I'm still running my OG Analog gear........ recording at home, and running sound a few times a year. This kind of info is super valuable to those who need to know. My small rig is OG Yamaha, and it's still going strong after 20+ years.
Thank you for demonstrating that OUR ears are the olny way to know if a gear is good for US or not, if it fits OUR needs or not, if WE like it or not, if WE want to work with it or not. Thank you for demonstrating that the price and the nubers written on the user manual or on the scope doesn't make the real value of a gear. Thank you for demonstrating that the real value of a gear is how it sounds at OUR ears, and how WE can make good sound with it, depending of OUR taste and OUR workflow (and the money we can spend on it). Great video series, excellent video once again... Cool cool, thank you again, Dave !!
Very cool and our ears are definitely critical in making sure we don't overlook aspects in reading test results and not to be underestimated in importance. Yeah yeah yeah, I see the tests but what does it sound like!
been using Behringer stuff ever since I started making music. At first because I couldn't afford anything else, nowadays mostly because the bang-for-the-buck value is just the bomb. Sure, that stuff is not intended to be used for touring, but for any setting that allows a "controlled" treatment, it's fully sufficient in terms of build quality. We're using the XR18 in the rehearsal room and good lord, I would have given an arm and a leg back in the early 2000's for that thing when I was setting up the stage and mixing in the youth club back then. And all that for a ridiculous 500 EUR price tag. Big thanks and thumbs up for these kind of videos!
Cool cool and Behringer does have products that offer good value and also I would be remiss to blanket project value and usability across the entire product line.
Very fair test, one example against another. Behringer X32 has become the standard mixer for small gigs around here. Of course, this is a sample of one and a single bad solder joint or decoupling/filter cap is all it would take to skew the results. I always tried to get my company to build at least 30 prototype units so I could measure them all and see what we really had....including unit-to-unit variability. That was always a fight to get that many, however.
Verrrrrry interesting results here! Behringer is hiding the noise in upper bands... ha! I did a real world test that offered a little insight... (Audible only) I maxed the volumes of my PA, 15Kw. There was little to nothing for noise with no input. Then brought up each output channel, input channel, gains to max, eq etc. Routed through groups and then all to the LR bus, same. Trying to reveal anything in the X32 that would create audible noise/hiss. The results were 0 added noise in the PA. NO audible difference. Not real technical but real world, like leaving empty channels on an out. Thanks again Dave for all the testing you are doing. I bet Yamaha isn't happy...lol
Once again another excellent demo. A lot of Behringer bashers will be raging, as your results from various videos so far, show it a very capable console in many aspects, and for the incredible price.
Agreed and putting things in context. It's super useful inexpensive and fairly high quality audio. For temporary or consumer or Semi-Pro applications that don't require the durability and interface feature set and expandability of the high-end consoles it's very useful
@@DaveRat would be nice to see you do some similar videos using the wing. ive had it about 3 months now and absolutely love it. My X32 served me well for many years and never broke a heart beat once. :)
Maybe at some point. I do e into the x32/m32 because of all the controversy and misinformation regarding the differences and such that I thought would be fun to clear up a bit. Not really aware of any myth busting or controversy with the wing.
@@DaveRat yeah there's not been a lot of shouting about the wing yet as its been like rocking horse shit to get a hold of one due to chip shortages (I was 6 month wait on it), but as music group are claiming the pre amps are from the pro Midas series, it would be nice to see how they actually hold up and compare to an original pro series desk :) Thanks for all the replies by the way, its really appreciated that a legend like yourself is taking time to reply to me :)
I'd be interested if that noise profile holds consistent with the Yamaha if you use a Rio stage box. I always got the impression from Yamaha engineers that the on board CL pres were almost for a last resort. Good video
Thank you Ryan. When using a stage box, the console purely deals with the signals in the digital domain. The noise is primarily an artifact of the ADC and DAC conversions in and out of analog. So the features and control will follow the console and noise, preamps, output drives and such will be determined by what the XLRs are plugged into. Using the X32 with a DL251 stagebox and CL1 with a RIO will alter things. I have not looked it up but assuming Yamaha uses consistent spec measurements, any improvements by using the RIO should show on the spec sheet EIN noise spec
This is why it's important to measure noise band limited to at around 20k... even n electroncis the noise measurement is done with 25Mhz band limit for a reason, so when one does noise measurement for audio, it should be band limited :)
Agreed and oversights like this and similar are common with people that rely purely on measurement gear and do not spend adequate time listening and comparing to make sure the measurements are relevant.
Everything looks very cool and interesting. It would be great if you could add a spectrum analyzer to these tests so we could see which frequencies really add noise 🙂. Compliments for your videos!
To see the weighting of the noise, eg pink vs white, take the output of the analog mixer and put it into an RTA to see the distribution vs frequency. This can be done with a laptop or tablet running the X-Edit program and feed the output of the analog mixer into an input on the Behringer and use the RTA function for the channel to view it in the EQ screen. Feed the signal into a channel not used for your testing. Just use an input for the RTA function to display the audio spectrum and not display the noise up to 100 MHZ the scope displays. Not sure if the Yamaha has this feature in the remote tablet program.
On the member side of my channel there is a video with an FFT of the noise done with the scope where you can see both consoles. A normal audio RTA wound show the X32 noise th-cam.com/video/k1ytyDHq-d8/w-d-xo.html
This has always been my impression of Behringer. The actual “sound” is usually equal to, or better, than the competition. But, build quality is somewhat worse. For a permanent install situation, it will probably be fine. But for a road-worthy, mobile, touring rig (i.e. multiple set-up, tear-down), anything BUT Behringer.
I've been saying this for over 2 decades. You are absolutely correct! ✊🏾 I ve been thinking about building my own chassis for some of my Behringer units.
It is my understanding that on Yamaha consoles under the CL/QL range, including the M7 that until you reach around 15db on the pre-amp you have a higher noise floor. I’m not sure what is causing that, maybe the clock? You could usually hear and audible “click” on the console once it reached that magical gain value. The trick I’ve always used for that is using your trim or attenuation on the EQ to bring your signal down to a workable level after mitigating the noise floor(assuming this is doable with the signal you are being sent). I’d love to see this tested. In addition I’ve heard a myth on the M7 that if you turn on the output delays, even at 0ms delay, it ups the bit-rate of the output signal so it’s actually using the full power of the console’s processing. Could be a total myth and I haven’t tried it on a system that was nice enough to actually discern that, just and interesting concept. Loving the videos so far!
