If you want to compare the Dominator with de 9024 than you should remove both DBX units from the signal chain. The sound from 9024 seems to have a huge phase problem Which function(s) in 9024 is/are activated?
The 9042 only had compression and limiting applied. This "phase" issue was actually an issue with the downstream mixer that stepped the audio down to mic level.
Aphex sounded rich and open. Nice warm analog sound. I'm sure if you tweek the 9024 in another comparison with a different song you might have different results. I use my Aphex 722 in my mastering rig downstream downstream of my Focusrite Multiband Analog Compressor, ART Pro VLA II in the fully analog domain. I keep the 9024 around in my digital domain suite of processors like DBX Quantum and TC Electronic Finalizer when I need quick and dirty processing. Your test reminded me of why I keep them both around. The 722 is highly underated compared to the Ultramaximizer Digital Limiter. Thanks so much...
The Aphex Dominator is a clear winner. I own both processors and although the Behringer can almost emulate the Dominator, without the EQ and Gate, the Dominator is rich sounding and warm. The 9024 is difficult to setup. I own several digital processors including the DBX Quantum and the TC Electronic Finalizer. Both are equally difficult to setup like the Behringer and wiil perform many additional tasks, but I still.prefer the Dominator.II over the year 2000 digital processors. I also own the DBX DDP and TC Electronic Triple C. All these.digital processors have their niche, but the Aphex Model 520 still defeats these digital processors on limiting... :)
I know I am the sole dissenter in this discussion, but I do like the 9024. I agree it has some useless functionality like its tube emulation, and it is complicated, especially the menu configuration and navigation, and does not have a EQ, BUT... It is digital so you can set your delay and get decent look ahead capabilities. Additionally it is 6 independent bands and once you get past how complicated it is, you really can finely tune your output, especially if you de-link the limiters from each other. Additionally it's metering is pretty good, if you don't mind the mono-lcd display, which I don't mind - all for a very good price. This is compared to the Aphex whose mentality is "this is the way your material is going to sound, get used to it" - not very configurable at all. I will admit that Behringer stuff is "prosumer" at best and they go out of their way to label capabilities so absurdly that it's laughable. My favorite is the "opto compressor" - seriously?!? what the hell is that. That all said, if you can get over these various few negatives, the 9024 is a good unit - IMHO and as I said at the top, I know this is a minority opinion.
The sound of the Behringer is strange (comb-filtered, no transients, not enough top-end) and to me it sound like one or more settings problems. First check input/output levels, polarity and settings, if that's fine use very little compression and transient-friendly times. Use peak limiter only for 1-2db peak reduction. Killed transients and too fast release are what sucks life out of program material. It's hard to see but it looks like there is very low levels in the upper two bands which would explain part of the dull sound. The cheaper the processor, the more you need to know and the harder to work, which is why people get bad sound out of perfectly find equipment. But Behringer stuff isn't bad in general, they only need a low of knowledge about settings and the manuals are often giving misleading advice.
Behringer Ultra Dyne = "Club style sound" (woofer bass, muffled treble) Aphex 720 = "Hi-Fi like sound" (lacking some bass frequencies between 40Hz-120Hz though, yeah, I know, it's the sound of the 80's, but through the Aphex it sounds too "warm" for the 80's anyway) Aphex's crisp clarity with more Behringer's like bass would be great.
The EQ setting did impact some of the mid bass on the 9024 chain, so maybe that's what you're hearing. As for your Aphex preference, that seems in line with most of my feedback.
why don´t you put the eq after the DSP Ultra curve, because 6 band compressor will eq all frequencies at the same level in the end. i try it and have better results...
Cheapest Aphex 720 I could find here in Norway was 500$, so I bought the Behringer one for 25$ The Aphex is probably miles better, but I'm on a budget so.. the Behringer will have to do the job.
If the Behringer you got was a working 9024, that's a good deal. Honestly I think the two are comparable if you put in the time to do all the 9024's settings - which is a lot.
I agree, there is something completely out (of phase). How can he not pick up on that? The difference in sound between those two units in the video is huge and we don't even need to argue which one sounds better here! ;-)
thank you for videos. very helpful. I know nothing about radio but I am going to build a FM radio station for another country. I dont want to use Online Radio . Do you know what I need to do?
This is a pretty broad question. But I think there are three things you need to focus on. 1. If you're going to be legal, check the legalities and regulations and apply for a license through whatever agency and rules that apply. 2. What's your budget. You can cut a lot of corners if you need - for example you can likely get by with a used mixer, single inexpensive mic, laptop for music (if you plan on music) and a used low power transmitter and antenna. 3. Decide what kind of programming you are going to have and what kind of hours and content/talent you'll have. I realize this is general, but these are the areas and questions you'll need to answer to move forward. Best of luck!
