pkennethk's forum posts 2051

Your son will be striving for that retro sound, as heard on all the crusty old Billie Eilish streams of his youth. :D

gotta find those old 64 bit OS soft synths

Ha!

"No, Dad. I want something with that nasty, aliased '20s tone. Nothing today has that lo-fi Serum sound."

make things better for the next generation.

who will say Daft Whosis? This isn't a Punk record, Dad!

Your son will be striving for that retro sound, as heard on all the crusty old Billie Eilish streams of his youth. :D

we're the second hit on google for 'daft punk behringer composer' after the guy who said it was on their drum bus.... which on a CR1604 there isn't any subgrouping, there's a second bus I think but its for aux return I think, I could be wrong. Now I want to read the manual to see if that guy on gearlutz is fulla $h!t

The user in question was close. We've both seen far more egregious claims made on forums over the years... but yeah, Equipboard has finally given the internet a place to hang lots of real, x-referenced evidence onto the gear/software info Google serves to aspiring music makers. I am so grateful for the people here who are willing to pitch in and make things better for the next generation.

Evidence or go home!

So, now that we've figured out what it is(!!), how will submitting this work? We each ought to get GearIQ credit, but only one person needs to post. I figure pkennethk gets posting honors for starting the whole thing.

The deed is done!

https://equipboard.com/pros/daft-punk/behringer-mdx2000-composer?src=submission

Thank you both for the outstanding work!

https://imgur.com/i4Ae4T9

Exhibit A now: "En principe, cet appareil est connecté en sortie stéréo." "En principe" translates to "in principle" or "in theory". If this is a correct understanding of the magazine's use of the phrase, is this an acknowledgement of false stereo, thus proving the MDX2000?

I think you're onto something.... you can exploit a misdesigned link, this seems like an extreme case but often its just that the summed sidechain input to the master isn't balanced well between both sides at all frequencies creating stereo artifacts. You can use this, the pro VLA has a wonky link mode and I exploit it for certain thing, especially as the time constants are so laggy on the mk1 version I favor

I Google-translated the full paragraph for the "Behringer Composer" from Exhibit A, and it sounds like they may be describing a different type of exciter/enhancer.

"this is a device called an 'enhancer' used to specify and energize the contour of the sound spectrum in the extreme low and the extreme high. in principle, this device is connected in stereo output"

The "Dynamic Gain Reduction" device, listed separate from the Behringer Composer in the diagram, is described as:

"still called compressor / limiter, it is a device used everywhere, on occasion, since it allows the sound to be processed so that it, even if it is played very loudly, does not saturate. Or conversely, to considerably amplify a fair sound, so as to balance its level in relation to other sounds."

let it be known I'm leaning towards the MDX2000, I'll ebt music stores in germany and france were littered with used ones at the time, probably still are, they never break

Interesting write-up from a seemingly-knowledgable owner of both units:

http://beden.si/studio/reviews.html

Behringer Composer MDX 2000/2100

"If you're into the lower end of the pro audio market, you might be aware of the distinction between old Behringer gear, which was supposedly OK, and new stuff, which is regarded as "Pro" in name only. Having owned a number of units from both eras, I can say that this is only a general guideline, but it does apply when it comes to the compressors, where the MDX 2000/2100 Composers (the review is for both units, since they're in most respects very similar) do seem to outperform the later Composer Pros."

"The first clue that the Behringer Composer might be a decent compressor is the build quality, which is very solid. The front panel is made out of machined aluminium, the rest of the chassis is made out of steel, the knobs feel sturdy, and while the jack sockets are soldered directly onto the PCB, I haven't had any failed or intermittent connections with the three units that I've had. It's also quite well-specified: it's got an expander/gate with variable release time, an auto mode, and a limiter. The feature that I was most impressed, however, was the failsafe relay operation meaning that if something goes wrong with the compressor, the audio still gets passed through, which is something even some much more expensive and revered units can't boast, and which, together with the reliability that I have experienced, makes the Composer perfectly viable for less demanding live tasks."