I cover that in one or more of the X32/M32 videos. The gain knob actually is adjusting the analog preamp gain in steps of 3 to 6db depending on the console and in between the steps, is adjusting a digital trim in . 5db or 1db increments. The preamp steps make a click sound and added digital trim is a bit noisier than pure preamp without digital trim gain.
Right? Crazy and on some level I am not surprised as over the years I have had issues with noise and Yamaha gear but not so much with Midas. Berhinger bought the smarts. Part 9f dreads the thought of a discount company ever buying my life's work and wholesaling it out at a bargain price.
awesome video dave!!! i don’t know why Yamaha changed the setup from the M7CL, i loved being able to reach over to any channel if i don’t have it on the centralogic bank and mute or move the fader. man the x32 is kinda smoking the yamaha in this series 😂😂
Good proof that you can study specs sheets all day but the final question is "how does it sound?" I would love to see this test with higher range consoles, maybe ssl VS avid, digico VS allen+heath?
Dave I was mixing a gig in the parking lot of Angel Stadium and they had a Yamaha rig there that sounded like a Neve. I heard it when I was walking up and told the band leader "what the heck that sounds like a Neve console". Went home and checked it out, of course I didn't know that Yamaha and Neve had collaborated. I would put up with some noise to get that tone. Not sure why Behringer/Music Tribe hasn't done that one yet.
This test proved to me again how Behringer can actually have a solid brand if their build was better. Some Behringer equipment actually does give off a good sound.
Simple analog 20k lpf on x32's outputs and Bob's your uncle. Cool mod idea for it. I'm just not sure about longevity of the electrolytics in the x32. I've had some serious issues with those in my lower end Presonus gear, and they used Nichicons!
@@DaveRat rejecting signals causes distortion also - many early digital systems played very badly with the ultrasonic distortion generated by microphones and preamps. Try running a 2V 50kHz square wave into a desk input and see what it does - analogue desks don't like it either. Buffering and bandpassing are under-rated strategies, and often a way of curing analogue problems is to use a digital unit to "buffer" the problem, especially considering the waveform is reconstructed, but also considering the power and ground isolation qualities. Digital is great in that it has reduced coupling issues, although in fact these coupling issues while suppressed are subtly complex and often cause bizarre and unexplainable subtle reliability and quality problems.
Electrolytic caps often sound better than ceramic ones, but they do have a lifespan. It'd almost be worth installing them in pins rather than soldering them, so you could change them like light bulbs. Some industrial gear has electrolytics on a bayonet mount.
100% testing always better than assumptions or even the most scientific of guesses ... but scope isn't the best tool here - i would have used FFT ( fast fourier tranform ) to see the spectrum of the noise ... not a huge fan of Behringer but if they were able to buy out Lab Gruppen they have to be doing something right, maybe not in terms of quality, but in terms of meeting customer demands at an affordable price point ...
Noise measurement data on specs should be A weighted! I remember the beautiful old analogue large format consoles from yamaha, PM1800 PM3000 or PM3500. The preamplifiers is so noisly that is preferable to deal with slighlty overloaded signal in the channel than pressing the PAD key. The 3500 PAD has a huge 30dB of reduction!
A weighted does not include low frequency noise in the specs so huge hum issues dont show up. Humm issues are a big problem, especially with cheaper consoles that have internal power supplies. Using flat weighted specs for noise or offering Flat and A weighted would be good. And yes, I know that Yamaha noise!
I purposely do not use fancy gear and try an focus on tests that correlate what is seen vs what is heard in a way that can be replicated by just about anyone. The equip designers have all that high end gear and I like to divulge issues they missed or are trying to hide by using simple easy methods.
The way you are measuring, also adds latency to the signal. The CL has a much longer latency, so it will always sound more distorted if you reloop channels(the second pass will be out of sync). The comparisson should be done over just 1 signalpath. As i understand your measurement, you have synced the wordclock from both consoles, but in this case, the X32 is the source? There is a chance you are bringing out the worst from the A/D conversion from the CL1 by syncing the clocks, it could be the other way around if you clock out of CL1. For your measurement, the clocks should be set to internal, to have an optimum conversion setting. They don't need to be synced to compare noise levels. Also the signal to noise ratio is more important than the noise ratio from channels that are not used.(since they will normaly be out of the mix anyway). there are universal settings for measuring THD, SNR and CMRR. These standards are designed to make fair comparisons to equipment. I have add to my comments, that i have not read the specs on either console, nor do i have a preference to either one of them. But from a theoretical background in electronics, the above points come to mind. These kind of measurements require especialy high resolution equipment like Fluke or Philips produce, it will not be acurate enough with smart or other audio based tools. also the cables you use between the consoles are important/influencing your measurement. The THD of each console is probably far away from the audible range, as are the SNR and CMRR. So despite your results here, and me realy apreciating and respecting your other topics and sharing of your experiences in live mixing (Keep up the nice vids!) This test outcome has no theoretical basis, and could be caused by other factors just as well. (Fair chance that switching the clocksource changes the outcome of the test.) Impedance differences changes the outputlevel and the setpoint of the internal cirquits, if the CL1 has a different impedance then the X32, it could result in more noise. Depending on the input impedance of the analog mixer you use, the outcome could also be different. Edit: After reading the specs on both consoles, the outcome is predictable; THD for CL1 = 0.05%, THD for x32 is 0.006%. The X32 has also better specs in almost all ranges, so your conclusion is correct, but the measurement itself is debatable sorry ;-)
Maybe watch some of my other CL1 videos the CL1 always has at least 2ms latency analog in to analog out. The x32 has 0.8 Ms at least analog in to analog out The subgroup latency issue on the Yamaha does not occur in the x32 and both consoles add more latency when inserts are used Clicking them together is irrelevant when dealing with analog signals. Though altering the word clock higher will slightly reduce latency and lower will increase it. I am using a variable signal generator as an external word clock on the CL1. And thank you for your thoughts. I think you will find that the testing and results are correct, not flawed and harmonious with the 6 or 8 other videos I have done on the topic.
Although it's inaudible, do you think the greater amount of measurable noise on the X32 reduces headroom? Similar to the aux fed subs idea, which mitigates the extra amount of mud that isn't really heard but reduces the headroom when you only use a low-passed stereo master signal. In this case, by a small margin could the X32 start distorting earlier because it's already dealing with an inaudible yet higher signal to noise ratio?