Hands down Aphex. I own both of these processors. The 9024 seems to cut tje bass once invoked. I use the Aphex 720/722 in my analog mastering chain. I have implemented many alterations to my specified specifications. The only digital outboard gear I would consider for limiting is the L2...
It sounds to me like the compression is not really setup for the same times like they have quite different threshold, attack and trialware times Could you get them to sound more similar than that?
The Aphex 720 and the 9024 are really two different approaches which get approximate similar results, but not the same way. The 9024 is a six band compressor with a limiter with user controls over the details (thresholds, ratios, releases, gains, etc), at the compression stage as well as the limiter stage. The Aphex is more of a fixed approach on three bands with limited user control over the details of how to get to the results. Their philosophy is essentially that they have a good algorithm and you start at that fixed place and you have some control over a few loose ends, but not full control over the whole approach. Also interestingly, they call the 720 a multiband limiter, not a compressor, although the differences between a limiter and a compressor are small especially in their application. Here's a good video from Aphex on the 722 which essentially applies to the 720 in principle: th-cam.com/video/Yed8LUtN51c/w-d-xo.html
@@humbertowrigolini578 thanks I will check it out!! I have a deq2496 coming with what people tell me has really good downward expansion so I am looking forward to it. Yeah I agree with you, 2 totally diferent beasts. I currently use a behringer composer pro which is just a single compressor limiter and the limiter is not all that great. Would love an Ivonics or optimod
I think this is not good comparison. You can do lot of type sound from 9024,but the Aphex use too many silver-mica capacitors in theirs processors. It takes too much treble-end sound to the audio line,this is disturbing to my ears. I can do another sort of sound from 9024. But true,the analog sound is more convenient for ears.
Maybe a better comparison would be the Aphex against the Ultramaximizer L2 3-band digital limiter. The Aphex is really a sophisticated Analog limiter and L2 is an equally sophisticated Digital limiter used on countless masters...
Aphex wins, hands down! IMHO. I found the low end with Behringer really muddied the whole sound and was fatiguing, perhaps that was the eq ahead of it though.
First of all, Mr. Behringer himself says that the name is pronounced "BEH-ring-grr". Not "BEH-rin-jer". Pronounce it correctly and impress your friends! :-) And secondly, comparing a Behringer anything to an Aphex anything is unfair. The Aphex will win with BOTH hands tied behind its back.
People always mess around with names. Behringer is German. Most people cannot handle that language. Names are messed up., especially geografical names. Milan is Milano is Maitland. München (German) is Munich (English). Not one English speaking person pronounces the French capital the way the French do. Or the German capital. We all tend to give names our own flavour(or should I write flavor ;-)) Let go.
people who complain about behringer are the same people that never actually make any music ....stay over there in your crybaby shed and keeping turning those knobs
This was an awful comparison completely unscientific!! they should have been set up in exactly the same way to make a real evaluation . Utter rubbish!!
Love your passion on the subject. Though remember it would be impossible to have them set up the exact same way since the Aphex and Behringer are completely different, with different configurable parameters. And hence the point of this comparison.
@@humbertowrigolini578 Than why did you make a video comparing them if you acknowledge that they are completely different things? It doesn't make sense at all...
@@beatboxerz Completely different is a relative term. They are completely different in their design and technology. One is a 6 band DSP the other is an three band analog compressor/limiter. In that sense they are completely different. However they are very similar in what they are trying to achieve - processed final sound contoured to the user's liking and often the last leg in the processing chain. That makes them worthy of comparison - old school vs not-as-old school.
![[UNCUT] เก็บ "สจ.โต้ง" เอี่ยวมาเฟีย รู้ตัวคนบงการ ก่อนสั่งลั่นไก I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 13 ธ.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-J_p62D40w/mqdefault.jpg)
OMG. The Aphex sounded beautiful. I dig that old school song as well.
Not fair comparison, bypass eq a dbx and run test again....
Agreed. The other gear skews the comparison.
The equaliser should by in bypass mode or set to flat.
The Sound was perfect going through the apex !
The sound goes direct into the Aphex, for the Behringer, sound first goes into the dbx eq en then through a dbx processor. Yeah right.
If you want to compare the Dominator with de 9024 than you should remove both DBX units from the signal chain. The sound from 9024 seems to have a huge phase problem Which function(s) in 9024 is/are activated?
The 9042 only had compression and limiting applied. This "phase" issue was actually an issue with the downstream mixer that stepped the audio down to mic level.
