What does this do?

[peter_m]

Anyone know about this: http://www.aphex.com/204.htm

Is it snake oil?

[whoaru99]

I'd guess it changes the sound along the lines it says.

Whether or not it's beneficial, and provides an improvement for you is pretty much your call.

[chrispy35]

I looks like a dynamic range expander (opposite of compressor) similar to DBX products of old. The DBX I played with was highly configurable but it's effect on sound was not for me.

Definitely not snake oil...

Chris P.

[Jack Gilvey]

Oral Exciter? Hmmm...

[Burke Strickland]

This technology that was "Introduced in 1975" must be sensational since "...it originally rented for $30 per recorded minute"... so maybe today's $0.99 per song for a legal download isn't such a bad price after all, huh?

[Martyn]

Oral Exciter? Hmmm...

....with a "Big Bottom"!


In the image processing world, there's an "enhancement" called unsharp-masking. This gives a slightly blurred image an apparent increase in sharpness by drawing fine, contrasting borders around groups of pixels. I suppose the principle is the same as the Old Masters used when they lightened the background around the periphery of a portrait to make it stand out, only applied at a much smaller scale. It can't, of course, produce detail that isn't there to start with, but it can give an illusion of increased sharpness if used judiciously. I'd guess that this product is doing a similar thing (in analagous terms) to an audio signal.

[peter_m]

LOL, since no one really knows what it actually does to achieve the enhancements, then I tend to believe there is nothing there...but smoke an mirrors... might just be me!

[Victor]

It definetely a compressor/expander built around automatic gain control ideas. It is not totally smoke and mirrors, but it is close to it. I can't imagine anybody needing it. What interesting is that the write up says that it uses single-ended circuits, so no DSP here or so it seems. We are clearly in the 1970s with this box. Today this function can be done by a several boxes that Behringer sells for a fraction of the cost with better results.

[David Meek]

Hmmm, I wonder how you'd get "more resonant bass" and at the same time get "tighter bass articulation"? :scratchhead:

[littlesaint]

I have one of these in a recording rack. I would gladly pay 10x more for it than the garbage Behringer makes of the same function. It's used in recording and live performances as an compressor/enhancer. It would probably serve no purpose for any playback of recorded material though.

[joetama]

I have one of these in a recording rack. I would gladly pay 10x more for it than the garbage Behringer makes of the same function. It's used in recording and live performances as an compressor/enhancer. It would probably serve no purpose for any playback of recorded material though.

Indeed. I could see no use in a home setting. Unless it is in a home recording studio.

[Victor]

I have one of these in a recording rack. I would gladly pay 10x more for it than the garbage Behringer makes of the same function. It's used in recording and live performances as an compressor/enhancer. It would probably serve no purpose for any playback of recorded material though.

Hmm..what Behringer garbidge are you refering to?

Compressor/enhancer function is a simple matter with a DSP. Unless this device has some exotic dynamic frequency responce contour that Behringer simply does not make, I can see your point, - otherwise, methinks, it'd be difficult to support your positition on merit.

[Scribblet]

It's in a the same class as a BBE processor. I use and own both in my home studio. I consider it more of a shortcut box. The same effect can be had with a decent expander and parametic eq.

And I echo the sentiments against Behringer as stated above. Comparing Aphex to Behringer is like comparing Classe to Kenwood.

[joetama]

It's in a the same class as a BBE processor. I use and own both in my home studio. I consider it more of an shortcut box. The same effect can be had with a decent expander and parametic eq.

And I echo the sentiments against Behringer as stated above. Comparing Aphex to Behringer is like comparing Classe to Kenwood.

I think that is one of the best ways I have ever heard that put.

[David Meek]

Let's keep "garbage" comments out of this. Comparative comments are fine, but that's not.

HTGuide Administrator

[Victor]

Comparing Aphex to Behringer is like comparing Classe to Kenwood.

I do not think you can support that comment. It seems that you are under impression that Aphex gear is somehow superior. Well, - care to elaborate?

What exactly does Aphex makes or has in its product line that Behringer does not? What makes Aphex better?

As for your Kenwood comment, - naturally Classe is a well-engineered product, but Kenwood no longer serves the home audio market rather concentrating on car audio, so, - you comment is hardly fair.

[littlesaint]

I do not think you can support that comment. It seems that you are under impression that Aphex gear is somehow superior. Well, - care to elaborate?

What exactly does Aphex makes or has in its product line that Behringer does not? What makes Aphex better?

As for your Kenwood comment, - naturally Classe is a well-engineered product, but Kenwood no longer serves the home audio market rather concentrating on car audio, so, - you comment is hardly fair.