I think for most applications it doesn't matter for the noise is cumulative in the sound system. If you do a gig where in between songs the PA has got a hiss to it and you can hear the noise that would push you to drive your gains and signal flow at a higher level. Which pushes you closer or into clip and distortion. Having an extremely low noise floor allows you to mix well below clipping completely avoid any overloads and not have to deal with background noise. For most rock shows it doesn't matter but there are definitely scenarios where sound system silence during the quiet parts of the music is very desirable
@@DaveRat That's very true, in practice it would still result in less audible noise out the P.A at lower gain. Love your videos and explanations, thanks for the response on this :)
Once again, you confirm my love and devotion to the X32. Big deal, it's not a tank...but really, if you're gonna treat gear like you're in a war zone...both units are gonna eventually suffer. When you compare price points...the X32 always comes ahead x's Ten!
This experiment isn't really indicative of how the consoles are going to be used in real situations. The power supply (several of them per console!) is hugely important to the noise characteristics and it would be more accurate to load it right up with dozens of channels running and lots of effects, CPU loading and processing etc (thus loading up the power supplies) before measuring the console's performance. EDIT: Kudos to your experimental method though - keep up these vids
Hmmm, does more inputs actually load down the power supply on the console? and if so, by how much? If I put a current meter on the AC supply to the console and start turning on channels with inputs will I really see an increase in current draw? Its not an amp. Increased processing does make a computer fan run, but on a console is the processor a significant power supply draw or are the LEDs, moving faders, illumination and powering all the dormant ADC and DAC most of the draw? Do the ADC and DAC draw significantly more power when actively used vs dormant? And does the power supply ever really load down on these consoles and if so why would power supply loading even have any impact on signals in the digital domain? I would think power supply loading would be mainly caused by increased processing power needs on the digital side, LEDs, illumination and screen and the analog mic pre's and analog output drivers would be on a separate supply needing differing voltages. Lots of variables to consider and starting out with more noise in a simple setup is not a good start. Thank you Simon!
Actually, most of the time switched mode PSUs tend to emit less noise when they are fully loaded. When we do EMI tests, the worst case is always when there is barely any or no load on the power supply. The mic preamps wont have more current consumption if you increase the gain, because the only thing that is going to change is the amount of negative feedback applied from the output to the input. I do not believe that any manufacturer turns off AD DA converters when they are not used, so that cant really change the load on the PSU. The fader motors and the screen brightness has a much bigger effect on the PSU load, but even in that case, you maybe have your PSU 80% loaded and you will load it down when the faders move to 85% until the faders move.
I’ve used both consoles extensively, and there’s no way I’m choosing an x32 over any Yamaha console except maybe an o1V96i. Definitely not a TF or higher, not even a DM3.
Build quality vs features vs cost vs reputation. Selecting the right tool for the application is always wise and various different products are optimal for various applications
Yamaha - even with mild abuse - will still work a decade later, and will only require a basic repair. I almost never see broken yamaha equipment. They are automotive quality, and they are also very much not about being "premium" or overpriced - many consider them a budget brand.
@@DaveRat it's true of all their products whether motorbikes, saxophones, guitars, pianos, hifi, or pro audio. There is some "magic" missing, it's a very square plasticky mentality, but Yamaha are one of the best companies for making equipment surprisingly tough without making it weigh 50 tonnes. My rackmount single ended yamaha analogue swiss army knife instrument-level-compatible line mixer is a thing of beauty, and I bought it for next to nothing. You would have to prise it from my cold dead hands. It does nothing weird or special, it just switches on and works, at nearly 40 years old, and passes pristine audio without fuss. Prioritising sound quality over reliability is exactly the opposite of what behringer do. In a real world context, reliability is very important, but only educated customers value it, and it's rarely properly demonstrated in advertising. Audio equipment could be a lot more rugged, especially if you look at how telecommunications, aerospace and military equipment is designed, and how much more it typically costs - the high prices are not just because of corrupt government procurement processes and brown envelopes. High precision and high dependability are expensive to produce. Simple is always best - this is why we still have mechanical firearms in use by every military worldwide.
@@weareallbeingwatched4602 One of the keys of my Yamaha MODX6 synthesizer broke. Turns out the board for that keygroup was cracked. None of my Behringer stuff has had something like that happening. For the price of the Yamaha you can buy a couple of ‘spare’ Behringers… are they really that bad? I’m not sure. Depending on both company’s cost cutting, ‘stuff’ happens. I repaired the MODX6 keys and still enjoy it, playing through a Behringer XR18 :) There is a use case for both philosophies and for amateurs Behringer delivers a lot of bang for the buck.
Great video, thanks! Does your scope have a half-decent spectrum analysis? Usually the expensive scopes are the only good ones in high frequency ranges (MHz ranges), but perhaps the audible range is decent even with older/cheaper scopes. Very nice analysis and yes, the noise numbers by themselves are only good for spec sheets.
@@DaveRat Nice, well out of the audio domain. I can appreciate how they designed pragmatically vs. just chasing spec numbers in a sheet. I hope the Yamaha folks see this video and have a look at their designs.
Hey Dave... thought I saw this video earlier on TH-cam...? Anyway... it really amazes me!! Could it be that the guys and dolls at Yamaha use their scopes more than their ears...?
I would say the x32 does have more features at a lower cost and some advantages. That said, the people I know who use the CL series are looking for quality build, durability, reliability and compatibility with larger format Yamaha. Maybe kind of like bringing your car to the dealership for repair vs using a local mechanic. They both have issues and advantages. Personally I am not a Yamaha fan but they do make consoles that are very robust and last a long time at a higher cost
I may have missed it but your 1st channel in each mixer is a head amp at 0dB gain? Do you know how the two consoles use dither? The Behringer’s noise has the characteristic shift in bw I’m used to seeing from dither, which is added noise in the digital domain near the hi limit of our hearing to reduce extremely low level nonlinearity.
All the head amps are near zero. The X32 noise is up near 100Khz, I posted an FFT of the noise but it's on the member side of the YT channel as it's short and unpolished. Vids like that on the public side just get me yelled at.
Cool yeah I'm loving your videos but I would like to know in what way the noise specification of each desk or specified usually the noise specification has the bandwidth specified when your test was made 😊
The published specs are out there and easy to find and compare and the way manufacturers publish specs varies. I found it interesting that the Yamaha costs 5x the price and has more audible noise and also longer latency and routing latency shifts as well. The Yamaha is a higher quality mechanical build though.
