Behringer A500 Amplifier: Objective Test Results

[WmAx]

When you consider the Outlaw Audio 7125 will deliver more than 125x7 channels WPC into an 8 ohm load and 190x7 channels WPC into a 4 Ohm load (keeping in mind every Outlaw product ever made BEATS its stated spec), comes with a 5 year warranty, and costs about $145 per channel,

You pay a little more for the Outlaw and recieve less potential performance in way of amplification(and it is extremely improbable for it to deliver it's rated specs into all channels driven ) and less versatality. It is always better to have seperate amplifiers that you can insert line level processors/equalizers of your choice into the system instead of relying upon a closed system such as most recievers offer. If this reciever has[unlikely] direct pre-amp/amplifier bypass loops on the back so that one can isolate and insert such things as mentioned above, then it is a draw between the two, except for the actual all channels driven issue, and you can't use the Outlaw in bridged mode(which comes back to the versatality issue). Also, there is the issue that the Behringer is known to be very stabile into very capacitive and inductive loads; which ensures a rock solid amplifier under any condition or load.

-Chris

 

[craigsub]

You pay a little more for the Outlaw and recieve less potential performance in way of amplification(and it is extremely improbable for it to deliver it's rated specs into all channels driven ) and less versatality. It is always better to have seperate amplifiers that you can insert line level processors/equalizers of your choice into the system instead of relying upon a closed system such as most recievers offer. If this reciever has[unlikely] direct pre-amp/amplifier bypass loops on the back so that one can isolate and insert such things as mentioned above, then it is a draw between the two, except for the actual all channels driven issue, slightly higer price, and you can't use the Outlaw in bridged mode(which comes back to the versatality issue).

-Chris

Chris, The Outlaw 770, rated at 300 WPC into 4 ohms, delivered 347 WPC, all channels driven. This is clearly well in excess of the rated 300 WPC x 7 channels into 4 ohms. This power was also limited by the current available from the wall. I have NEVER seen an Outlaw test in which the unit in question did not deliver more than its rated power, all channels driven.

I have no doubts that the 7125 will deliver in excess of 125 Watts x 7 channels @ 8 ohms and over 190 @ 4 ohms.

If you need more power, the Outlaw 770 costs $1799. It would take 7 bridged Behringers to achieve 440 WPC x 7 channels @ 1% THD, or 360 Watts from the Behringer with .05% THD.

In the real world, 440 watts with 1% THD is no more powerful than 347 Watts with 0.1% THD - There is less than one dB difference.

Yes, one can get 7 of the Behringers for $1260, vs. the Outlaw 770 for $1798.

Yes one can get 4 Behringers for $720, vs. the Outlaw 7125 for $999.

However, the Behringer's one year warranty vs. the Outlaw's 5 years also speaks volumes. The Behringer warranty is to the original purchaser only. The Outlaw warranty covers the product for 5 years.

In a system, it is doubtful one would hear any difference between the above amplifiers. If I was seeking over 300 WPC into a 4 Ohm load, I would go with the Outlaw, knowing it would still be performing 5 years from now. With the Behringer amps, based on my experience, count on replacing a couple before the 5 years is up. There is nothing wrong with someone purchasing the Behringer amps - just be certain you know the risks involved.

Food for thought.

 

[WmAx]

Chris, The Outlaw 770, rated at 300 WPC into 4 ohms, delivered 347 WPC, all channels driven. This is clearly well in excess of the rated 300 WPC x 7 channels into 4 ohms. This power was also limited by the current available from the wall. I have NEVER seen an Outlaw test in which the unit in question did not deliver more than its rated power, all channels driven.

Thank you for the information. I did verify this at Ulitmat Av Magazine, and I apologize. It is unusual for such power supplies to be included in a multi-channel amplifier. Kudos to Outlaw!

However, the Behringer's one year warranty vs. the Outlaw's 5 years also speaks volumes. The Behringer warranty is to the original purchaser only. The Outlaw warranty covers the product for 5 years.

Yes, warranty is a consideration, weight of which is dependant on personal preference(s) vs. the other factors involved. The Behringer being lower price in this case, so what is the weight of the longer warranty worth in this case to the user(that is the question that must be answered) that wants multi channel high power amplification?

With the Behringer amps, based on my experience, count on replacing a couple before the 5 years is up. There is nothing wrong with someone purchasing the Behringer amps - just be certain you know the risks involved.

Food for thought.

You have tested a Behringer A500 and replaced a couple before 5 years was up?

If you are referring to vintage Behringer, then it is a well known fact that 5 years ago Behringer did not make the type of high value equipment they offer today, and they had severe quality control issues. I won't debate that. But in the past 5 years they have turned the company around in all respects, including buying their own factory in China instead of outsourcing manufacturing(which was the cause of the QC problems). The image of Behringer as a low quality manufacturer has some historical validity, but is not a supported by their current new generation(as opposed to legacy) products.

-Chris

 

[craigsub]

You have tested a Behringer A500 and replaced a couple before 5 years was up?

LOL ... Of course I have not done so. It may be that the Behringer IS the same level of quality that the Outlaw is, but Outlaw tells you in writing you will get 5 years of no-cost repairs, where Behringer tells you one year.

