# Behringer pedals



## Edutainment (Jan 29, 2008)

Are Behringer pedals good? I was at Steve's music on Queen W and was surprised to see a bunch for about $20. Are these better or worse than Danelectro pedals?


----------



## Vincent (Nov 24, 2007)

Im not sure if they are any good however you can find demos on you tube or at gearwire...the pedal in the demo below doesnt sound that great to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUj6873ryig&feature=related

overdrive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UteVdAOsquU&feature=related

Delay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmS69mn8MHE&feature=related


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

I picked up a Hellbabe wah and a VD-1 distortion. They actually aren't half bad for the money. I've had worse pedals that I payed alot more for.


----------



## Edutainment (Jan 29, 2008)

I think I'll pick one up next time I'm down town. For that price I figure you can't go wrong.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

they're clones of well-known circuits, much like danos.

i'd be interested in testing some out, i want a decent reverb and delay pedal myself.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Not all clones are created equal, and being a clone doesn't mean it will sound like the original. Even samples of identical pedals may sound different. Clone or not, hearing is believing.

I personally don't care for the Behringer effects I've heard, though they may suit other tastes. However, the cheap preamp/DI pedals they market for bass, and acoustic guitars aren't too bad for light use. Not as sturdy as some, but we really don't intend to abuse stuff anyway. 

Ultimately, we tend to gravitate towards better quality pedals. Whether we evolve through cheaper ones to get there, or go straight to the head of the class is often a factor of economics/affordability/availability or education.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Not all clones are created equal, and being a clone doesn't mean it will sound like the original. Even samples of identical pedals may sound different. Clone or not, hearing is believing.


agreed. some clones surpass the original to some - no cutting corners in the quality of parts.

they seem like a great way to get into hearing what different fx do, especially for $20 a pop - that's cheaper then half the CD's I buy.


----------



## Tarl (Feb 4, 2006)

I bought a Behringer EQ pedal about six months ago. It worked great but was not built too sturdy. Eventually it basically fell apart. I replaced it with a Danolectro Fish N Chips EQ. Cost about twice as much but seems very well made.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Behringer has a reputation for making use of the R&D of other companies. They also make use of cheap Chinese labour. Neither of these are their unique "sin", however Behringer makes a point, and Uli freely admits it, of aiming for the most features for the least money. On that count, they succeed admirably. Of course, features-per-dollar-spent is separate from sonic quality and roadworthiness. While their rackmount stuff is decent enough, the stompboxes do not enjoy a lofty reputation. I have nothing against plastic boxes - I use them myself - but Behringer's can feel cheap and unreliable. They also tend to make some poor choices in components, for whatever reasons. For instance, they make an exact clone of the Boss AC-2. I bought one and immediately had to take it apart because that's my nature. Where the original used decent low-noise op-amps, the Behringer clone uses TL064 quad op-amp chips. These are decent chips, but they trade off current drain for noise. So, a 9v battery will last longer, but at the price of being a generally noisier pedal. Bad move. Particularly for a pedal whose goal is to crank the high end in order to mimic acoustic strings.

On the plus side, Behringer has made a number of long out-of-production Boss pedals available in clone form, such as the DC-2 chorus, the DF-2 Super feedbacker, and the VB-2 Vibrato. These command prohibitive prices on e-nay and in vintage stores, so if a little bit of hiss allows a "regular guy" to buy one for $40-50, so much the better.


----------



## Wheeman (Dec 4, 2007)

mhammer said:


> ... For instance, they make an exact clone of the Boss AC-2. I bought one and immediately had to take it apart because that's my nature. Where the original used decent low-noise op-amps, the Behringer clone uses TL064 quad op-amp chips. These are decent chips, but they trade off current drain for noise. So, a 9v battery will last longer, but at the price of being a generally noisier pedal. Bad move. Particularly for a pedal whose goal is to crank the high end in order to mimic acoustic strings. ...


I have that particular pedal. It was originally going to be scrapped for parts, but the construction and parts weren't too salvageable. 

For what it does by itself is weak, but after distortion of some sort, it has a really cool sound. Its that noise that I like, with an interesting deeping effect.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I tired an octaver this wekend--it had trouble tracking any note higher than an A# on the first string--and many others were hit and miss.

If I get another effect, I'd like an octaver (or an enevelope filter or a blues type distortion to go with the other distortions I have)--the Boss octavers are 3 times the price and noisy. So i'd probably have to get something for that. The Behringer was quieter--but it also didn't double a lot of notes. I left the store effectless.

That doesn't mean I'd not like their other pedals--but I wasn't impressed. 4 of my 6 effects devices are BOSS, so I check them out first.


----------



## Edutainment (Jan 29, 2008)

Does anyone have any experience with any of their reverb pedals?


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

Edutainment said:


> Does anyone have any experience with any of their reverb pedals?