Hi Dave, Great videos. I while back you used some mini wedges for monitoring a test, but I can’t find the video, would like to check them out. Can you help with info on the mini wedges?
Dual power supplies have been around for a long time in pro audio for powering the most crucial component(s) If the mixer stops, the show stops and the mixer tends to need a big power supply and the power supply, especially for bigger consoles, is the one thing that is most likely to fail.
So is there any problem if we connect one to raw power another to UPS power?? Bcoz i have seen some technicians connecting one to raw and other on UPS and some others connecting both to UPS...which one will you prefer?
@@abishekaravind7707 I can absolutely weigh in on this one. Never ever hook up both supplies to a single ups. I've had way more quality UPS failures than power failures. We always run 1 PSU via UPS and the other either directly through power or via a second UPS which we try and use a different brand and model to the first in case they have a particular dislike to certain situations. Different brands and model have different kryptonite, so getting a dual failure is less likely.
@@DaveRat Dave has been using one for over 6 years. I only took it 2 times to the concert and spent little money. They have a lot of features, but I don't think they're made for the road. Thanks for your video. Very enlightening.
Too many already crappy clubs have crappy techs who all of sudden think they are Al Schmitt because they use an x32. I don't think it was behringers intention that idiots be in charge of awful sound because they could afford their inexpensive mixer...
I mean, get one that goes above. I use software with an audio interface that can do 192khz, it shows all the way up to 96khz which is more than enough. Voxengo Span
@@magoostus What audio interface has the bandwidth of 192KHZ? Do you mean a clock speed of 192 KHZ which is double the 96KHZ sample rate of high end pro digital mixers such as the Allen and Heath or Yamaha? ? The Behringer X32 uses a 44.1 or 48HHZ clock as one of the more affordable consoles.
Did you do this test with the M32 vs. X32 as well? ..... P.S. You are the audio Wizard my friend. I love all your content and as a fellow audio engineer, I can appreciate it.
Interesting Dave, but not awfully useful. ALL noise measurements MUST be made in the stated bandwidth, say 20Hz-20kHz. You seem to be comparing apples with pears, in that the DAC and ADC technology is very important in the output noise spectrum. These are both different in these two products! There is another point too, and that is the internal headroom on the ADC at a particular input level. The Behringer product ADC has a dynamic range of 115dB, and the design allows at least 6dB of headroom at indicated peak level, giving a bit of operator leeway. I have no idea what the Yamaha does, but it may have zero! The Yamaha noise spectrum is fairly poor with all that LF stuff, very audible, whereas even in your test the B product is very white. To really make this a suitable comparison you need a bandwidth limiting noise test system (Audio Precision for example) and a spectrum analyser to accurately determine the noise spectrum. The B product uses the 8 channel Midas ADC, probably the best on the market for DR and accuracy.
Also without complicating things too much, I was just surprised that the Yamaha has more audible noise with the input gain at 0db than the Behringer with the input at 0db and the Yamaha cost 5x the price. An FFT shows the X32 noise as a spike at around 100k and up. The actual noise specs on the consoles are quite similar. The disparity between what a scope shows, what the specs show, and what is heard and that none of those seem to align is what 8 find interesting. The fact that by digging deeper, the misleading aspects can be clarified is important.
First it is obvious that this test one sided. If you test something you must do all connection and setting are the same. Why the X32 was tested on out of phase? and the Yamaha CL1 is in normal phase? it it should be also tested both.
First of all, I believe you are referring to polarity, not phase. A polarity reversal is an equal and opposite signal that is identical in every way It makes no difference which console is polarity reversed, as a polarity reverse is an identical equal and opposite signal. As far as testing and understanding polarity and understanding null testing, here is another of several videos I have done using the null testing method. th-cam.com/video/aKfhsPhZPmM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xLnTknfUTe-k5ecj Null testing is where you take two signals and reverse polarity on one signal so that all aspects that are identical cancel out and anything that is different is all that's left behind. It's a cool way to see and hear differences between two signals.
I'm still running my OG Analog gear........ recording at home, and running sound a few times a year. This kind of info is super valuable to those who need to know. My small rig is OG Yamaha, and it's still going strong after 20+ years.
Thank you for demonstrating that OUR ears are the olny way to know if a gear is good for US or not, if it fits OUR needs or not, if WE like it or not, if WE want to work with it or not.
Thank you for demonstrating that the price and the nubers written on the user manual or on the scope doesn't make the real value of a gear.
Thank you for demonstrating that the real value of a gear is how it sounds at OUR ears, and how WE can make good sound with it, depending of OUR taste and OUR workflow (and the money we can spend on it).
Great video series, excellent video once again...
Cool cool, thank you again, Dave !!
Very cool and our ears are definitely critical in making sure we don't overlook aspects in reading test results and not to be underestimated in importance.
Yeah yeah yeah, I see the tests but what does it sound like!
I love everything about this vid! Really cool and good stuff man!
So cool thank you!
My X32 has been serving me well. Great test video thanks.
👍👍👍
Mind blown. Love these details man.
Thank You Allam!!
Great to see your show again. Thx
👍👍👍
Amazing test as usual Dave, thanks for this video.
Thank you Scotty!
thats fascinating dude. thanks for diving into this
Cool cool Gabriel!
been using Behringer stuff ever since I started making music. At first because I couldn't afford anything else, nowadays mostly because the bang-for-the-buck value is just the bomb. Sure, that stuff is not intended to be used for touring, but for any setting that allows a "controlled" treatment, it's fully sufficient in terms of build quality.
We're using the XR18 in the rehearsal room and good lord, I would have given an arm and a leg back in the early 2000's for that thing when I was setting up the stage and mixing in the youth club back then. And all that for a ridiculous 500 EUR price tag.
Big thanks and thumbs up for these kind of videos!
Cool cool and Behringer does have products that offer good value and also I would be remiss to blanket project value and usability across the entire product line.
Very fair test, one example against another. Behringer X32 has become the standard mixer for small gigs around here. Of course, this is a sample of one and a single bad solder joint or decoupling/filter cap is all it would take to skew the results. I always tried to get my company to build at least 30 prototype units so I could measure them all and see what we really had....including unit-to-unit variability. That was always a fight to get that many, however.
🤙🤙🤙
Verrrrrry interesting results here! Behringer is hiding the noise in upper bands... ha!