We need Behringer to step up to a 5 year warranty.

By the way, thanks for being reasonable. So many guys get WAY too twisted up over this stuff ...

 

[buckyg4]

If you are referring to vintage Behringer, then it is a well known fact that 5 years ago Behringer did not make the type of high value equipment they offer today, and they had severe quality control issues. I won't debate that. But in the past 5 years they have turned the company around in all respects, including buying their own factory in China instead of outsourcing manufacturing(which was the cause of the QC problems). The image of Behringer as a low quality manufacturer has some historical validity, but is not a supported by their current new generation(as opposed to legacy) products.

-Chris

I can't speak for the amps, but Behringer mixer and interfaces are crap and are not used in pro studios. They are inexpensive, which makes them attractive, but there is a reason why. I've worked in 3 recording studios and Behringer equipment is not used at all due to quality issues. The industry should really have a minimum 5 year warranty. Maybe this amp will be different, unfortuanely it is not useable to me due to the low input impedance, shame because it is a good price.

 

[WmAx]

I can't speak for the amps, but Behringer mixer and interfaces are crap and are not used in pro studios. They are inexpensive, which makes them attractive, but there is a reason why. I've worked in 3 recording studios and Behringer equipment is not used at all due to quality issues. The industry should really have a minimum 5 year warranty. Maybe this amp will be different, unfortuanely it is not useable to me due to the low input impedance, shame because it is a good price.

You should be more specific. Your accusations are broad, and don't mean anything at this point due to this reason.(What quality issues? The ones from the legacy gear? That is history, not current day.) BTW, I have used some of the Behringer modern generation UB series mixers: they lack nothing in audio performance and operate very quietly. Also, these modern generation units are built using high quality Alps switches and pots, as to remain reasonably durable. Maybe interface is not top notch, but that is another matter apart from audio performance.

BTW, because something may or may not be used by a professional recording studio is not in itself a valid form of verification. Professional studios produce plenty of low quality(clipped, over-compressed, uneven frequency response, etc.) recordings even when it's a big-name production with a big budget in a mega-dollar studio. I mean, it's still standard to use microphones with a non-linear response in recording studios. The microphone: the single most important part since it is capturing the original event. No regard for fidelity there.

-Chris

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

When I saw that review, I thought "if I'd known about those, I might not have built my amps!"

But if I ever decide I need a sub or two...

 

[mtrycrafts]

To be fair, Behringer, about 5 years ago, was *fairly* rated as not being so great. They used to have a lot of quality control problems and other functional quirks about their hardware. However, a few years back, they turned the company around. Today I don't know of any other company that offers the general quality of equipment for anywhere near the value of Behringer so far as price is concerned, at least among their new generation products(they still have a few old generation products still in production).

-Chris

At $180 for that amp, it has turned into a disposable commodity product, a great one at that
I doubt you can say that about a $15K SET amp, LOL

 

[mtrycrafts]

and costs about $145 per channel, The Outlaw, to me, is a better value. .

Well, the Behringer is about $180/ch in bridged mode and puts out super power, Wmax will jump in as I forgot the bridged power but it is around 300watts? And, 5 or 7 of these will drive all channels driven to 300watts per ch. So, for those who like more power the better, that is hard to beat, I think.

 

[craigsub]

Well, the Behringer is about $180/ch in bridged mode and puts out super power, Wmax will jump in as I forgot the bridged power but it is around 300watts? And, 5 or 7 of these will drive all channels driven to 300watts per ch. So, for those who like more power the better, that is hard to beat, I think.

We covered this earlier. Look up a few posts ...

 

[craigsub]

If you really want to go with a pro audio amp, look at Crown. The XLS-402A is a beast, and runs $329 with a 6 year warranty special.

The specs :

Stereo Mode Power Rating: 8 ohms: 260 watts, 4 ohms: 400 watts, 2 ohms: 570 watts

Bridged Mono Power Rating: 8 ohms: 800 watts

Housed in rugged, all-steel 2-space (3.5"h) chassis

Efficient forced air fan to prevent excessive thermal buildup

Front panel controls: precision detented level controls, power switch and four LEDs, which indicate clip for each channel, power and fault conditions

Selectable high-pass filter (30Hz/15Hz/Off) on each channel enables the amplifier to work more efficiently when not being used with full-range cabinets or subwoofers

Built-in limiter protection

For $165 per channel, and 400 watts into 4 ohms, this is a great choice in pro amps. I still prefer something like the Outlaw, but this is a solid amp.

 

[buckyg4]

I mentioned the use in recording because that is what a good portion of Behringer products are geared to, I have no comment regarding your thoughts of recording methods, maybe you should give a specific recording.

In terms of quality, you are right I should be more specific, in terms of current [Behringer products I have used the top of the line power, analog and DJ mixers. Its not that the sound quality is bad, because its better than anything else in the same price range (well anything else in the price range is a prosumer product) its just the product is not durable, you will get a broken knob here and a broken motor there and this is within 6 months of use. Behringer has no problem taking the products back and replacing them, but smaller studios can't afford to have equipment in the shop. Their guitar amps are decent sound quality and reliable for studio and live use. I have listened to their studio montiors, and I could do without them. I guess if you were on a small budget in a home studio it may be worth it, but if you have more money you would be much better off spending more money.