"The main reason why the Composer can't take centre stage either in live or in studio work is, to put it bluntly, its second-rate sonic performance. Neither the MDX 2000 nor the 2100 are able to cope with signals that either have strong transients or a lot of bass, let alone those combining the two, e.g. kick drums. Given its reputation, some people wouldn't use it on anything, but I felt that with a bit of care, it was very transparent on vocals and acoustic guitar, though it has to be said that the Really Nice Compressor comfortably outperforms it on both as soon as ratios beyond 5:1 are required. Still, the price difference between the two is significant and if you need several channels of non-critical compression, you might appreciate what the Composer can do for you at some 20 euros per channel (and it does dual mono, which the RNC doesn't)."

"In fact, the MDX 2000 is rather better at dual mono operation since there is a documented but rarely mentioned bug in its stereo link implementation. The problem is that the left channel truly is the master channel, not only for the controls but also for the internal sidechain. In other words, the right-channel signal doesn't affect the compression at all, which is a serious oversight that can be downright dangerous under unpredictable circumstances. You could be having deafening amounts of feedback on the right channel but as long as the left channel wasn't affected, the MDX 2000 wouldn't act upon it. The only way to get around this is to sacrifice an aux send to do a mix of both channels and use it as the external sidechain control, which is obviously a bit of a bummer."

"The MDX 2100 isn't without design flaws, either. For some reason, its headroom is significantly lower than the MDX 2000's, which means that even with the limiter turned off completely, it will use the compression circuit to auto-limit the incoming signal. There is no way to prevent this, not even with switching to external keying, which should in theory completely divorce the program from the control path. I tested this when I was trying to use the MDX 2100 as a bass ducker to make some room for the kick, but instead, it began to compress the bass. When I switched back to the MDX 2000, the problem was gone (and yes, I checked the -10/+4 input setting)."

"The feature speaking strongest in favour of the Behringer Composer today is the price. They rarely sell for over 50 Euros, and if you know what you're getting them for, you can't really do much better than that. The old Composers can definitely match the Samsons, the Phonics, the Alesis 3630, and Behringer's own later offerings, and even surpass them in certain regards, such as transparency."

If the MDX2100 has a design flaw that compromises it's ability to duck a bass to make room for a kick drum... then I'm leaning MDX2000 too.

All I'm doing is keyword searching in Google. Quotation marks for the words you want specified, minus for the ones you want omitted.

Take the compliment, Tom! :D

Here’s my current verdict: since Daft Punk did not officially become Daft Punk until 1993 and the MDX2000 seems to have been phased out by then, it’s most likely the MDX2100. The bottom right photo in Exhibit A is dated 1996 and Exhibit B is dated 1999.

They were in bands before Daft Punk, so either of them could have brought some gear into the picture well before forming. I mean all those old Roland boxes were already 10 years discontinued when they started. They knew how to buy used gear, for sure :)

Mr. Holtz, welcome to the thread. Thank you!

I gotta say, those old archival image sites and the # of old Behringer docs you've wrangled into this thread is incredible and much appreciated.

Jim, your deep knowledge on dynamics processing, and your usual generosity in helping me with this crazy quest is essential and much appreciated as well.

Cheers to you both for showing all visitors what is so great about this site. :)

Maybe there's a shot of their first studio in that Showtime documentary from a few years ago?

they look exactly the same unless you really zoom in

you're right... #@$%

I still can't guess what these guys used for comrpessors

We're down to 2 extremely similar Behringer Composer models of the early '90s. There's no guessing to do. Someone else reading this forum has to come forward with some new information... that's all there is to it.*

Maybe there's a shot of their first studio in that Showtime documentary from a few years ago?

I mean, also, it's not like Guy-Manuel and Thomas are dead. They still have homes here LA as far as I know. The information still exists, and it's close... we just can't get to it...