I did a real world test that offered a little insight... (Audible only)
I maxed the volumes of my PA, 15Kw. There was little to nothing for noise with no input.
Then brought up each output channel, input channel, gains to max, eq etc. Routed through groups and then all to the LR bus, same.
Trying to reveal anything in the X32 that would create audible noise/hiss.
The results were 0 added noise in the PA. NO audible difference.
Not real technical but real world, like leaving empty channels on an out.
Thanks again Dave for all the testing you are doing. I bet Yamaha isn't happy...lol
The M32 shows quieter. I am guessing X32 saved some money on filtering out the ultra HF noise
This was crazy! But I have to say, there is one thing that really bugs me about your videos: when they end! See ya on the next audio mystery!
Awesome and thank you Lee!
Blew my mind again Dave. Thanks!
Thank you Dan!!
Once again another excellent demo. A lot of Behringer bashers will be raging, as your results from various videos so far, show it a very capable console in many aspects, and for the incredible price.
Agreed and putting things in context. It's super useful inexpensive and fairly high quality audio. For temporary or consumer or Semi-Pro applications that don't require the durability and interface feature set and expandability of the high-end consoles it's very useful
@@DaveRat would be nice to see you do some similar videos using the wing. ive had it about 3 months now and absolutely love it. My X32 served me well for many years and never broke a heart beat once. :)
Maybe at some point. I do e into the x32/m32 because of all the controversy and misinformation regarding the differences and such that I thought would be fun to clear up a bit.
Not really aware of any myth busting or controversy with the wing.
@@DaveRat yeah there's not been a lot of shouting about the wing yet as its been like rocking horse shit to get a hold of one due to chip shortages (I was 6 month wait on it), but as music group are claiming the pre amps are from the pro Midas series, it would be nice to see how they actually hold up and compare to an original pro series desk :) Thanks for all the replies by the way, its really appreciated that a legend like yourself is taking time to reply to me :)
Cool cool and great to meet ya! At some point I hope to test a Midas pro series, just need on that fits in my car, else it's a hassle to bring home
Thanks, Dave! Another surprise.
Right!! So fun to find the unexpected! Thank you Todd!
What do mean, "you don't know". Yes you do know, and you have proven it to my satisfaction.
Smiling and thank you
I think what would really help this comparison is showing the noise-differences as a spectrum/FFT
👍👍
@@DaveRat Yeah, come on Dave, we love the scope, but would be awesome to see SMAART measurements in these videos
Depending on the scope and installed packages it may be possible to add that as a math channel on this one.
you are a true master and teacher thnx !!!!!
🤙🤙🤙
I'd be interested if that noise profile holds consistent with the Yamaha if you use a Rio stage box. I always got the impression from Yamaha engineers that the on board CL pres were almost for a last resort. Good video
Thank you Ryan. When using a stage box, the console purely deals with the signals in the digital domain. The noise is primarily an artifact of the ADC and DAC conversions in and out of analog.
So the features and control will follow the console and noise, preamps, output drives and such will be determined by what the XLRs are plugged into.
Using the X32 with a DL251 stagebox and CL1 with a RIO will alter things. I have not looked it up but assuming Yamaha uses consistent spec measurements, any improvements by using the RIO should show on the spec sheet EIN noise spec
This is why it's important to measure noise band limited to at around 20k... even n electroncis the noise measurement is done with 25Mhz band limit for a reason, so when one does noise measurement for audio, it should be band limited :)
Agreed and oversights like this and similar are common with people that rely purely on measurement gear and do not spend adequate time listening and comparing to make sure the measurements are relevant.
Great Video. 😃👍♥️
🤙👍🤙
Everything looks very cool and interesting. It would be great if you could add a spectrum analyzer to these tests so we could see which frequencies really add noise 🙂. Compliments for your videos!
Good idea and if I re address this adventure, will do
Very informative...😎🤙🏽
👍👍👍
thanks Dave cool cool
👍👍👍
You should start a talk show, your channel is great, Fantastic stuff as ever Mr Rat
Thank you Phil!!
@@DaveRat You're an inspiration, bless you
To see the weighting of the noise, eg pink vs white, take the output of the analog mixer and put it into an RTA to see the distribution vs frequency. This can be done with a laptop or tablet running the X-Edit program and feed the output of the analog mixer into an input on the Behringer and use the RTA function for the channel to view it in the EQ screen. Feed the signal into a channel not used for your testing. Just use an input for the RTA function to display the audio spectrum and not display the noise up to 100 MHZ the scope displays. Not sure if the Yamaha has this feature in the remote tablet program.
On the member side of my channel there is a video with an FFT of the noise done with the scope where you can see both consoles.
A normal audio RTA wound show the X32 noise
th-cam.com/video/k1ytyDHq-d8/w-d-xo.html
This has always been my impression of Behringer. The actual “sound” is usually equal to, or better, than the competition. But, build quality is somewhat worse. For a permanent install situation, it will probably be fine. But for a road-worthy, mobile, touring rig (i.e. multiple set-up, tear-down), anything BUT Behringer.
🤙🤙🤙
I've been saying this for over 2 decades. You are absolutely correct! ✊🏾 I ve been thinking about building my own chassis for some of my Behringer units.
👍👍👍
It is my understanding that on Yamaha consoles under the CL/QL range, including the M7 that until you reach around 15db on the pre-amp you have a higher noise floor. I’m not sure what is causing that, maybe the clock? You could usually hear and audible “click” on the console once it reached that magical gain value. The trick I’ve always used for that is using your trim or attenuation on the EQ to bring your signal down to a workable level after mitigating the noise floor(assuming this is doable with the signal you are being sent). I’d love to see this tested. In addition I’ve heard a myth on the M7 that if you turn on the output delays, even at 0ms delay, it ups the bit-rate of the output signal so it’s actually using the full power of the console’s processing. Could be a total myth and I haven’t tried it on a system that was nice enough to actually discern that, just and interesting concept.
Loving the videos so far!
I cover that in one or more of the X32/M32 videos. The gain knob actually is adjusting the analog preamp gain in steps of 3 to 6db depending on the console and in between the steps, is adjusting a digital trim in . 5db or 1db increments.
The preamp steps make a click sound and added digital trim is a bit noisier than pure preamp without digital trim gain.
Love the look on your face right before “Well ain’t that the shits” 😂
👍👍👍
So the Behringer is quieter than the Yamaha!!! Wowo, that was surprising...
Right? Crazy and on some level I am not surprised as over the years I have had issues with noise and Yamaha gear but not so much with Midas. Berhinger bought the smarts.