I have the DR100. Sounds are decent. Construction is flimsy. Not just the case but the pots feel really cheap. I find it fine for playing at home but would not gig with it, too afraid it would fall apart.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

zontar said:


> I tired an octaver this wekend--it had trouble tracking any note higher than an A# on the first string--and many others were hit and miss.
> 
> If I get another effect, I'd like an octaver (or an enevelope filter or a blues type distortion to go with the other distortions I have)--the Boss octavers are 3 times the price and noisy. So i'd probably have to get something for that. The Behringer was quieter--but it also didn't double a lot of notes. I left the store effectless.
> 
> That doesn't mean I'd not like their other pedals--but I wasn't impressed. 4 of my 6 effects devices are BOSS, so I check them out first.


Get the Dano Chili Dog. I like it better than the Boss. It's the cheapest pedal on my board and I've never once considered upgrading it. Bought it for $25.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Octave-down pedals, with the exception of digital pedals like the EHX P.O.G. and Mini-P.O.G., tend to be somewhat underdesigned such that:

a) they don't track equivalently across the fingerboard;
b) they don't track all that well even where they do track;
c) they tend to have insufficient control over the tone of the generated divided note.

You can improve the tracking by adjusting the input level appropriately, and compressing or limiting the signal in some manner so that the level stays in "the zone".

Opinions vary, but one of the best analog octave-divider pedals I've heard is the Anderton-designed PAiA Rocktave. One of the things that makes it good is the inclusion of an on-board compander to both maintain a constant level for more reliable tracking and to quickly fade the divided signal out just before it starts to become unstable. For some folks, the instability of an octave divider is an attractive feature. That's one of the reasons why some people love the MXR Blue Box. For others, however, that aren't looking to the pedal to produce the counter-intuitive and unpredictable, that aspect can be a royal pain in the arse.

Virtually every octave-down unit I've ever seen uses a CD4013 flip-flop chip to divide the input note down by 2 or 4 or both. I have one of those old DBX "Boom Box" suboctave generators fro the disco days, and although the circuitry is a great deal more complex than your average stompbox, even *that* uses a 4013 chip to do the actual dirty business. Previous generation units would often use a discrete flip-flop circuit; something very very close to what your Boss pedal uses for switching.

Analog octave-dividers tend to fall into two classes: those that use the output of the divider circuit *directly* (e.g., the MXR Blue Box), and those that use the divider-circuit output to control the properties of the analog audio path, a bit like a sort of "pitch-tracking tremolo" that produces a tremolo at exactly half the pitch of the note you're playing. Users generally find the second type to be smoother-sounding than the first type. Where the flip-flop chip has a *fixed* output level that remains the same (as long as you meet the triggering criteria), using the octave-detection to control the *actual* audio signal permits you to retain more of the dynamic properties of your playing and nuance things.

If you're goal is to play a raunchy solo that can't let up, then you tend to find the first type preferable. If your goal is to use pedal to play a "fake bass", on average you tend to prefer the second type. Not having the schematics for either the Chili Dog or Behringer pedals, I can't tell you what approach each of them takes. Of course, while almost any pedal can be modded to do what you need it to do, both of these pedals use surface-mount construction/parts, which makes modding a little trickier.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Not having the schematics for either the Chili Dog or Behringer pedals, I can't tell you what approach each of them takes. Of course, while almost any pedal can be modded to do what you need it to do, both of these pedals use surface-mount construction/parts, which makes modding a little trickier.


The ChiliDog uses the first method. Not the right pedal to simulate a bass with. Its circuit is very similar to the Boss. What it gives up to it (just slightly) in tracking, it makes up for with a more natural (slightly less synthy) tone.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

LowWatt said:


> The ChiliDog uses the first method. Not the right pedal to simulate a bass with. Its circuit is very similar to the Boss. What it gives up to it (just slightly) in tracking, it makes up for with a more natural (slightly less synthy) tone.


I was looking more in terms of adding some depth to single note riffs or lead fills--not necessarily to simulate bass. Mostly I'd be playing higher notes--the ones the Behringer couldn't track.

But I will test drive a chili dog if I see one. I've seen Dano pedals in a few stores--but never a chili dog. I checked their site--there's a few others I might try.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

zontar said:


> I was looking more in terms of adding some depth to single note riffs or lead fills--not necessarily to simulate bass. Mostly I'd be playing higher notes--the ones the Behringer couldn't track.
> 
> But I will test drive a chili dog if I see one. I've seen Dano pedals in a few stores--but never a chili dog. I checked their site--there's a few others I might try.


Anything above your low A is tracked perfectly on both octaves down. 

Those Danos are great pedals for the most part. The issues aren't with the tone of the effects, just that they aren't too durable and they affect the tone in bypass if you don't have a good buffer in front of them. 