*We can always just give up, flip a coin, and log it as either the 2000 or 2100 and let it live with a yellow "need more info" tag for the rest of its life... but I'm not ready to give up yet.

from back then, haven't touched one since 2001 I would guess... its no 8bus and no onyx.... but the parts in a mixer are unlikely to degrade apart from the pots..... power supply caps maybe, but it usually takes longer than 20 to 25 years, we're just getting into failure turf on a piece that's been used irregularly now, but it could only be an improvement..... the CR series sure isn't a mix wizard or crest X rack... I would even take an alesis multimix over a CR, I feel like me and a buddy pounded one of these mackies with a bat once when it acted up but it mighta been a diamond studiomaster or something.... these mixers were directly responsible for my interest in 80s soundcrafts, after the ramsa something like a CR sounded so painfully bad even though it had a lot of headroom comparatively and rackability is convenient.... A&H and Crest rack mixers were even more money than the soundcraft 200b back then and the 200b sounds a distinct cut above in a relatively small form factor.

Good to know. I recently plugged in my old Spirit Folio Notepad from like '00 and it sounded like warm garbage... no way it sounded that awful 20 years ago. I wonder what is about to give out on that little thing? Anyway, great info and thank you.

I honestly was bleaching my hair back then and got bored waiting and washed it out at streaky van gough orange and that was my trademark for like 5 years because once you do that you need to press forward with it until you're ready for a pink mohawk

This was the way back then, yes. The @&$#y bleach job that left most people orange was the gateway... then you'd try the crayola red, blue or purple. Good times.

wow, they actually made that music with a mackie CR series, beats a VLZ, but wow guys, hats off, those are some brittle mixers, headroom for days but brittle shrill top end.

Is that your recollection of the CR series from back in the 90s, or your opinion based on recent hands-on? The reason I ask is that, you know, @#$% degrades over time, and none of the reviews of the original 1202 from 1992 make that observation... I trust your evaluation either way, just curious.

whoa, the atari shirt and the leather jacket, I looked just like that circa 99 but with orange hair instead of a frog mask, I ahd no diea I looked like daftpunk

I believe they were trying to look as anonymous as possible, Detroit-Techno-style. I think everyone under 25 in 1996 had that Atari shirt, I'm pretty sure I did too. I also had the orange hair, but no manic-panic required in my case. XD

wow, they actually made that music with a mackie CR series, beats a VLZ, but wow guys, hats off, those are some brittle mixers, headroom for days but brittle shrill top end.

whoa, the atari shirt and the leather jacket, I looked just like that circa 99 but with orange hair instead of a frog mask, I ahd no diea I looked like daftpunk

Timeline:

• 1992: Behringer MDX-2000 released
• 1993: Soma receives first demo tapes from Daft Punk
• 1994: Behringer MDX-2100 released
• 1995: Da Funk/Rollin' & Scratchin' single released

It's one of those two for sure...

*Note: I can't find a hard date on when the 2100 hit the market, but the v2.2 User manual is dated 1994.

I don't think their cheapie compressors are doing what you're thinking.... I'm fairly certain they're being used as duckers via the sidechain inputs

If they're only handling the sidechain ducking, and actual great/classic dynamics processors were used to fatten the final product... well, that would make a lot of sense ;)

this was PEAK of the loudness wars and that record was winning until Death Magnetic.....

Homework came out the same year as Face/Off -- think about that -- it was a good year for being 100% committed (to the extreme!!!!) to your concept.

In 2021, there are subtler ways to make your point, while still sounding good on the dance floor, but someone had to take it all the way in that direction in 1997... for the good of humankind.

It’s the XL.

really? the 'good one' that Ithink doesn't sound good? well none of them sound good

The crazy thing is that Homework is the album that opened my eyes to how important dynamics processing was in dance music. I remember hearing the album for the first time in a tiny college-adjacent record store in early 1997, and it just pummeled me. It sounded so "full" (for lack of a better vocabulary/understanding) at the time. I remember ripping the CD to a .wav file and looking at it in SoundForge later that year, and relative to the indie rock and trip/hip hop in my little CD collection at the time, the waveform just looked like a big fat solid bar... so I start reading books, magazines, horrible 1997 Geocities websites... "oh! that's what a compressor can do!"... Up to that point, I only thought of a compressor as something an individual musician used to even out the dynamics on their bass guitar or their twangy country telecaster slide guitar tone.