Part 9f dreads the thought of a discount company ever buying my life's work and wholesaling it out at a bargain price.
awesome video dave!!! i don’t know why Yamaha changed the setup from the M7CL, i loved being able to reach over to any channel if i don’t have it on the centralogic bank and mute or move the fader. man the x32 is kinda smoking the yamaha in this series 😂😂
It's interesting. Yamaha seems good at the build quality and capabilities but not so great on the audio path
Good proof that you can study specs sheets all day but the final question is "how does it sound?" I would love to see this test with higher range consoles, maybe ssl VS avid, digico VS allen+heath?
Dave I was mixing a gig in the parking lot of Angel Stadium and they had a Yamaha rig there that sounded like a Neve. I heard it when I was walking up and told the band leader "what the heck that sounds like a Neve console". Went home and checked it out, of course I didn't know that Yamaha and Neve had collaborated. I would put up with some noise to get that tone. Not sure why Behringer/Music Tribe hasn't done that one yet.
Hmmm, better ears than I have
@@DaveRat Lucky guess I'd sa;y lol
🤙🤙🤙
This test proved to me again how Behringer can actually have a solid brand if their build was better. Some Behringer equipment actually does give off a good sound.
I think the tech they bought from Midas and others exceeds what they creat in house and has bumped up the capabilities.
Simple analog 20k lpf on x32's outputs and Bob's your uncle. Cool mod idea for it. I'm just not sure about longevity of the electrolytics in the x32. I've had some serious issues with those in my lower end Presonus gear, and they used Nichicons!
And perhaps the best piece of gear the x32 is plugged into won't do 20k + anyway.
@@DaveRat rejecting signals causes distortion also - many early digital systems played very badly with the ultrasonic distortion generated by microphones and preamps. Try running a 2V 50kHz square wave into a desk input and see what it does - analogue desks don't like it either. Buffering and bandpassing are under-rated strategies, and often a way of curing analogue problems is to use a digital unit to "buffer" the problem, especially considering the waveform is reconstructed, but also considering the power and ground isolation qualities.
Digital is great in that it has reduced coupling issues, although in fact these coupling issues while suppressed are subtly complex and often cause bizarre and unexplainable subtle reliability and quality problems.
Electrolytic caps often sound better than ceramic ones, but they do have a lifespan.
It'd almost be worth installing them in pins rather than soldering them, so you could change them like light bulbs. Some industrial gear has electrolytics on a bayonet mount.
100% testing always better than assumptions or even the most scientific of guesses ... but scope isn't the best tool here - i would have used FFT ( fast fourier tranform ) to see the spectrum of the noise ... not a huge fan of Behringer but if they were able to buy out Lab Gruppen they have to be doing something right, maybe not in terms of quality, but in terms of meeting customer demands at an affordable price point ...
I posted a vid of the FFT response on the member side of the channel
th-cam.com/video/k1ytyDHq-d8/w-d-xo.html
I'm so glad you did what I suggested and looked at the frequency distribution of the noise 🤠
🤙🤙🤙, on the member side of my channel there is a short vid showing the noise with the FFT on the scipe
Noise measurement data on specs should be A weighted!
I remember the beautiful old analogue large format consoles from yamaha, PM1800 PM3000 or PM3500. The preamplifiers is so noisly that is preferable to deal with slighlty overloaded signal in the channel than pressing the PAD key. The 3500 PAD has a huge 30dB of reduction!
A weighted does not include low frequency noise in the specs so huge hum issues dont show up. Humm issues are a big problem, especially with cheaper consoles that have internal power supplies. Using flat weighted specs for noise or offering Flat and A weighted would be good.
And yes, I know that Yamaha noise!
@@DaveRat Agree. Reporting both would be perfect!
🔧🔧🔧
Dave please consider noise testing the Yamaha DM3/7 next?
I can look into that when things slow down in the winter time
@@DaveRat thanks! You’re the man
Cool stuff! I wonder if Audio Precision would let you borrow some gear. Would make it easier to compare snr, thd, etc between consoles!
I purposely do not use fancy gear and try an focus on tests that correlate what is seen vs what is heard in a way that can be replicated by just about anyone. The equip designers have all that high end gear and I like to divulge issues they missed or are trying to hide by using simple easy methods.
The way you are measuring, also adds latency to the signal. The CL has a much longer latency, so it will always sound more distorted if you reloop channels(the second pass will be out of sync). The comparisson should be done over just 1 signalpath.
As i understand your measurement, you have synced the wordclock from both consoles, but in this case, the X32 is the source? There is a chance you are bringing out the worst from the A/D conversion from the CL1 by syncing the clocks, it could be the other way around if you clock out of CL1.
For your measurement, the clocks should be set to internal, to have an optimum conversion setting. They don't need to be synced to compare noise levels.
Also the signal to noise ratio is more important than the noise ratio from channels that are not used.(since they will normaly be out of the mix anyway). there are universal settings for measuring THD, SNR and CMRR. These standards are designed to make fair comparisons to equipment.
I have add to my comments, that i have not read the specs on either console, nor do i have a preference to either one of them. But from a theoretical background in electronics, the above points come to mind.
These kind of measurements require especialy high resolution equipment like Fluke or Philips produce, it will not be acurate enough with smart or other audio based tools. also the cables you use between the consoles are important/influencing your measurement. The THD of each console is probably far away from the audible range, as are the SNR and CMRR.
So despite your results here, and me realy apreciating and respecting your other topics and sharing of your experiences in live mixing (Keep up the nice vids!)
This test outcome has no theoretical basis, and could be caused by other factors just as well. (Fair chance that switching the clocksource changes the outcome of the test.)
Impedance differences changes the outputlevel and the setpoint of the internal cirquits, if the CL1 has a different impedance then the X32, it could result in more noise. Depending on the input impedance of the analog mixer you use, the outcome could also be different.
Edit: After reading the specs on both consoles, the outcome is predictable; THD for CL1 = 0.05%, THD for x32 is 0.006%. The X32 has also better specs in almost all ranges, so your conclusion is correct, but the measurement itself is debatable sorry ;-)
Maybe watch some of my other CL1 videos
the CL1 always has at least 2ms latency analog in to analog out.
The x32 has 0.8 Ms at least analog in to analog out
The subgroup latency issue on the Yamaha does not occur in the x32 and both consoles add more latency when inserts are used
Clicking them together is irrelevant when dealing with analog signals. Though altering the word clock higher will slightly reduce latency and lower will increase it.
