soundman will go nuts trying to stop what he is
> hearing as feedback, even though there is no feedback (I speak from
> experience! :-)). A good soundman is much smarter than the feedback
> detection circuitry in a feedback destroyer, but it's possible to fool him
> if you really want to. That is, in effect, what you're doing when you run
> an instrument directly into a feedback destroyer. In the first place,
> especially with a bass playing single notes, the FD is seeing one
> frequency stand out well above the rest, which is exactly what it is
> looking for in a live mix, remember a live band is producing a broad band
> of frequencies,and the FD is looking for spikes at single frequencies.
> FD's will usually do a fair job in a room that only has a few problem
> frequencies, provided the mix is well balanced. If the guitar player is
> way too loud on a lead, the FD may pick up on some of the louder notes as
> being feedback, and notch those frequencies, at the expense of the overall
> sound. FD's are not replacements for soundmen, but in some circumstances,
> properly used, thay can avoid those pitchy squealy feedback spikes that
> audiences hate, so they can be useful sometimes.
>
>
>> The *last* place I would use one is in a difficult room where I had to
>> play loud. The only place I would consider one would be in something like
>> a ballroom at a hotel. I'd make it part of the standard setup for
>> speeches and presentations.
>
> Hopefully, in a difficult room where you have to play loudly, you'll have
> a soundman, but if you don't, and none of the band is in a position to
> hear the FOH and play with the board, you're better off with a decent FD
> than with nothing at all. The alternative is either to turn down the mix
> to well below the feedback threshold and have the audience pissed off
> because you aren't loud enough, or have the audience pissed off about the
> squeals, rings and growls. I can assure you, the audience will prefer a
> loud, somewhat unbalanced sound to loud feedback, whether you do or not.
> In a ballroom or conference room at a hotel, the sound reinforcement
> system is usually a permanent installation and it should be properly
> designed and EQ'ed so that there is no possibility of feedback, so there
> would be no need for an FD, especially since usually there are only one or
> two open mics and no foldback monitors are necessary.
>
Thanks, Mike. I tried to say this earlier but apparently I couldn't make it
clear.
Gerry

[Brian Running]

> The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
> musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
> fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a feedback
> signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics.

On-stage feedback is caused by the sound of the PA being reflected about
the room and being picked up by mikes on the stage. I thought to
myself, "Golly, I bet there's a less than fifty-fifty chance that a room
reflection, even if it only reflected off one surface, would be in-phase
with the original signal." So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.

[Jim Carr]

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:Lvm3i.3336$4Y.426@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
>> The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
>> musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
>> fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a
>> feedback signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics.
>
> On-stage feedback is caused by the sound of the PA being reflected about
> the room and being picked up by mikes on the stage. I thought to myself,
> "Golly, I bet there's a less than fifty-fifty chance that a room
> reflection, even if it only reflected off one surface, would be in-phase
> with the original signal." So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
> scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
> metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
> perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
> 1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
> and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
> through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.

If you're going to be a smartass, at least understand what you're talking
about. The mics on stage are always picking up sound from the PA. If you can
hear it on stage, the mics can pick it up. In itself that is not the
problem. You get feedback when the reflection comes back in phase and raises
the amplitude of that frequency to bring it above unity gain. In each round
trip it will be louder - maybe a little or a lot. You can also get negative
feedback like Mike mentioned when it is 180 degrees out of phase and starts
canceling that frequency.

This is why we hear feedback as pure tones (or nearly so).

[Brian Running]

> If you're going to be a smartass, at least understand what you're talking
> about.

Smartass?! I did the math! Did you do the math? You better do the
math, cuz I did the math.

[Jim Carr]

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:vXo3i.3366$4Y.1783@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net ...
>> If you're going to be a smartass, at least understand what you're talking
>> about.
>
> Smartass?! I did the math! Did you do the math? You better do the math,
> cuz I did the math.

You don't need to do the math unless you're dealing with a digital system.
We're talking about analog here. Math doesn't apply.

[Benj]

Brian Running wrote:
> So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
> scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
> metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
> perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
> 1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
> and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
> through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.

Great job Brian, only too bad it's totally bogus. I believe the ratio
is more like 1:1.01. The proof is really pretty simple: go find ANY
stage with a mic on it and then walk up to it. Most times a huge
squeal will ensue even before you get close, proving the chances of a
reflected sound being IN phase with the signal is near to unity (This
is really just a corollary of Murphy's Law.) Chances are slightly
less, as you point out, should wormholes be present leaking some of
the sounds into alternate universes. [Unless there is an "alternate
stage" located at the end of the wormhole]

Benj

[Benj]

Jim Carr wrote:

> The *last* place I would use one is in a difficult room where I had to play
> loud. The only place I would consider one would be in something like a
> ballroom at a hotel. I'd make it part of the standard setup for speeches and
> presentations.

