Behind The Mixer

Learn Church Audio Artistry | Church Sound

Topics: , , ,

Have you ever looked at something and thought, “Either this is the greatest thing since refried beans or it’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen?” The new Behringer WING digital mixer, with touchscreen, enables the user to add tags (“vocal”, “guitar”, etc.) to each channel and thereby instantly assign a channel to a DCA or mute group – cool feature, right?. While this is very cool, at the same time, the mixer lacks a dedicated main output fader – not cool.

The makers of the popular X32 mixer have released a new console, the WING. Behringer claims it’s a mixer 30 years in the making. Currently, it’s only available for pre-sale. Today, I cover the important questions you might have about the mixer and the one huge workflow change with the WING.

All About the Inputs.

Traditionally, input configuration on a digital mixer consists of picking a mixer channel, assigning the input, and editing the settings of that channel. The WING takes a different approach in that everything is at the input level. Let me ‘splain.

On the WING, pick the input, assign it to a channel, and then makes your channel settings, When you save those settings, they are saved at the input level, not the channel level. The idea is the user can configure the mixer however they want. Maybe they want channel 12 to be vocal 1 and someone else wants it to be guitar 1. When the other person is mixing, they can easily change things around. 

I’m not exactly sure on how all of this plays out as I’m curious how it deals with duplicating channels such as for different effects on each channel (wet/dry mixing for a guitar for example).

Wing channel settings

 

The problem with this feature is…

We shouldn’t be changing the channel layouts on a personal basis. There is a standard method to optimal channel assignments on a mixer for good reason, both for workflow and for ease of use between people. 

Do I think the WING input-centric design is useful? Maybe. I think it should be used to build out a mix, not personalize workflow. For example, it would be great for duplicating channels for fancy effects work.

I’m not dismissing the input-centric idea completely. I just don’t think we should be changing around the channel inputs based on user preferences. I do think it gives us the ability to be more creative.

Your Top Seven Questions

  1. How much is it?
  2. How many channels does it have?
  3. Is Elvis still alive?
  4. Does it replace the X32?
  5. Can it really compete with mixers in the $5k-$9k range?
  6. How does it sound?
  7. Should I buy it?

Before answering those questions, FYI, you can read all about the specs on the product page here on Behringer’s web site.

Also, you can watch a 20-minute overview of the mixer, watch the below video. Ignore the second cameraman that occasionally shows up on the right edge of the screen. (Really? They couldn’t fix that in post?)

 

Answering Your WING Questions

  1. How much?

The current street price is $3,499 for this mixer with 24 Motorized Faders, 8 MIDAS Pro Preamps, 28 Stereo Buses, 16 Stereo Digital FX Processors, 64-track Dual-SD Recorder/Player, Ethernet Connectivity, Remote I/O Connectivity, Touchscreen, and Expansion Port. It’s able to handle up to five effects per channel and do complete custom source-to-channel mapping. You do need digital stage boxes.

Per Behringer, the processing power is 4x to 5x that of the X32.

  1. How many channels does it have?

The mixer is a bit funky with channels. It has 48 stereo channels (40 x channel, 8 x aux) but here’s the thing, every channel can be stereo, mono, or mid-side. Assign a stereo source to any channel and it’s automatically rendered as a channel in stereo, and the stereo imager stage provides control over width from 150% stereo down to mono.

Definition of Mid/Side Mixing

Mid/Side processing works by breaking apart a stereo signal into two components. The ‘Mid’ channel contains the information in both left and right channels – more of a sum. It’s the Mono signal, if you will. The ‘Side’ channel contains all the information that differs between the left and right channels.

If you want to learn more on mid-side mixing, check out this article on Isotope:

  1. Is Elvis still alive?

 

  1. Does it replace the X32?

NO! Behringer says it’s keeping the X32 series. A quick look at the facts: the X32 does a lot at a $2,499 price-point and it’s been a huge seller for Behringer. The WING, by contrast, does so much more, contains so much more, and is going after the mixers in the $5k-$9k market (my opinion). And just to be clear, Behringer says it’s NOT using the WING to replace the X32.

  1. Can it compete with mixers like the Allen & Heath SQ-series?

Yes and no. If I have the budget to get a mixer like the Allen & Heath SQ-series, then I’m going to get an SQ-series mixer instead of the Behringer. 

Check out all the details on the Behringer WING and you’ll see it offers more than anything in its price-range. However, we are in an age of digital emulators. For example…

“The WING Premium FX rack boasts 8 true-stereo processors including spectacular emulations of some of the industry’s most revered reverbs, original TC VSS3 algorithms, along with Lexicon, Quantec and EMT emulations. “

 

I would like to think these emulators sound great. However, I’m reminded of an old piece of rack gear that sits in my closet. It’s a guitar effects processor and it sounded good when I used it…20 years ago. But I guarantee my old processor doesn’t sound modern by today’s standards. I’m not saying the WING effects will sound dated but it does mean we need to listen closely to the quality of such emulators between mixers when evaluating any mixer.

 And that leads me to…

  1. How does it sound?

I have no idea. According to a marketing video done by Sweetwater, it sounds amazing. And of course, they were probably running pristine amps and house speakers…haha. The mixer is available for pre-sale so until it’s released, I can’t honestly say. I will say that since Behringer purchased MIDAS a number of years ago, I’m not surprised this mixer has come to light. The X32 has been great for them but they’ve needed to expand the Behringer mixer line.