I am using a variable signal generator as an external word clock on the CL1.
And thank you for your thoughts.
I think you will find that the testing and results are correct, not flawed and harmonious with the 6 or 8 other videos I have done on the topic.
Although it's inaudible, do you think the greater amount of measurable noise on the X32 reduces headroom?
Similar to the aux fed subs idea, which mitigates the extra amount of mud that isn't really heard but reduces the headroom when you only use a low-passed stereo master signal.
In this case, by a small margin could the X32 start distorting earlier because it's already dealing with an inaudible yet higher signal to noise ratio?
I think for most applications it doesn't matter for the noise is cumulative in the sound system.
If you do a gig where in between songs the PA has got a hiss to it and you can hear the noise that would push you to drive your gains and signal flow at a higher level. Which pushes you closer or into clip and distortion.
Having an extremely low noise floor allows you to mix well below clipping completely avoid any overloads and not have to deal with background noise.
For most rock shows it doesn't matter but there are definitely scenarios where sound system silence during the quiet parts of the music is very desirable
@@DaveRat That's very true, in practice it would still result in less audible noise out the P.A at lower gain.
Love your videos and explanations, thanks for the response on this :)
Awesome cool cool and thank you
I was wondering why the dogs ran away every time I turned on the X32
🤙
Once again, you confirm my love and devotion to the X32. Big deal, it's not a tank...but really, if you're gonna treat gear like you're in a war zone...both units are gonna eventually suffer. When you compare price points...the X32 always comes ahead x's Ten!
🤙🤙🤙
This experiment isn't really indicative of how the consoles are going to be used in real situations. The power supply (several of them per console!) is hugely important to the noise characteristics and it would be more accurate to load it right up with dozens of channels running and lots of effects, CPU loading and processing etc (thus loading up the power supplies) before measuring the console's performance.
EDIT: Kudos to your experimental method though - keep up these vids
Hmmm, does more inputs actually load down the power supply on the console? and if so, by how much? If I put a current meter on the AC supply to the console and start turning on channels with inputs will I really see an increase in current draw? Its not an amp. Increased processing does make a computer fan run, but on a console is the processor a significant power supply draw or are the LEDs, moving faders, illumination and powering all the dormant ADC and DAC most of the draw? Do the ADC and DAC draw significantly more power when actively used vs dormant? And does the power supply ever really load down on these consoles and if so why would power supply loading even have any impact on signals in the digital domain? I would think power supply loading would be mainly caused by increased processing power needs on the digital side, LEDs, illumination and screen and the analog mic pre's and analog output drivers would be on a separate supply needing differing voltages.
Lots of variables to consider and starting out with more noise in a simple setup is not a good start.
Thank you Simon!
Actually, most of the time switched mode PSUs tend to emit less noise when they are fully loaded. When we do EMI tests, the worst case is always when there is barely any or no load on the power supply.
The mic preamps wont have more current consumption if you increase the gain, because the only thing that is going to change is the amount of negative feedback applied from the output to the input. I do not believe that any manufacturer turns off AD DA converters when they are not used, so that cant really change the load on the PSU.
The fader motors and the screen brightness has a much bigger effect on the PSU load, but even in that case, you maybe have your PSU 80% loaded and you will load it down when the faders move to 85% until the faders move.
🤙🤙🤙
I’ve used both consoles extensively, and there’s no way I’m choosing an x32 over any Yamaha console except maybe an o1V96i. Definitely not a TF or higher, not even a DM3.
Build quality vs features vs cost vs reputation. Selecting the right tool for the application is always wise and various different products are optimal for various applications
Yamaha - even with mild abuse - will still work a decade later, and will only require a basic repair.
I almost never see broken yamaha equipment. They are automotive quality, and they are also very much not about being "premium" or overpriced - many consider them a budget brand.
Ha! Hard core mediocre in every regard. Utilitarian solid and not stellar at anything other than world wide availability?
@@DaveRat it's true of all their products whether motorbikes, saxophones, guitars, pianos, hifi, or pro audio. There is some "magic" missing, it's a very square plasticky mentality, but Yamaha are one of the best companies for making equipment surprisingly tough without making it weigh 50 tonnes.
My rackmount single ended yamaha analogue swiss army knife instrument-level-compatible line mixer is a thing of beauty, and I bought it for next to nothing. You would have to prise it from my cold dead hands. It does nothing weird or special, it just switches on and works, at nearly 40 years old, and passes pristine audio without fuss.
Prioritising sound quality over reliability is exactly the opposite of what behringer do.
In a real world context, reliability is very important, but only educated customers value it, and it's rarely properly demonstrated in advertising. Audio equipment could be a lot more rugged, especially if you look at how telecommunications, aerospace and military equipment is designed, and how much more it typically costs - the high prices are not just because of corrupt government procurement processes and brown envelopes.
High precision and high dependability are expensive to produce. Simple is always best - this is why we still have mechanical firearms in use by every military worldwide.
@@DaveRat their worldwide availability is non-existent right now due to chip shortages. Lead times are out 9 months + on any CL orders.
@@weareallbeingwatched4602 One of the keys of my Yamaha MODX6 synthesizer broke. Turns out the board for that keygroup was cracked. None of my Behringer stuff has had something like that happening. For the price of the Yamaha you can buy a couple of ‘spare’ Behringers… are they really that bad? I’m not sure. Depending on both company’s cost cutting, ‘stuff’ happens. I repaired the MODX6 keys and still enjoy it, playing through a Behringer XR18 :) There is a use case for both philosophies and for amateurs Behringer delivers a lot of bang for the buck.
Great video, thanks! Does your scope have a half-decent spectrum analysis? Usually the expensive scopes are the only good ones in high frequency ranges (MHz ranges), but perhaps the audible range is decent even with older/cheaper scopes. Very nice analysis and yes, the noise numbers by themselves are only good for spec sheets.
Yes, the FFT on the scope shows a spike at around 100k on the X32
@@DaveRat Nice, well out of the audio domain. I can appreciate how they designed pragmatically vs. just chasing spec numbers in a sheet.
I hope the Yamaha folks see this video and have a look at their designs.
Can your scope do an FFT analysis to see what frequencies are contained in the noise?
Yes, I did a short video of that but it's on the member side of my channel
Hey Dave... thought I saw this video earlier on TH-cam...? Anyway... it really amazes me!! Could it be that the guys and dolls at Yamaha use their scopes more than their ears...?