Aphex sounded rich and open. Nice warm analog sound. I'm sure if you tweek the 9024 in another comparison with a different song you might have different results. I use my Aphex 722 in my mastering rig downstream downstream of my Focusrite Multiband Analog Compressor, ART Pro VLA II in the fully analog domain. I keep the 9024 around in my digital domain suite of processors like DBX Quantum and TC Electronic Finalizer when I need quick and dirty processing. Your test reminded me of why I keep them both around. The 722 is highly underated compared to the Ultramaximizer Digital Limiter. Thanks so much...
The Aphex Dominator is a clear winner. I own both processors and although the Behringer can almost emulate the Dominator, without the EQ and Gate, the Dominator is rich sounding and warm. The 9024 is difficult to setup. I own several digital processors including the DBX Quantum and the TC Electronic Finalizer. Both are equally difficult to setup like the Behringer and wiil perform many additional tasks, but I still.prefer the Dominator.II over the year 2000 digital processors. I also own the DBX DDP and TC Electronic Triple C. All these.digital processors have their niche, but the Aphex Model 520 still defeats these digital processors on limiting... :)
I know I am the sole dissenter in this discussion, but I do like the 9024. I agree it has some useless functionality like its tube emulation, and it is complicated, especially the menu configuration and navigation, and does not have a EQ, BUT... It is digital so you can set your delay and get decent look ahead capabilities. Additionally it is 6 independent bands and once you get past how complicated it is, you really can finely tune your output, especially if you de-link the limiters from each other. Additionally it's metering is pretty good, if you don't mind the mono-lcd display, which I don't mind - all for a very good price. This is compared to the Aphex whose mentality is "this is the way your material is going to sound, get used to it" - not very configurable at all. I will admit that Behringer stuff is "prosumer" at best and they go out of their way to label capabilities so absurdly that it's laughable. My favorite is the "opto compressor" - seriously?!? what the hell is that. That all said, if you can get over these various few negatives, the 9024 is a good unit - IMHO and as I said at the top, I know this is a minority opinion.
The Dominator wins hands down...very open sound and nicer......real nice bass!
and where's the sound when using neither?
The sound of the Behringer is strange (comb-filtered, no transients, not enough top-end) and to me it sound like one or more settings problems. First check input/output levels, polarity and settings, if that's fine use very little compression and transient-friendly times. Use peak limiter only for 1-2db peak reduction. Killed transients and too fast release are what sucks life out of program material. It's hard to see but it looks like there is very low levels in the upper two bands which would explain part of the dull sound. The cheaper the processor, the more you need to know and the harder to work, which is why people get bad sound out of perfectly find equipment. But Behringer stuff isn't bad in general, they only need a low of knowledge about settings and the manuals are often giving misleading advice.
Behringer Ultra Dyne = "Club style sound" (woofer bass, muffled treble)
Aphex 720 = "Hi-Fi like sound" (lacking some bass frequencies between 40Hz-120Hz though, yeah, I know, it's the sound of the 80's, but through the Aphex it sounds too "warm" for the 80's anyway)
Aphex's crisp clarity with more Behringer's like bass would be great.
Well said. For me it all depends on the day. Sometimes I like the Behringer and other's it's the Aphex. Not sure why, but go figure.
The 9024 has no bass. What happened to the low end? Did you EQ it that way on purpose? The way I heard it, I prefer the Aphex by a large margin.
The EQ setting did impact some of the mid bass on the 9024 chain, so maybe that's what you're hearing. As for your Aphex preference, that seems in line with most of my feedback.
He doesn't know how to use the behringer or hes doing a Promo video for the Aphex so 👎🏻 fake video
why don´t you put the eq after the DSP Ultra curve, because 6 band compressor will eq all frequencies at the same level in the end. i try it and have better results...
Nuno Lopes problem is the processing chain needs to end with a brick wall limiter so I don’t over modulate.
@@robertandamywright3271 in my case i use the same dsp as you do and finish with dsp8000 eq with limit of -1db. No problems so far...
@@TheNunolopes definitely something to consider.
@@humbertowrigolini578 nevertheless, thx for the videos.
Cheapest Aphex 720 I could find here in Norway was 500$, so I bought the Behringer one for 25$ The Aphex is probably miles better, but I'm on a budget so.. the Behringer will have to do the job.
If the Behringer you got was a working 9024, that's a good deal. Honestly I think the two are comparable if you put in the time to do all the 9024's settings - which is a lot.
BS! you have some channel phase on Behringer.. even audible on your microphone.
I agree, there is something completely out (of phase). How can he not pick up on that? The difference in sound between those two units in the video is huge and we don't even need to argue which one sounds better here! ;-)
thank you for videos. very helpful. I know nothing about radio but I am going to build a FM radio station for another country. I dont want to use Online Radio . Do you know what I need to do?