This is EXACTLY correct! These units are actually designed for just
the purpose mentioned, eliminating a bunch of mic squeal in a hotel
conference room where most of the people using the mic are mic
amateurs who really know nothing about sound and mic use. This is not
bad because as you can imagine it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure out an algorithm to discriminate between speech, which is
largely free of single frequencies and feedback, usually a high
pitched squeal. Music on the other hand is full of sounds that are
VERY much in the same character as feedback. Success of the box in one
application in NO way means it's going to do anything desirable in
another unrelated one.

Benj

[Brian Running]

> Great job Brian, only too bad it's totally bogus.

Bogus?! Bogus?!! Show me your calculations, college boy, and we'll see
who's bogus.

[ptooner]

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:Lvm3i.3336$4Y.426@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
>> The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
>> musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
>> fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a
>> feedback signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics.
>
> On-stage feedback is caused by the sound of the PA being reflected about
> the room and being picked up by mikes on the stage. I thought to myself,
> "Golly, I bet there's a less than fifty-fifty chance that a room
> reflection, even if it only reflected off one surface, would be in-phase
> with the original signal." So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
> scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
> metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
> perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
> 1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
> and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
> through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.

Ahhhh, so feedback is really just a figment of our imagination? ;-) Per
the above, I'm curious as to your definition of "perfectly in phase signal"?
My calculations show that the odds of any reflected signal being in phase is
1:2. My definition of in phase is less than 90 degrees out.
Gerry

[Les Cargill]

Brian Running wrote:
>> Great job Brian, only too bad it's totally bogus.
>
>
> Bogus?! Bogus?!! Show me your calculations, college boy, and we'll see
> who's bogus.

"Red means run, son, numbers add up to nothin'" - Neil Young.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

ptooner wrote:

> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
> news:Lvm3i.3336$4Y.426@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
>
>>>The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
>>>musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
>>>fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a
>>>feedback signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics.
>>
>>On-stage feedback is caused by the sound of the PA being reflected about
>>the room and being picked up by mikes on the stage. I thought to myself,
>>"Golly, I bet there's a less than fifty-fifty chance that a room
>>reflection, even if it only reflected off one surface, would be in-phase
>>with the original signal." So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
>>scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
>>metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
>>perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
>>1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
>>and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
>>through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.
>
>
> Ahhhh, so feedback is really just a figment of our imagination? ;-) Per
> the above, I'm curious as to your definition of "perfectly in phase signal"?
> My calculations show that the odds of any reflected signal being in phase is
> 1:2. My definition of in phase is less than 90 degrees out.
> Gerry
>
>

Pi/2, then?

--
Les Cargill

[ptooner]

"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:464e5ce3$0$5785$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> ptooner wrote:
>
>> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> news:Lvm3i.3336$4Y.426@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>
>>>>The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
>>>>musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
>>>>fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a
>>>>feedback signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics.
>>>
>>>On-stage feedback is caused by the sound of the PA being reflected about
>>>the room and being picked up by mikes on the stage. I thought to myself,
>>>"Golly, I bet there's a less than fifty-fifty chance that a room
>>>reflection, even if it only reflected off one surface, would be in-phase
>>>with the original signal." So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
>>>scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
>>>metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
>>>perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
>>>1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
>>>and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
>>>through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.
>>
>>
>> Ahhhh, so feedback is really just a figment of our imagination? ;-) Per
>> the above, I'm curious as to your definition of "perfectly in phase
>> signal"? My calculations show that the odds of any reflected signal being
>> in phase is 1:2. My definition of in phase is less than 90 degrees out.
>> Gerry
>
> Pi/2, then?
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Been too many years for me to think in radians. If I remember correctly
Pi/2 is equal to 180 degrees n'est-ce pas? So what's the point?
Gerry

[Jim Carr]

"Todd H." <bmiawmb@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:841whdo0ee.fsf@ripco.com...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> writes:
>>
>> Been too many years for me to think in radians. If I remember
>> correctly Pi/2 is equal to 180 degrees n'est-ce pas? So what's the
>> point? Gerry
>
> Actually pi/2 is 90 degrees. 2pi gives you 360.

I thought 2pi was a rapper...

[Todd H.]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> writes:
>
> Been too many years for me to think in radians. If I remember
> correctly Pi/2 is equal to 180 degrees n'est-ce pas? So what's the
> point? Gerry

Actually pi/2 is 90 degrees. 2pi gives you 360.

Ow, I sprained a neuron.

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | http://myspace.com/mytriplethreatband

[Mike Fleming]

In article <vXo3i.3366$4Y.1783@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, Brian
Running <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> writes:

> > If you're going to be a smartass, at least understand what you're talking
> > about.
>
> Smartass?! I did the math! Did you do the math? You better do the
> math, cuz I did the math.