You should be more specific. Your accusations are broad, and don't mean anything at this point due to this reason.(What quality issues? The ones from the legacy gear? That is history, not current day.) BTW, I have used some of the Behringer modern generation UB series mixers: they lack nothing in audio performance and operate very quietly. Also, these modern generation units are built using high quality Alps switches and pots, as to remain reasonably durable. Maybe interface is not top notch, but that is another matter apart from audio performance.

BTW, because something may or may not be used by a professional recording studio is not in itself a valid form of verification. Professional studios produce plenty of low quality(clipped, over-compressed, uneven frequency response, etc.) recordings even when it's a big-name production with a big budget in a mega-dollar studio. I mean, it's still standard to use microphones with a non-linear response in recording studios. The microphone: the single most important part since it is capturing the original event. No regard for fidelity there.

-Chris

 

[MacManNM]

Chris, The Outlaw 770, rated at 300 WPC into 4 ohms, delivered 347 WPC, all channels driven. This is clearly well in excess of the rated 300 WPC x 7 channels into 4 ohms. This power was also limited by the current available from the wall. I have NEVER seen an Outlaw test in which the unit in question did not deliver more than its rated power, all channels driven.

QUOTE]

This cannot be correct. All channels driven 347w/ch x 7ch= 2429 watts.

Standard outlets are 115VAC and 15 amps, that is only 1725watts.

Even assuming the outlet was 130VAC, and 20 amps, the power supply would have to be 94% efficient. Not possible. This was not measured properly. 347 with 2 channels driven is believable.

 

[WmAx]

Standard outlets are 115VAC and 15 amps, that is only 1725watts.

Even assuming the outlet was 130VAC, and 20 amps, the power supply would have to be 94% efficient. Not possible. This was not measured properly. 347 with 2 channels driven is believable.

I believe craigsub is referring to the AV MAGAZINE measurements, which were performed using a special high current regulated supply; not real-world conditions.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

(well anything else in the price range is a prosumer product) its just the product is not durable, you will get a broken knob here and a broken motor there and this is within 6 months of use. Behringer has no problem taking the products back and replacing them, but smaller studios can't afford to have equipment in the shop.

I can only comment on the UB(their most recent) series, which I have inspected and used. I can not see how the construction on these would yeild to higher than average failure.

-Chris

 

[MacManNM]

I believe craigsub is referring to the AV MAGAZINE measurements, which were performed using a special high current regulated supply; not real-world conditions.

-Chris

If that is the case, then that is a totally worthless test. There is nothing you can compare that spec to, unless you perform the same test with all amps. Even then it doesn't really hold much water.

 

[WmAx]

If that is the case, then that is a totally worthless test. There is nothing you can compare that spec to, unless you perform the same test with all amps. Even then it doesn't really hold much water.

It's worthless from a point of view of what can be achieved from real-world use. But it's valid in determining the raw limits of the amplifier, all other factors removed. The problem occurs when people(probably most people) do not realize the relevance of the experimental condition(s), which may lead them to erroneous conclusion(s). It is a bit odd that they would test under this condition, however, since this is supposed to be test results for consumers to use as a reference. Personally, if I was a magazine reviewer, I would use a special power supply to get reference measurements, but it would not be as was used by AV Magazine. I think that a special power supply that is designed to act like an average 15 amp or 20 amp house circuit, with a typical output impedance and voltage chracteristics that are repeatable, would be useful.

-Chris

 

[furrycute]

Isnt' it standard procedure to rate most amps into 8 ohms at 1 khz?

300 watts/channel into 4 ohms means it is 150 watts/channel into 8 ohms. Not very impressive.

A good amplifier doubles its power output when going from 8 ohm loads to 4 ohm loads.

 

[MacManNM]

It's worthless from a point of view of what can be achieved from real-world use. But it's valid in determining the raw limits of the amplifier, all other factors removed. The problem occurs when people(probably most people) do not realize the relevance of the experimental condition(s), which may lead them to erroneous conclusion(s). It is a bit odd that they would test under this condition, however, since this is supposed to be test results for consumers to use as a reference. Personally, if I was a magazine reviewer, I would use a special power supply to get reference measurements, but it would not be as was used by AV Magazine. I think that a special power supply that is designed to act like an average 15 amp or 20 amp house circuit, with a typical output impedance and voltage chracteristics that are repeatable, would be useful.

-Chris

Agreed, that would be usefull. I guess they must have wanted the outlaw to look better.

 

[WmAx]

Isnt' it standard procedure to rate most amps into 8 ohms at 1 khz?

300 watts/channel into 4 ohms means it is 150 watts/channel into 8 ohms. Not very impressive.

A good amplifier doubles its power output when going from 8 ohm loads to 4 ohm loads.

Which amp are you referring?

BTW, a 'good' amplifier does not have to double it's maximum output power into half the load. In fact, nearly all amplifiers(regardless of price) will not actually double their maximum output power.

-Chris