From: Denny Conn on
Peter Gutmann wrote:

> Waht is it you people have with those Behringer things?
> Bad quality, bad reliability...
> Are you telling me to go for Behringer EQs instead of the M2600?

No offense intended here, but if that's your opinion, you need to look
again. You owe it to yourself. Personally, I'd happily use the
Behringer over the Tascam.


--------->Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
From: Bob Howes on

"Peter Gutmann" <guti(a)sbox.tugraz.at> wrote in message
news:7180f$45365713$54739685$32735(a)news.chello.at...
> NEXT TIME:
> Write an answer like this:
> I have read, studied and understood the service manual of the M2600.
> Although I have not done modifications myself to any of those consoles, in
> my opinion it is too much of an effort, so you might consider looking at
> alternatives.(Although it might be tempting to use it live, considering
> the EQs, for example)

There's nothing at all special about the Tascam EQs. Tascam make low end,
semi-pro stuff and the M2600 II is ten year old technology.

Add me to the list of people who'd choose a modern Behringer over an ancient
Tascam design.

Bob


From: Peter Gutmann on
Well, maybe I'll trash it then...

Thanks for your opinions
Peter


From: TimPerry on
Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Well, maybe I'll trash it then...
>
> Thanks for your opinions
> Peter

i have been using a split snake with separate mixers for monitor mix. it has
the advantage of EQ controls and you can readily adjust the input trim on
FOH without worrying about what its going to do to the mon mix.

sometimes you can even let the artists trim their own monitors to taste...

the mon mix can be much smaller as a band usully only wants vocals in the
mons.


From: Phildo on

"Peter Gutmann" <guti(a)sbox.tugraz.at> wrote in message
news:7f902$45373c37$54739685$21125(a)news.chello.at...
> Well, maybe I'll trash it then...

Exactly what I told you several posts ago but you were too arrogant to
listen.

Phildo