Yebbut all you did was work out the probabilities and show how
incredibly improbable it was that it would happen. If probabilities
actually worked then no-one would do the lottery, would they? Everyone
knows that the most unlikely event is the one that will happen, so
feedback is an absolute certainty.

I did it the other way - I worked out the probability of a frequency
existing that would be exactly in-phase on a given signal path length,
and it was unity. So now I just have to work out the probability of
something generating that frequency...

--
Mike Fleming

[Mike Fleming]

In article <WMv3i.62653$wv7.29420@newsfe18.lga>, "Jim Carr"
<newsgroups@azwebpages.com> writes:

> "Todd H." <bmiawmb@toddh.net> wrote in message
> news:841whdo0ee.fsf@ripco.com...
> > "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> writes:
> >>
> >> Been too many years for me to think in radians. If I remember
> >> correctly Pi/2 is equal to 180 degrees n'est-ce pas? So what's the
> >> point? Gerry
> >
> > Actually pi/2 is 90 degrees. 2pi gives you 360.
>
> I thought 2pi was a rapper...

No, that's MC Squared.

--
Mike Fleming

[Mike Rieves]

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:Lvm3i.3336$4Y.426@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
>> The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
>> musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
>> fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a
>> feedback signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics.
>
> On-stage feedback is caused by the sound of the PA being reflected about
> the room and being picked up by mikes on the stage. I thought to myself,
> "Golly, I bet there's a less than fifty-fifty chance that a room
> reflection, even if it only reflected off one surface, would be in-phase
> with the original signal." So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
> scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
> metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
> perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
> 1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
> and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
> through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.

Your math is flawed, if there is any surface in the room reflects the sound
toward the mics that is any multiple of 1/2 wavelength of any audio
frequency distant from the mic, then there is a 50% probability that the
wave at that frequency is in phase with the original signal, and if the
reflection is at high enough level, the gain of the PA/room electro-acoustic
loop will exceed unity and feedback will occur. Since the wavelengths of
audio signals in air range from around 40 feet all the way down to a half an
inch or so, there is always a high probability that some surface is within a
multiple of 1/2 wavelength from a mic. The only things that prevent the
system from feeding back constantly is the attenuation of the room surfaces,
the air, the people and the furniture in the room and random phase
cancellation from all the reflections, plus proper tuning of the system with
EQ. Fortunately, in most rooms, not enough of the reflections get back to
the mic at high enough level for the loop to have a gain higher than unity.
The reason feedback is mearly always a pure tone is that when the gain at
any frequency exceeds unity, the system becomes an oscillator. Most of the
time, when the system exceeds its maximum level in the room, feedback will
occur at two frequencies, sometimes harmonically related, sometimes not.

[Mike Rieves]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:wSs3i.2755$Cr2.2084@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
> news:Lvm3i.3336$4Y.426@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>> The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
>>> musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
>>> fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a
>>> feedback signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics.
>>
>> On-stage feedback is caused by the sound of the PA being reflected about
>> the room and being picked up by mikes on the stage. I thought to myself,
>> "Golly, I bet there's a less than fifty-fifty chance that a room
>> reflection, even if it only reflected off one surface, would be in-phase
>> with the original signal." So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
>> scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
>> metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
>> perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
>> 1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
>> and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
>> through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.
>
> Ahhhh, so feedback is really just a figment of our imagination? ;-) Per
> the above, I'm curious as to your definition of "perfectly in phase
> signal"? My calculations show that the odds of any reflected signal being
> in phase is 1:2. My definition of in phase is less than 90 degrees out.
> Gerry


Since there are 360 degrees of phase, half of that will be at least
somewhat additive, and the other half will be at least somewhat subtractive.
That means that there is a 50/50 chance that any reflected sound reaching
the mic will be at least somewhat additive.

[Les Cargill]

ptooner wrote:

> "Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:464e5ce3$0$5785$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>>ptooner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>>>news:Lvm3i.3336$4Y.426@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The discussion is completely relevant. You agree with my point that a
>>>>>musical note has harmonics. These harmonics will be in phase with the
>>>>>fundamental, right? Therefore, if you're going to try to detect a
>>>>>feedback signal, one test would be to search for in-phase harmonics.
>>>>
>>>>On-stage feedback is caused by the sound of the PA being reflected about
>>>>the room and being picked up by mikes on the stage. I thought to myself,
>>>>"Golly, I bet there's a less than fifty-fifty chance that a room
>>>>reflection, even if it only reflected off one surface, would be in-phase
>>>>with the original signal." So, I ciphered it out. After painstaking
>>>>scientific calculations, including not just two, but three
>>>>metric-to-English conversions, I have determined that the odds of a
>>>>perfectly in-phase signal being picked up by the mikes on stage is
>>>>1:2^103. If we allow for the possibilities that time can be stretched,
>>>>and some sound might escape into, and return from, alternate universes
>>>>through wormholes, then the odds are increased to only 1:2^98.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ahhhh, so feedback is really just a figment of our imagination? ;-) Per
>>>the above, I'm curious as to your definition of "perfectly in phase
>>>signal"? My calculations show that the odds of any reflected signal being
>>>in phase is 1:2. My definition of in phase is less than 90 degrees out.
>>>Gerry
>>
>>Pi/2, then?
>>
>>--
>>Les Cargill
>
>
> Been too many years for me to think in radians. If I remember correctly
> Pi/2 is equal to 180 degrees n'est-ce pas?

Pi/2 == 90 degrees.

> So what's the point?

You will get positive reinforcement at frequencies which have
wavelengths at integer multiples of the distance between the two
transducers. Too much reinforcement, you get feedback.

> Gerry
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Brian Running]

> Your math is flawed,

No way! My math is right on the money, and when discussing bass guitar,
math is the only thing that counts. I was actually being a little
conservative in my calculations, because I was using a Hewlett-Packard
calculator, a very conservative company.

[Brian Running]

> Ahhhh, so feedback is really just a figment of our imagination? ;-) Per
> the above, I'm curious as to your definition of "perfectly in phase signal"?
> My calculations show that the odds of any reflected signal being in phase is
> 1:2. My definition of in phase is less than 90 degrees out.

The figures don't lie, Gerry. Feedback is clearly a myth. What a relief!

This does make me wonder, though -- all those times when I would get rid
of feedback by carefully adjusting monitor angles to avoid aiming them
at reflective surfaces on stage, and by carefully aiming mikes to avoid
having them pick up monitor sound, and by notching out frequencies on
the EQ, and keeping volume at reasonable levels -- I must have been
imagining the feedback in the first place, and then all those things I
did must have acted as a placebo effect.

But thank goodness we have endless, tedious discussions here to dispel
such notions. Eventually, with hard work and dedication, we'll be able
to avoid going into public and performing altogether, and not have to
work out real-world solutions to real-world problems, and just be able
to do nothing but sit at out computers and argue about Behringer.

[ptooner]

"Brian Running" <brunning@xxtdsxx.net> wrote in message
news:itf4i.34719$G23.24223@newsreading01.news.tds. net...
>> Ahhhh, so feedback is really just a figment of our imagination? ;-) Per
>> the above, I'm curious as to your definition of "perfectly in phase
>> signal"? My calculations show that the odds of any reflected signal being
>> in phase is 1:2. My definition of in phase is less than 90 degrees out.
>
> The figures don't lie, Gerry. Feedback is clearly a myth. What a relief!

Yeah, that's really a load off my mind. We are playing a room this Friday
that has a concrete stage and dancefloor area with a brick wall at our back
and concrete block room walls. Then it has a low ceiling and is
proportionately long and narrow. I was starting to worry about sound and
feedback. Whew.

Gerry


>
> This does make me wonder, though -- all those times when I would get rid
> of feedback by carefully adjusting monitor angles to avoid aiming them at
> reflective surfaces on stage, and by carefully aiming mikes to avoid
> having them pick up monitor sound, and by notching out frequencies on the
> EQ, and keeping volume at reasonable levels -- I must have been imagining
> the feedback in the first place, and then all those things I did must have
> acted as a placebo effect.
>
> But thank goodness we have endless, tedious discussions here to dispel
> such notions. Eventually, with hard work and dedication, we'll be able to
> avoid going into public and performing altogether, and not have to work
> out real-world solutions to real-world problems, and just be able to do
> nothing but sit at out computers and argue about Behringer.

[Mike Rieves]

"Brian Running" <brunning@xxtdsxx.net> wrote in message
news:Tjf4i.34718$G23.28662@newsreading01.news.tds. net...
>> Your math is flawed,
>
> No way! My math is right on the money, and when discussing bass guitar,
> math is the only thing that counts. I was actually being a little
> conservative in my calculations, because I was using a Hewlett-Packard
> calculator, a very conservative company.

Actually, you missed a period in the third equation. That means you
should take a pregnancy test, and if you fail, a remedial sex-ed course
might be appropriate (would a sex-ed class be considered as an
inter-course?). As for the Hewlett-Packard calculator, since they use RPM
logic, if you were doing the calculations in your Ferarri, you should get
its tach re-calibrated.
Bass guitars and math go together like peanut butter and jelly, K-Y
Jelly, that is. As for that, don't knock it until you've shared a peanut
butter and K-Y Jelly sandwich with a hot, lusty young lady...