Thinking of purchasing…
Just checked out http://www.behringer.com/MIC200/index.cfm?lang=ENG and this looks kinda cool, given that it also has settings for guitar and keyboards. Wondered whether anyone has any experience with it, and what they’re like? Cheers all, Daz
Yep, I bought a MIC200 a year or two ago. Sold it on Ebay a couple of months later. Save up for a Studio projects VTB-1.
Another vote for the VTB1, without question way, way better than the Behringer or many other preamps at three times the price. Read the reviews @ http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product…=180360
Hmmm. I suppose for evey bad review there’s a good one too. I’d read this… http://www.harmony-central.com/Effects…01.html
I was reading the reveiws of the beringer, (thanks dazzi)
And from somone who tried both, he suggested this one instead.
These were the two he was comparing.
"Preamps are subtle and opinions vary widely, so take my opinion for what its worth. For recording high-gain guitar into a computer, I’d definitely go with the ART Tube MP Studio V3 over the Behringer."
Then he suggested the AudioBuddy over the latter two.
Sounds like he’s owned all three and found in his opinion the best one for high gain guitar into computer application IHHO.
The one comment I would make is most or many of the Harmony Central reviews focus on using the MIC200 in a live setting which is much more forgiving, not for recording. If live use is your primary purpose the MIC200 is probably fine, although the VTB1 is also great in that setting and is definitely excellent for recording as well.
Please note also that I am no Behringer bigot. I have several other Behringer pieces (ADA8000, Vamp pro, and a compressor) that work beautifully and are a great value.
Yeah I too have other Behringer gear.
My rule of thumb when looking at reviews on the internet is to try to figure out who the person is that’s reviewing it. Afterall their opinion is just that - their opinion. I’d rather have the opinion of some people than others…
I saw the SOS review of the Berry pre before I got mine. I still sold mine though.
SOS review of Mic100
SOS folks can be trusted, can’t they? What made you sell it, Mark?
|SOS folks can be trusted, can’t they? What made you sell it, Mark? |
Yep, IMO the SOS folks can be trusted.
I bought the MIC200 against the say-so of the folks here about 2 years ago (Mac et al).
I was dissapointed straight away. The LED to make the valve/tube glow is just a joke. Almost embarrasing.
The presets are just that - pre set. I’d rather have had a unit without so many bells and whistles that could be tweaked, brought in gradually etc.
Many of the presets sounded like mud. I didn’t find one that made my bass sound decent (I solved that problem a few months later when I picked up a Peavey bass amp cheap. I now use that as a DI). IIRC correctly the keyboard patch was about the best (for all things). Perhaps I was expecting too much.
I also have a Berry T1953 Valve Composer - a twin channel preamp. Instead of the LEDs it has proper bulbs/lamps behind the valves (which I’ve heard make it sound much better ). It’s still mud on many things, but can be used as an interesting “woolly” sound on vocals that can be dialled in progressively.
So, I guess the SOS review was just off? Or is “surprisingly neutral” a relative matter? Probably the latter…
|Quote (Mark A @ May 27 2006,10:39)|
|I was dissapointed straight away. The LED to make the valve/tube glow is just a joke. Almost embarrasing.|
Hmmm, I just had to check. I remembered right: no “glow” LED in my MIC200.
(Some Berry products apparently have them, as do these Korg Electribe thingamajibs with “tube preamps” or whatever.)
To put it short: MIC200 with the stock tube was cheap but of limited use. Maybe a decent electric guitar pre if you like a lot of preamp distortion. I changed the tube to a (JJ Electronics’) ECC82 (12AU7 for you Americans) that has less amplification, and now the unit’s okay. Actually, a pretty nice bass preamp with a couple of useful preset eq settings. Works as a mic pre too, although not my first choice for anything.
The limiter - and all the preset settings with the limiter on - is still completely unusable.
But it was cheap.
EDIT: Compares to my (original mid-nineties’) ART Tube MP, the Berry unit is slightly better built with a decent clamp to keep the tube on its socket and all. The sound is similar, but I think that the ART unit didn’t distort as audibly as early than the Berry does. But I’ve used an ECC82 there, too, for a long time. Both are based on a similar “starved plate” design, so no wonder their sound is pretty similar, too.
|Hmmm, I just had to check. I remembered right: no “glow” LED in my MIC200.|
That’s interesting/strange. Perhaps I had an earlier/later model or perhaps I’ve had complete brain fade - but i’m not sure where I’d got the idea from otherwise.
But my current Berry definitely has proper lamps.
|Quote (Mark A @ May 28 2006,05:44)|
|But my current Berry definitely has proper lamps.|
Forgot to mention: no lamps either. All the glow there is comes from the tube filament.
Maybe you're remembering one of the bigger Berry pres? I think one of the rackmount models had lamps/LEDs.
the AU7 has a lot less amplification, doesn’t it? like 60 vs. 100 x?
|Quote (TomS @ May 28 2006,09:57)|
|the AU7 has a lot less amplification, doesn't it? like 60 vs. 100 x?|
Tom, you're right. That's why the point of (audible) distortion is much higher on the dial.
|Forgot to mention: no lamps either. All the glow there is comes from the tube filament.|
Maybe you’re remembering one of the bigger Berry pres? I think one of the rackmount models had lamps/LEDs.
That’s what I was referring to: My T1953 Berry Tube Composer rack pre.
I remember the thread on the MIC 100 way back when. I got one then… IT was just before the MIC 200 appeared on the market place… I threatened that I’d put in a “By-Pass” switch to remove the Tube from the circuit… There is no switch on the '100… but I believe the '200 version has a tube by-pass switch. Is that correct?
Is there some other circuit design up-dates on the '200, as well…??
The discussion back then was to try various 9-pin dual triod tubes to determine what worked better with the “Starved” plate design… I am of the opinion that some brand-name of a 12at7 tube would be the best design triode for a “Starved” Plate circuit… Well… whatever works… I guess…
Does anyone remember those EarthWorks Guitar amps that were built out the the USA Mid-west? Back in the early’90’s… They were all Solid-State and had FET out devices in their design. However, they had this 12ax7 tube in the middle of the signal flow-path… Some of the models sounded quite well, in front of a mic… Some of their models sounded awful… Just my opinion… of course.
I forgot to say… I have an APHEX 207 Stereo Mic/Line Pre-amp that I got just about the same time as the MIC 100 pre-amp… IT has a “Starved” Plate tube in it’s circuit… No By-Pass switch in IT’s design… either…
Hey Daz, I’ve collected several budget pres and I did a comparison of them on the TapeOp board. Here’s the link if you want to check it out:
Budget Preamp Comparison
I can’t comment directly on the Behringer preamps because I haven’t used them but based on what I’ve read in the forums I think you can do a lot better for not much more money.
|Quote (woxnerw @ May 28 2006,14:12)|
|but I believe the '200 version has a tube by-pass switch. Is that correct? |
Is there some other circuit design up-dates on the '200, as well..??
No, no tube bypass on my MIC200. Apparently the thing isn't one of those "dual path" units with both solid state and tube preamp. Everything goes through the glass. That's why changing the tube changes the sound so much.
The '200 has the preset eq circuitry with about half of the settings with a crap limiter, too. The eq is okay, not too extreme, but the limiter definitely isn't.