My comment wasn't to compare Aphex to Behringer (sorry about the garbage comment ops: ), but simply that the product mentioned is far superior to Behringer products of the same type. Build quality is better, and in my experience, just plain sounds better. There are some things Behringer does reasonably well, but again in my experience, their processors are not up to the Aphex for what it does.

[Scribblet]

I'm not disputing what Behringer currently offers in their product line... that was never in question. What they do they do well which is offer electronics at an affordable price. I've run Behringer gear in the past from EQs to 16 channel boards. They're noisy, have lousy support and are built like you'd expect something at this price point to be.

Additionally, the claims made by BBE and Aphex aren't fictitious. Studios do use, and have used for quite some time, both products. There's a reason for that. Behringer and Aphex are completely different companies, and if for one second anyone believes otherwise then they are simply in the dark about both. That's not an opinion that I feel I need to support.

[iiaudio]

The Behringer units I own sit on the shelf, the Aphex units I own work all the time and make money. I've never seen "Aphex is unacceptable" on a artist rider while on at least 75% of riders I see say that about Behringer (and Mackie).

I'm not saying Behringer doesn't have a place (good stuff for the money) but more often Ahpex units are of better quality.

[Hdale85]

Behringer is great for home use but I've heard bad things about using it in a situation where its moved a lot.

[spyboy]

I have at least one CD that had the Aphex used in it production. I have no idea what exactly the Aphex did. Still, it is nice to see a picture of something I have thought about every once in a while for the past 25 years.

[Victor]

I understand that Behringer stuff does not exactly have a stellar reliability reputation. Although the newer 24-bit electronics is much better in this regard, still it has many problems with things are not always working well. However, the cost of Behringer signal-conditioning boxes is so low that it is a no brainer here, - it is the best bang for money, particularly when electronics works, and it does work most of the time.

To say that Behringer gear is somehow deficient in its ability to deliver pretty much anything that the professional recording studio wants is simply wrong. The signal conditioning algorithms that Behringer uses are the same as anyone else’s with minor variations. One particular note here is absents of FIR filtering which is desirable and other companies have that, - I am not sure if Aphex is one of them. However, it is not a major thing. The compressor/expender functionality of Behringer products is the same as what others use in the industry.

With this in mind, one can achieve the same result with Behringer as you can with Aphex or with any other popular brand names. You need to know what you are doing here.

My scepticism of Aphex comes from their advertising of their products. Here is an example and I quote, -

“…Aural Exciter and Big Bottom are single-ended circuits — no decoding is required…”

What exactly do those circuits do if not decode?

“…The Aural Exciter restores the subtle nuances that are often damaged in the recording process. Its patented Transient Discriminate Harmonics Generator determines which parts of the signal need harmonic enhancement while other "enhancers" do not have this intelligence, making their effect much less musical…”

Comments like this are commonly known as a pseudo-techno-speak or techno-babble. It says nothing of substance, while alluding to magical powers. For the record, one cannot do what this statement says electronically and then verify objectively what has been done.

Furthermore,

“…Also, record your stereo masters, CDs, and car tapes through the Model 204 - they will sound better no matter what the source or where you play them back, this even applies to heavily bit rate reduced audio sources such as MP3 files…”

I see, - so now we are into ‘mine is better then yours’ territory. I fail to see how exactly one can make a comment like this without a shred of evidence presented. However, what evidence can possibly be presented here, - none! This is an example of what is commonly known, as Subjective Advertising, where one can say anything at all without any substantiation and get away with it.

Suffice to say that you will not find comments like this coming from dBx and many others or even, these days, Behringer.

[joetama]

Somebody <3 Behringer. :roll:

opcorn:

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

Thread summary: Users with professional experience prefer the Aphex; users with no professional experience defend the Behringer.

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

[ThomasW]

Users with professional experience prefer the Aphex; users with no professional experience defend the Behringer.

With this attitude it must be a real drag for you having to moderate the BFD forum on HTS...

BTW, I know numerous people with decades of prosound experience that use Behringer in their home sytems. Obviously no one would reccomend them for touring.

[Wayne A. Pflughaupt]

“Summary” means:
“I read the entire thread and this is what I observed.”

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

[ThomasW]

“Summary” means:
“I read the entire thread and this is what I observed.”

Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt

Your 'observation' is an assumption and it's flawed. One of the "users with no professional experience defend the Behringer" who's posting here, used to design power amps for Bryston.

[littlesaint]

Actually, I wouldn't call me a professional by any stretch of the imagination. I just know I've used the Aphex, and I've used similar processors from Behringer, and I believe the Aphex is a much better product in this area. To be honest, when recording these days I prefer to do everything in software on a computer, but if I were performing live, I would use the Aphex.