It's funny to me that the compressors they used to achieve most of that were the models you'd get if you'd walked into a Guitar Center at the time and asked for the cheapest stereo dynamics processors they had.

I'm sure Mastering Engineer Nilesh Patel used a bevy of much more high-end gear to bring that album to it's final form, but still...

It’s the XL.

The MDX 2600 XL?

lyrics: every day gets worse, every bat to the face is vampire's curse

yeah they punned that

I'm totally feeling it too

we're gonna need a SC link when this is finished.

PS: this drawmer 1974 mastering EQ is a fairly new piece and its just so great, fab filter pales... we're still getting to know eachother

I wish you booth a joyous honeymoon! :D

I haven't printed it once on the band I'm doing right now I just really like it LOL.... its not a problem solver on this joint but I keep patching it in places to enjoy it in pre fader listen on overheads where its not needed, it giveth as it taketh away butnot very punk rock at all

Sounding great is SO NOT punk rock, Jim! You're blowing it!

I'm stuck on the 2k to 2.1k either is possible but I lean towards the 2000 I think, I may have ahd one of those too but if I did it was indistguishable sonically from the one I have now.... mediocre to tepid is hard to hear... its certainly one of the 2 just given the date

I'll keep searching. There's gotta be something out there that lets us nail this case closed.

PS: this drawmer 1974 mastering EQ is a fairly new piece and its just so great, fab filter pales... we're still getting to know eachother

I wish you booth a joyous honeymoon! :D

I've no need for a hardware compressor, let alone a cheap one that's 25 years old.

AH! NO NO NO, AH!

one of my 1176es just saved the snare day earlier in a way software can't so... NO NO NO

these words mean nothing! your words mean nothing in this order!

Ha! I was in the middle of editing my edit when you sent this. Didn't mean to imply that nobody has a need for a good hardware compressor, just not me... I have enough gear I'm not using at the moment. Carry on with your gorgeous hardware dynamics processing collection, please!

Would you agree that given the timing, and the image in Exhibit A, it's either the MDX2000 or the MDX2100?

EDIT: and no, form my own needs, I wouldn't even bother with the 3630 in the year 2021, this is purely for the archives.

I have both of those LOL, I'm still not daft punk, maybe you have to be french

Story of my life! :)

Do you think the MDX2100 is the model they most-likely used?

You heard that right: in addition to the infamous Alesis 3630, Daft Punk used a Behringer rack compressor during the Homework recording/touring era.

Exhibit A:

https://images.equipboard.com/uploads/source/image/62883/7Tx7Fmq.jpg

Exhibit B:

https://i.redd.it/te31d8kbt2e11.jpg

note: Behringer's line of rack compressors were/are named "Composers".

Now here's the problem: exactly which model did they use?

A Gearslutz user claims it's the MDX2100, and this model was available in 1996, and might even match the fuzzy rack image in Exhibit A, but this Gearslutz forum post is hearsay as far as this court is concerned.

How do we nail this one down and get these last pieces of Daft Punk gear into the Equipboard DB?

Anyone have any ideas/leads?

UPDATE: 4/4/21

Thanks to the dedication and talent of EBers eyeseeofficial, jimmarchi1, and finleygomez, we've identified the Behringer in question and are 3 items away from completing both lists!

All of Exhibit A has been fully identified and added to the Equipboard database.

Only 3 items remain from Exhibit B:

Macintosh:

-- There are too many models that could run Emagic MicroLogic, we need more source info

Behringer Parametric EQ:

-- Could be the PEQ305 (circa 1989/90) or the PEQ2000 (circa 1994/95)

Yamaha Digital Delay

-- Could be the D1500 rack (circa 1984), the D5000 rack (circa 1994), the DDS-20M pedal (circa 1988), or the DD-100 pedal (circa 1996?)

I'm curious about the removing/replacing gear images too. About half a year ago I was unable to do this successfully, in that I'd execute the swap/update, and the image would then appear corrupt for everyone. It didn't matter what browser or image type I used. Then item images on the entire site when screwy for awhile, and disappeared in many contexts. I haven't checked-in on where things are at lately. I'd love to be able to get back to improving item images, but kinda got scared off from it.

