Are Midas MR18 preamps really different from Behringer XR18 preamps?

[MarkOne]

Wherever I've looked on the web there are opinions regarding the Midas pres being better than the Behringer ones?

But from my searching, there seem to be no clear statements from Midas on the subject (or Behringer for that matter.)

Is the 'Midas Pro' preamp a creation of their marketing department?

I can well believe that they might select some lower noise variants of the op-amp, or even screen them at the factory*

But I could equally believe that somewhere deep in the Midas development team there is in reality only one actual preamp design, that gets reused.

Sort of apropos of this, I once had a long chat with an ex-SSL design engineer regarding preamps (probably the 9000K). He shrugged and told me they got the op-amp manufacturers reference design from the application guide and made that.

* On screening components, one of my first jobs as a wet behind the ears test engineer was to go through a bucket of 10,000 npn transistors and plug each into a little jig that measured their noise floor and if the meter was below the red line I had to put a little dot of white paint on the transistor body. Every Single One. Day in. Day Out.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Impossible to know without comparing the hardware directly, which I haven't done. But the specs appear very similar indeed between the two models, despite using dissimilar measurement parameters.

[Mixedup]

There's a good YT video by Dave Rat comparing the preamps on the X32 desk with those on the MIDAS equivalent; he demonstrates that the MIDAS ones are less noisy.

[resistorman]

You are not going to notice anything in a live situation, and likely not in a recording situation. I've used in xr18 and the mr18 and there really is no difference that I can tell.

[resistorman]

I believe it's just a premium for those that don't want clients to see Behringer on the equipment.

[Sam Spoons]

Who knows? But the X32 preamps are good enough for my modest needs

[Funkyflash5]

I've got the M32 and an S16 and the difference in pre's is very small, the Midas pre's are slightly quieter, but not enough to make the price difference worthwhile on their own. I went with the M32 mostly for the feel of the faders and because I was able to get a deal on it open-box, but for something without physical controls just get whichever is cheaper.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The video that MixedUp mentioned is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKfhsPhZPmM

It's well intentioned, but very hard work to watch and not entirely scientific in its findings...

[Mixedup]

The video that MixedUp mentioned is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKfhsPhZPmM

It's well intentioned, but very hard work to watch and not entirely scientific in its findings...

Hehe... yes, but to be fair (a) he does heavily caveat it as such, and (b) it does reveal some differences.

[ef37a]

I first encountered Behringer pre amps on a BCA2000 AI and was staggered at the low noise levels. The BCA is a bit unusual in that it has a mic gain control AND a fader, much like a mixer.

The BCA2k was in many ways a very advanced design and nothing quite like it has appeared since, certainly not at its price level. It was however deeply flawed. Drivers were crap and reliability worse and it was consigned to the loft years ago.

Next AI was an M-A Fast track pro. Much better drivers but the mic pres were ****! Low in gain and what there was was noisy. Dynamics were a no go except on an amp but it was just about acceptable with a pair of AKG P150s.

Then came the Xenyx 802 with pres as good as the BCA and eventually a ZED 10USB. That had slightly more gain and slightly higher headroom but about the same noise levels, i.e. very low.

Present AI is the NI KA6 which I wish had another 6dB of mic gain but even flat out the amps are very low noise. A brief test with the UMC 204HD showed me the mic pres were no noisier than the KA6 and had a wee bit more gain.

Apart from noise I doubt anyone could tell any of them apart from a sound quality point of view?

Dave.

[shufflebeat]

The video that MixedUp mentioned is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKfhsPhZPmM

It's well intentioned, but very hard work to watch and not entirely scientific in its findings...

Hehe... yes, but to be fair (a) he does heavily caveat it as such, and (b) it does reveal some differences.

I do like Harpo's approach, it's not lab based but neither is the language and that is important to simpletons like myself.

[Dave Rowles]

For me there was a slight difference between the X32 pres and the Midas DL32 pres - which are the same as on the M branded desks. The noise floor change wasn't something I clocked but I did notice that things sounded slightly cleaner which was probably the reduction in noise.

It's really a minor difference though. I only bought the DL32 because I wanted a stage box, and the cost difference wasn't big enough not to go with the slightly better stuff.

I've recently had a band turn up their nose at me having an X32 for a gig, so they went with a different engineer. I wasn't that bothered as the rider made them sound like hard work (which turns out they were). This was for a sub 200 punter gig. So that badge does make a difference....for some people.

[shufflebeat]

Can you really hear that level of b/g noise difference at a live gig outside a gnat-farting gig in a library?

[Dave Rowles]

Yes and no. Depends on the gig, though as alluded to it's probably the colouration of the noise that affected what I heard as a difference.

To be honest I didn't really notice a lowering of noise floor, but now I'm curious, so going to test it out myself to see what real world difference it actually makes.

[Wonks]

It may well make some difference if also recording the gig, or if the mixer is dual purpose and also used for location recording. Probably not noticeable just for live sound.