Hmmm, dunno but the x32 has lower latency and less routing delay as well.
@@DaveRat hmmm... ever considerd to ask Behringer/Yamaha to react on your findings...?
@@DaveRat the work you're doing is fantastic!
nice shirt! i would rather have the x32 if all things are equal because you can EQ it out. Would you agree?
I would say the x32 does have more features at a lower cost and some advantages.
That said, the people I know who use the CL series are looking for quality build, durability, reliability and compatibility with larger format Yamaha.
Maybe kind of like bringing your car to the dealership for repair vs using a local mechanic. They both have issues and advantages.
Personally I am not a Yamaha fan but they do make consoles that are very robust and last a long time at a higher cost
I may have missed it but your 1st channel in each mixer is a head amp at 0dB gain? Do you know how the two consoles use dither? The Behringer’s noise has the characteristic shift in bw I’m used to seeing from dither, which is added noise in the digital domain near the hi limit of our hearing to reduce extremely low level nonlinearity.
All the head amps are near zero. The X32 noise is up near 100Khz, I posted an FFT of the noise but it's on the member side of the YT channel as it's short and unpolished. Vids like that on the public side just get me yelled at.
Cool yeah I'm loving your videos but I would like to know in what way the noise specification of each desk or specified usually the noise specification has the bandwidth specified when your test was made 😊
The published specs are out there and easy to find and compare and the way manufacturers publish specs varies. I found it interesting that the Yamaha costs 5x the price and has more audible noise and also longer latency and routing latency shifts as well.
The Yamaha is a higher quality mechanical build though.
Hi Dave, Great videos. I while back you used some mini wedges for monitoring a test, but I can’t find the video, would like to check them out. Can you help with info on the mini wedges?
I forgot what video I used them in, there have been several. I will fire them up again soon!
Can you explain why certain consoles, stage boxes have dual power supplies??
Dual power supplies have been around for a long time in pro audio for powering the most crucial component(s)
If the mixer stops, the show stops and the mixer tends to need a big power supply and the power supply, especially for bigger consoles, is the one thing that is most likely to fail.
So is there any problem if we connect one to raw power another to UPS power?? Bcoz i have seen some technicians connecting one to raw and other on UPS and some others connecting both to UPS...which one will you prefer?
@@abishekaravind7707 I can absolutely weigh in on this one. Never ever hook up both supplies to a single ups. I've had way more quality UPS failures than power failures. We always run 1 PSU via UPS and the other either directly through power or via a second UPS which we try and use a different brand and model to the first in case they have a particular dislike to certain situations. Different brands and model have different kryptonite, so getting a dual failure is less likely.
X32 rules
Value for the money. Perhaps not durable or easily repairable but they have done well at offering loads of features and power at a low cost.
@@DaveRat Dave has been using one for over 6 years. I only took it 2 times to the concert and spent little money.
They have a lot of features, but I don't think they're made for the road.
Thanks for your video. Very enlightening.
At least I now know my ear is not tricking me 😆
👍👍👍
Too many already crappy clubs have crappy techs who all of sudden think they are Al Schmitt because they use an x32. I don't think it was behringers intention that idiots be in charge of awful sound because they could afford their inexpensive mixer...
Well, a lot of people can afford pickup trucks with big tires as well. I don't see much difference.
a FFT spectrum analyzer would've immediatly shown the differences in noise level
FYI, in the EQ screen on the X32 or M32, there is an RTA function to display just that.
The frequencies are above the audio RTA capabilities
I mean, get one that goes above. I use software with an audio interface that can do 192khz, it shows all the way up to 96khz which is more than enough. Voxengo Span
@@magoostus What audio interface has the bandwidth of 192KHZ? Do you mean a clock speed of 192 KHZ which is double the 96KHZ sample rate of high end pro digital mixers such as the Allen and Heath or Yamaha? ? The Behringer X32 uses a 44.1 or 48HHZ clock as one of the more affordable consoles.
@@isettech it would be for the analysis of the analog signal. a cheap Behringer UMC2020HD can do a sample-rate of 192khz
Did you do this test with the M32 vs. X32 as well? ..... P.S. You are the audio Wizard my friend. I love all your content and as a fellow audio engineer, I can appreciate it.
The M32 is quieter than the X32, And I did do a similar test comparing M32 to X32 and thank you Mike!!
Interesting Dave, but not awfully useful. ALL noise measurements MUST be made in the stated bandwidth, say 20Hz-20kHz. You seem to be comparing apples with pears, in that the DAC and ADC technology is very important in the output noise spectrum. These are both different in these two products! There is another point too, and that is the internal headroom on the ADC at a particular input level. The Behringer product ADC has a dynamic range of 115dB, and the design allows at least 6dB of headroom at indicated peak level, giving a bit of operator leeway. I have no idea what the Yamaha does, but it may have zero! The Yamaha noise spectrum is fairly poor with all that LF stuff, very audible, whereas even in your test the B product is very white.
To really make this a suitable comparison you need a bandwidth limiting noise test system (Audio Precision for example) and a spectrum analyser to accurately determine the noise spectrum. The B product uses the 8 channel Midas ADC, probably the best on the market for DR and accuracy.
Also without complicating things too much, I was just surprised that the Yamaha has more audible noise with the input gain at 0db than the Behringer with the input at 0db and the Yamaha cost 5x the price.
An FFT shows the X32 noise as a spike at around 100k and up.
The actual noise specs on the consoles are quite similar.
The disparity between what a scope shows, what the specs show, and what is heard and that none of those seem to align is what 8 find interesting.
The fact that by digging deeper, the misleading aspects can be clarified is important.
First it is obvious that this test one sided. If you test something you must do all connection and setting are the same. Why the X32 was tested on out of phase? and the Yamaha CL1 is in normal phase? it it should be also tested both.
First of all, I believe you are referring to polarity, not phase.
A polarity reversal is an equal and opposite signal that is identical in every way
It makes no difference which console is polarity reversed, as a polarity reverse is an identical equal and opposite signal.
As far as testing and understanding polarity and understanding null testing, here is another of several videos I have done using the null testing method.
th-cam.com/video/aKfhsPhZPmM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xLnTknfUTe-k5ecj
Null testing is where you take two signals and reverse polarity on one signal so that all aspects that are identical cancel out and anything that is different is all that's left behind.
It's a cool way to see and hear differences between two signals.