Does anyone on the inside have any technical updates on this front?

Also, per pofm's inquiries, have the new IQ thresholds been posted for what privileges open up at what IQ milestones?

but it takes very little effort to have the opinion that XYZ modern budget priced DSP box is an alternative (and a loosely implied good alternative) to some $10k piece of hardware you've never actually had hands-on with, and incentivizing that opinion with the same # of points as adding one of the first 5 pieces of gear to an artist, something that is entirely fact-based and requires time-consuming links to evidence, felt imbalanced to me.

I need to explain some of my linkings now that you bring this up.... we have the explanation section and my comment should have been "uses same VCA" or " exact same bassman w/EL34 circuit as plexi" etc etc.... I've been doing compression linkings by detection/reduction type, VCA chip, peak vs RMS or both.... assuming people know this stuff. Like a dbx VCA versus a valley and THAT corp dbx VCAs versus in house 70s and 80s ones which actually sound better, I'm still gob smacked. At least in 160s.

I'm not worried about any of your recommendations, Jim. If there were a way to calculate a user's credibility within the community, you'd top the charts.

But in theory someone could run around and link the plugin emulations to every piece of gear out there whether they all get close to the mark or not, you know? Just for the points. And that's a shame to me... I'm just going to leave this here, talk amongst yourselves

Yeah, this is exactly what worried me, it's that "Similar Sounding Item" option + the lack of any direct way to just label something as the clone or emulation that it is. I guess "budget alternative" could fit, but that feels more like something you'd use to recommend a Squier Classic Vibe as an alternative to a Custom Shop '62 Reissue or a real vintage Fender.

OK, thanks for confirming.

I confirmed all of your spots, as they were all correct & impressively complete.

So can you do it now, with 898 points?

This doesn't really improve the site, but it would be cool to add a "joined on" date to user profiles.

I support Clifford's right to flex on all the newcomers :)

If this were a profile option, those that don't want to admit to themselves (and the world) how long they've been at this could keep things private. ;)

The answer is kind of ambiguous. I think the reason is it really depends on the quality of the content you are adding.

I know it's hard to account for quality in this type of gamification. Whether an ugly layup barely bounces into the hoop or someone pulls off a perfect 360 windmill slam dunk: both are worth the same 2 points. :)

At the risk of sounding like the teacher's pet, I DO strive to only add things that are true to my own tastes and experience, that also add value (and hopefully) uniqueness to this site and community that I love. I know a lot of contributors here have the same aims, which is one of the reasons we keep coming back. The points game will always be someone else's to win/dominate, but the design of the game itself is really interesting to me... and I do want to make sure any of the little moments I spend adding content here are is as aligned as possible with where EB's creators want things to go. Swimming with the current tends to be the more enjoyable experience. :)

Right now, those crosslinks may not look that important, but as we improve categorization, add tagging features, and open the site up more and more to input, we see a lot of potential in using that data to actually really help people in their gear selection.

I 100% understand the need to x-link the entries, and to crowdsource as much of that as possible. X-linking helps those new to the MI world understand all that is out there, and keeps users clicking and engaged, and it could eventually have profound business upsides for the commercial aspects of this site, something I'm already on record as being 100% in favor of... but it takes very little effort to have the opinion that XYZ modern budget priced DSP box is an alternative (and a loosely implied good alternative) to some $10k piece of hardware you've never actually had hands-on with, and incentivizing that opinion with the same # of points as adding one of the first 5 pieces of gear to an artist, something that is entirely fact-based and requires time-consuming links to evidence, felt imbalanced to me. I'm here because this is a uniquely evidenced-based community where I get to make contributions towards an internet resource with longterm value. I've spent the last 20+ years awash in sites full of the internet's opinions on what piece of gear or software sounds similar to/as good as some other thing, EB was/is a refreshing alternative to that endless opinion and speculation... inviting a flood of that well-established aspect of online gear culture, by offering a strong points incentive, felt like a regression away from what drew me here in the first place. X-linking gear is a necessary next step for the experience, it's just painful to see it so prominent in the gear-page experience without a means to up/down vote or comment upon people's various personal opinions and suggested pairings. I know this will change. And in the meantime, I'll get over it. :)

That said, I can appreciate that the biggest land-grabs in 1st-phase(s) of EB's database are well behind us. There isn't going to be a ton of new gear for the next 5,000 new users to add to the most popular artists as far as field spotting goes... you're a pigeon fighting over crumbs if you want to contribute to a wildly popular artist... so I get that there needs to be a steady stream of new activities for we users to dive into, because the picked-over/table-scraps feeling can demotivate new and existing users alike. The pace you guys roll out these new activities has been commendable.