This is a pretty broad question. But I think there are three things you need to focus on. 1. If you're going to be legal, check the legalities and regulations and apply for a license through whatever agency and rules that apply. 2. What's your budget. You can cut a lot of corners if you need - for example you can likely get by with a used mixer, single inexpensive mic, laptop for music (if you plan on music) and a used low power transmitter and antenna. 3. Decide what kind of programming you are going to have and what kind of hours and content/talent you'll have. I realize this is general, but these are the areas and questions you'll need to answer to move forward. Best of luck!
Roxy Music is one of my favorites. Have you conducted any full-fledged broadcasts yet?
Love Roxy Music as well. Name my Cat "Avalon"
Brett Cooper - unfortunately due to time constraints it has been a long while since I’ve done a real broadcast.
Hands down Aphex. I own both of these processors. The 9024 seems to cut tje bass once invoked. I use the Aphex 720/722 in my analog mastering chain. I have implemented many alterations to my specified specifications. The only digital outboard gear I would consider for limiting is the L2...
Dbx not Recommended for broadcast audio processor
Nice to see another one of your videos!
It sounds to me like the compression is not really setup for the same times like they have quite different threshold, attack and trialware times Could you get them to sound more similar than that?
The Aphex 720 and the 9024 are really two different approaches which get approximate similar results, but not the same way. The 9024 is a six band compressor with a limiter with user controls over the details (thresholds, ratios, releases, gains, etc), at the compression stage as well as the limiter stage. The Aphex is more of a fixed approach on three bands with limited user control over the details of how to get to the results. Their philosophy is essentially that they have a good algorithm and you start at that fixed place and you have some control over a few loose ends, but not full control over the whole approach. Also interestingly, they call the 720 a multiband limiter, not a compressor, although the differences between a limiter and a compressor are small especially in their application. Here's a good video from Aphex on the 722 which essentially applies to the 720 in principle: th-cam.com/video/Yed8LUtN51c/w-d-xo.html
@@humbertowrigolini578 thanks I will check it out!! I have a deq2496 coming with what people tell me has really good downward expansion so I am looking forward to it. Yeah I agree with you, 2 totally diferent beasts. I currently use a behringer composer pro which is just a single compressor limiter and the limiter is not all that great. Would love an Ivonics or optimod
I think this is not good comparison. You can do lot of type sound from 9024,but the Aphex use too many silver-mica capacitors in theirs processors. It takes too much treble-end sound to the audio line,this is disturbing to my ears. I can do another sort of sound from 9024. But true,the analog sound is more convenient for ears.
Maybe a better comparison would be the Aphex against the Ultramaximizer L2 3-band digital limiter. The Aphex is really a sophisticated Analog limiter and L2 is an equally sophisticated Digital limiter used on countless masters...
Aphex wins, hands down! IMHO. I found the low end with Behringer really muddied the whole sound and was fatiguing, perhaps that was the eq ahead of it though.
First of all, Mr. Behringer himself says that the name is pronounced "BEH-ring-grr". Not "BEH-rin-jer". Pronounce it correctly and impress your friends! :-) And secondly, comparing a Behringer anything to an Aphex anything is unfair. The Aphex will win with BOTH hands tied behind its back.
Noted :)
Yes, it's the correct german pronounciation, since it's a german name and the company. But that wöuld be wiseass 👻
Berry's sound quality is not bad tho, it's just typical 90's digital sound - harsh highs and bassy lows. Typical TOP 40 broadcast station sound 👻
People always mess around with names. Behringer is German. Most people cannot handle that language. Names are messed up., especially geografical names. Milan is Milano is Maitland. München (German) is Munich (English). Not one English speaking person pronounces the French capital the way the French do. Or the German capital. We all tend to give names our own flavour(or should I write flavor ;-)) Let go.
Sorry Maitland not Maitland. Thick fingers
people who complain about behringer are the same people that never actually make any music ....stay over there in your crybaby shed and keeping turning those knobs
This was an awful comparison completely unscientific!! they should have been set up in exactly the same way to make a real evaluation . Utter rubbish!!
Love your passion on the subject. Though remember it would be impossible to have them set up the exact same way since the Aphex and Behringer are completely different, with different configurable parameters. And hence the point of this comparison.
@@humbertowrigolini578 Than why did you make a video comparing them if you acknowledge that they are completely different things? It doesn't make sense at all...
@@beatboxerz Completely different is a relative term. They are completely different in their design and technology. One is a 6 band DSP the other is an three band analog compressor/limiter. In that sense they are completely different. However they are very similar in what they are trying to achieve - processed final sound contoured to the user's liking and often the last leg in the processing chain. That makes them worthy of comparison - old school vs not-as-old school.