Using a Behringer P16-Hq for studio HP monitoring

[solaris]

Hello there, I am building a studio and I would like to have 5 separate headphone channels for the musicians. I was thinking of using a Tascam MH-8 and a multicore. Now I am considering to use 5 Behringer P16-Hq and the Behringer Powerplay P16-I.
Has anyone any experience with this setup in a recording studio?
Do you think that the quality of the sound (quality of the HP amp) will be equal to the Tascam MH-8?

Thank you?

[resistorman]

I haven't used these particular setups, but I've used plenty of Behringer and Tascam devices and their headphone amps are both fine. It, as they say, is not rocket science. The flexibility of the Behringer setup is far superior in any case.

[Wonks]

And I'd suggest that as long as it sounds OK to the performers and it's loud enough and not distorting, ultimate quality doesn't matter too much when tracking.

When mixing on headphones, yes, you really need the best quality you can afford. But when tracking the performers will worry more about the relative mix levels more in the phones than whether there's a possible slight dip at 3.5kHz from flat.

[The Elf]

A Zoom LiveTrak L-12 would give you 5 headphone outputs built in to the mixer and audio interface. An L-20 would give you 6.

Just a thought...

(I use a Behringer XR18, P-16D and a clutch of P-16Ms for one of my live rigs. I use a Zoom LiveTrak L-12 for another.)

Of course, an RME interface would give you as many headphone sub-mixes as it has outputs, but you'd still need the headphone amp.

[jaminem]

Hi there, I use this setup - albeit with the previous P-16m and not the HQ version.
I guess the answer is (as always) it depends.
The benefit of the P16 system is that each musician gets to setup their own monitor mix, and some people I've worked with have really welcomed this and thus the P16 approach works well, others however NEVER change the balance and therefore its a one shot 'set the volume control' and thats it, at which point a headphone amp with multi outs like the Tascam you are looking at would suffice.

I have to say the biggest issue I have the P16 is that there is no reverb option in it.
Comfort reverb is a really useful thing for singers and it being present on the actual P16m itself would be sooo useful. You can of course get round this - I use an RME interface so I can add reverb into the vocal feed and get round it, but it does seem like a missed opportunity given that Behringer create low cost FX units - it doesn't feel like a massive leap to include it.

I think the other thing to consider is how you're going to actually use it. I have 2 use case scenario's and 2 setups for each. first is multiple musicians recording at once - in this application I use total mix to send instruments to different outputs, so vocals channel 1, bass 2, guitars 3/4, drums 5/6, everything else 7/8. I use an ADAT out from the RME that connects to the ADAT in of the P-16i - its super convenient that, just one short optical cable and you're done.

The other use case is vocals only from a pre recorded mix - in this scenario, I setup monitor busses in the control room of cubase and send them to the RME's ADAT out - this way you get the separation of types of tracks as above, bass, guitar, drums, keys etc. BUT I still use total mix for the vocal, to avoid latency.

So before you take the plunge I would urge you to think about how it would work in your setup, lots of things are possible but routing I found, needed some thought.

Finally, if it were me, I wouldn't be tempted to try and save some money by going for the older P-16m mixers. As others have said, quality isn't THAT important on your monitoring system, but the sound quality of the older units is pretty poor IMO. I notice it every time I use it. I'd definitley go for the HQ version.

[solaris]

Thank you everybody. My card is an RME 802. I was thinking to use the two ADAT outs for the Behringer P16-Hq so I have 16 channels. So each musician can do a mix of each own.

I think the other thing to consider is how you're going to actually use it. I have 2 use case scenario's and 2 setups for each. first is multiple musicians recording at once - in this application I use total mix to send instruments to different outputs, so vocals channel 1, bass 2, guitars 3/4, drums 5/6, everything else 7/8. I use an ADAT out from the RME that connects to the ADAT in of the P-16i - its super convenient that, just one short optical cable and you're done.

I have exactly the same setup in my mind. Happy that it works for you.

I think I should go towards this direction. I feel that if I can provide the "make your own mix" in the studio, it is an advantage that justifies the extra cost. What do you guys think? Would you do it if you were making a professional studio from the beginning?

[solaris]

Finally, if it were me, I wouldn't be tempted to try and save some money by going for the older P-16m mixers. As others have said, quality isn't THAT important on your monitoring system, but the sound quality of the older units is pretty poor IMO. I notice it every time I use it. I'd definitley go for the HQ version.

Have you used the HQ version and found it better than the older one?

[The Elf]

I think I should go towards this direction. I feel that if I can provide the "make your own mix" in the studio, it is an advantage that justifies the extra cost. What do you guys think? Would you do it if you were making a professional studio from the beginning?

In the past I did provide 'make your own mix' to artists. Not once was it used. So no, I really wouldn't bother again. When an artist does need a custom mix you will quickly find that they expect *you* to do it anyway.

Your interface gives you the ability to create monitor mixes quickly and easily - all you need to provide is the headphone amps. Personally I'd have a few phones amps that I could distribute around, rather than have them all in one box. Even something as cheap and cheerful as the Behringer HA400 might be enough.

I wouldn't be unduly concerned about audio quality for monitoring.

[jaminem]

Finally, if it were me, I wouldn't be tempted to try and save some money by going for the older P-16m mixers. As others have said, quality isn't THAT important on your monitoring system, but the sound quality of the older units is pretty poor IMO. I notice it every time I use it. I'd definitley go for the HQ version.

Have you used the HQ version and found it better than the older one?

I haven’t, but like I said, the original is pretty poor IMHO, so the new one has to be an improvement right…

[jaminem]

I think I should go towards this direction. I feel that if I can provide the "make your own mix" in the studio, it is an advantage that justifies the extra cost. What do you guys think? Would you do it if you were making a professional studio from the beginning?

In the past I did provide 'make your own mix' to artists. Not once was it used. So no, I really wouldn't bother again. When an artist does need a custom mix you will quickly find that they expect *you* to do it anyway.

Your interface gives you the ability to create monitor mixes quickly and easily - all you need to provide is the headphone amps. Personally I'd have a few phones amps that I could distribute around, rather than have them all in one box. Even something as cheap and cheerful as the Behringer HA400 might be enough.

I wouldn't be unduly concerned about audio quality for monitoring.

Yeah, I would mostly agree with Elf here. It has been used by a few people, but mostly people don’t care….that’s kinda what I was trying to allude to in my initial post.

[solaris]

Thank you very much to all. You were very helpful. I don't know what I will do. I will probably give the "make your own mix' a chance.
I will keep you informed.

Thanx again.