Anyway, what do you think? We're definitely open to feedback and suggestions.

I appreciate your reply and your openness to feedback, Michael. Thank you.

I gave myself a few days to live with the points-system changes before opening my mouth. The changes make a lot more sense than the old system, relative to what EB is today.

The one thing that stands out to me re: the new changes, is that there is a big points upside for having your gear rated "correct", which is great, but there is no incentive for anyone to take the time to review your entries. I've spent a lot of time here reviewing other people's entries to try and help them avoid that demotivating feeling that your submissions just fell down a hole... but the fact remains that only 189 of my 538 submissions have been reviewed. What do you think about adding a small incentive for being the first to review* someone's submission? If it was a point or a few points for the act of reviewing, regardless of whether you rated it correct or not, would that be sufficient to avoid abuse?

*first to review post-edits. e.g. potentially points to one user for rating "needs improvement" and points (to potentially a different user) for being first to rate "correct" after poster makes necessary changes.

1. Not yet, but they will be soon. We're going to be rolling out an updated Gear IQ system soon. It's long overdue!

Looks like gear recommendations are worth 10 points now?

... So I could now get like a thousand points in a few hours by linking together all the knock-off products to the originals, and the originals to the knock offs... and the knock offs to other knock offs?

Asking non-rhetorically: are these gear recommendations/x-links a more valuable activity for me to be spending time on vs. adding new artists and adding gear to those artists? If so, I will keep that in mind going forward.

One other cool improvement would be a direct messaging system here in forum or in general equipboard to contact other users (to avoid spam regular ignore options or so are obvious)

I'll second this

I’m don’t know if there is a way to directly send messages to other users or mods like you. If there is - please let me know how.

There isn't, so we use the forum, and notes sections of submissions to send messages and thank yous to each other. If there was a private message system here at Equipboard, would you use it? I know I would.

Having to subvert the purpose of the submission notes or reach out to someone on another social media platform just to discuss Equipboard business has always felt kind of odd to me.

10-4, I will check out some archives. Thank you!

All the Dunkin' Donuts within 500mi of me were all built in the last 4 years... so how do I stream your show?

What are the checks and balances in the system?

Great question PK. Recommendations are in Pending review status until a mod or admin approves them. Pending ones will appear in the slider/carousel after approved ones.

nice :)

We purposefully didn't want to over-engineer the checks and balances at least initially. They will likely need to get more sophisticated as more people use this feature and it takes shape.

100% understand re: not over-engineering until you see how it plays out with users. If moderators have the ability to remove anything that's unhelpful to the greater good, that's good enough for me.

yeah, peeps be recommending some non-related shit out in the interwebs, its weird

this, exactly.

1. Not yet, but they will be soon. We're going to be rolling out an updated Gear IQ system soon. It's long overdue!

Glad to hear this!!!!

1. Mods can delete for the time being. However, this is just the initial phase of this feature. Eventually, we want voting, tagging, etc which will make recommendations more useful and will dilute any bad data.

That's what I was hoping to hear :) You can't stop users from making head-scratching recommendations, but upvoting/favoring the ones that the community agrees with most would be great.

I like it!

2 Questions:

1. Are these recommendations incentivized with IQ points?

2. What are the checks and balances in the system? E.g.: what's to stop someone from going through and recommending 15 different Squier Strat models as similar-sounding to every Custom Shop Strat already in the database?... that user wouldn't be wrong in doing so, but how useful that is is perhaps questionable.

Congrats on shipping another cool enhancement!