The gems i know of are the rotary speaker, the tremolo, the delays, the octave down, the octave up w/ fuzz.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

LowWatt said:


> Anything above your low A is tracked perfectly on both octaves down.
> 
> Those Danos are great pedals for the most part. The issues aren't with the tone of the effects, just that they aren't too durable and they affect the tone in bypass if you don't have a good buffer in front of them.
> 
> The gems i know of are the rotary speaker, the tremolo, the delays, the octave down, the octave up w/ fuzz.


The octave up w/ fuzz is one I want to try as well.

And what sort of buffer would you be using?


----------



## Edutainment (Jan 29, 2008)

Are those little Dano pedals good? If they're better, I figure I should get one of those instead of the Behringer. They just look a little cheesy


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

I like my Behringer EQ, but it certainly wasn't designed to withstand the wear and tear of touring.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

zontar said:


> The octave up w/ fuzz is one I want to try as well.
> 
> And what sort of buffer would you be using?


The one in my Maxon OD808 does a fine job. A Boss pedal would work as well.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

Edutainment said:


> Are those little Dano pedals good? If they're better, I figure I should get one of those instead of the Behringer. They just look a little cheesy


No question. The Danos kill the Behringers as cheapo pedals. You may want to wait though. Danelectro announced a new line coming out later this year. They are supposed to be the same circuits, but with true bypass and better cases. That would solve the only 2 problems I've ever had with them.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

LowWatt said:


> No question. The Danos kill the Behringers as cheapo pedals. You may want to wait though. Danelectro announced a new line coming out later this year. They are supposed to be the same circuits, but with true bypass and better cases. That would solve the only 2 problems I've ever had with them.


Depends how much more they are, and what you're using them for.
But still worth checking that out later--hopefully not too much later.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

zontar said:


> Depends how much more they are, and what you're using them for.
> But still worth checking that out later--hopefully not too much later.


I can't see anything Dano ever being much. The other side of it is that you might see tonnes of the current ones pop up for sale when regular users upgrade. It would be a good chance to try out the line and see which ones you like. They usually go for $20-25 used and that's ridiculous for the tone you get. The only better deal out there is Old Crow's $25 TS-5 that no one seems to want to buy http://www.guitarscanada.com/Board/showthread.php?p=92482#post92482


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The Danelectro pedals are generally clones of existing "classics" whose copyright has run out. The French Toast IS the Foxx Tone Machine. Their phaser (forget the name) IS a Phase 90, and their compressor IS a Dynacomp. If what you want is the sound, then they provide it. If what you want is the sort of packaging that a touring musician needs, then you need to look elsewhere and spend a little more.

I hear all sorts of pontificating about "true bypass", and people looking askance at Danelectro pedals because they use FET switching. Learn more about when true bypass provides advantage and when it doesn't and *get over it*. If one's concern is about cumulative noise when the pedalboard gets cluttered, buy or make yourself a passive loop selector so you can eliminate all pedal-produced hiss with one foot-press. This applies to Behringer pedals as well. The goal is not to assure all one's pedals are somehow "pure of heart" by having true bypass everywhere like some protecting crucifix over every doorway. Rather, the goal is to reduce hiss potential and cumulative bandwidth loss where there is risk. Lots of ways to do that and still have a full stable of inexpensive but decent-sounding non-TB pedals. Keep your focus on the big picture, not the little details.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

mhammer said:


> The Danelectro pedals are generally clones of existing "classics" whose copyright has run out. The French Toast IS the Foxx Tone Machine. Their phaser (forget the name) IS a Phase 90, and their compressor IS a Dynacomp. If what you want is the sound, then they provide it. If what you want is the sort of packaging that a touring musician needs, then you need to look elsewhere and spend a little more.
> 
> I hear all sorts of pontificating about "true bypass", and people looking askance at Danelectro pedals because they use FET switching. Learn more about when true bypass provides advantage and when it doesn't and *get over it*. If one's concern is about cumulative noise when the pedalboard gets cluttered, buy or make yourself a passive loop selector so you can eliminate all pedal-produced hiss with one foot-press. This applies to Behringer pedals as well. The goal is not to assure all one's pedals are somehow "pure of heart" by having true bypass everywhere like some protecting crucifix over every doorway. Rather, the goal is to reduce hiss potential and cumulative bandwidth loss where there is risk. Lots of ways to do that and still have a full stable of inexpensive but decent-sounding non-TB pedals. Keep your focus on the big picture, not the little details.


Very true. Keep in mind that I'm definitely not someone who cares about true bypass as a necessary feature, but the Danos really flatten out your high end when off if there is no buffer in front of them. Some may be fine with that, but I didn't like the tone with it off and only true bypass pedals (i.e. no good buffer) before it. By adding a pedal with a decent buffer (OD808 or Hot Cake) before my octave, all my problems are solved.


----------