 Also, since they own MIDAS, they aren’t going to create a mixer that sounds as great as one of their MIDAS consoles, otherwise they would be competing with their own business. While I don’t expect it to sound as good, I do see it being competitive. Frankly, there’s too much competition to manufacture something with a noticeably subpar sound.

  1. Should I buy it?

The $3,499 question.

First my opinions on the mixer, even though I confess to not yet testing it.

The WING console does just about everything a church audio tech would want including easy routing. I think Behringer recognized that a modern digital console is, at its heart, a huge computer. For that reason, I think they built it from the perspective of using a tablet computer where the user can easily navigate around and have a host of options available with only a few taps of the finger. From what I’ve seen in demo videos, I do really like the user interface. Plus, you can angle the display as you desire.

 

It does have a unique two-screen system in that there’s the large primary screen but then there’s a second small screen in the upper right of the console that’s channel-specific. Therefore you work on two things at once or put your money channel (lead vocals) there or use it however you want. The best part is with the press of a button in the smaller section, the main screen can become the primary screen for that channel where you have a lot more mixing options over the basic EQ controls. They claim it also makes it easy for two people to mix at the same time…but who does that?

Early Complaints

I’ve seen a good amount of complaints from people that come down to four items. 

  1. Appearance. The biggest complaint is that it looks like a lighting desk or it has a very dated appearance. Personal, I don’t care. We all wear black anyway so who are we to talk trash about appearance? My wife said I have too many black t-shirts and need to expand my colors. So now I’m wearing a lot of dark grays. I believe her exact words were, “That’s not what I meant.”
  2. Sample rate. It doesn’t use a 96K sample rate. Instead, it’s 44k and 48k. From an insider, “AES50 at 96 kHz cuts the channel count in half. Many of us prefer the larger channel count to the higher clock rate. Of course they could have gone to a different protocol. But that would mean that the investment in the stageboxes, etc. would be made obsolete.”
  3. Dante integration. You can use Dante, but only if you get the Dante card. At this price point, that shouldn’t be a surprise.
  4. Brand. And of course people complain that it’s a Behringer mixer. Let’s remember that Behringer bought Midas. 

I still haven’t answered the question, I know. So here’s my short answer and then I’ll give you the longer one.

Short answer:

Yes, if it meets your needs and your budget limit…with one condition. I’d wait six months for them to work out any bugs once it starts shipping. Digital mixers are software and anything that’s made for the first time, despite the amount of QA testing, is bound to have a few problems. 

Is it volunteer-friendly for those with little to no experience on a digital console? No, but volunteers must be trained to use whatever mixer your church has to create a great sound. This is a mixer that, while it fits into the budget category, can easily be “too much mixer” for a given team.

My long answer:

Pick a mixer brand or model and I’ll show you both lovers and haters. I run a high-end console and I know people who don’t like it and people who love it. Who is right? The more I think about it, the more I think about cars.

The first time I rode in a Kia, I was in the back seat of the earliest and cheapest model they built. I thought the doors were going to fall off as we drove down the street. That was 20 years ago. Last week, I saw the 2019 Kia Stinger. I’d love to own that, or so I thought. Then I saw the badge on the trunk, “Kia.” And my immediate thought was, great car, too bad it’s a Kia. But I know people who have, and love, their Kia’s from the Optima to the latest Sportage. I also know the brand now isn’t the brand it was twenty years ago.

So, along comes this wiz-bang mixer with all the configurability I’d want, with a ton of features – minus the dedicated master fader (grrrr), and I think it looks great until I see the word “Behringer.” It’s Kia all over again.

Those emulators I mentioned? Guitarists have been using amp and effects emulators for how long? And of course console companies are doing the same. The question is only, “How good do they sound.” 

The customization of the WING enables me to configure it to my liking, including fader banks and setting up my own dedicated fader for the master fader. It appears to have most everything I want. If I had been using an X32 for a number of years and wanted more from my mixer but didn’t have a big budget, I’d opt for the WING. If I had experienced techs who could handle a mixer with this level of detail but didn’t have a big budget, I’d opt for the WING.

Only time will tell how the Behringer WING holds up to other mixers. If I was in the sub-$4k budget for a mixer, I’d consider it. Mixers like the SQ7 by Allen & Health aren’t too much more at $4999 – with about a $1.5k difference but once you add in those thousand-dollar-a-pop digital stage boxes, you can easily tack on substantially more, depending on the number of boxes you add.

It’s all about weighing the pros and cons and…your budget.

Reader Interactions

Thought? Questions? Comments?

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Comments

  1. When I first learned about the “Wing” I just thought “I have to have it”. Now my excitement has normalised and now can look a bit deeper into this ………… 8 Inputs? 8? I need at least 10 for drums. 8? Just not enough. I don’t want to add extras. I just want a Wing with 16 inputs? Like I have now with my aged Firestudio’s daisied up. 8? Nope.

    Reply

  2. I’m curious how it compares to the Midas M32, A&H SQ series. I was looking at the pricing and it really isn’t that cheap given the few inputs it offers. If I pair it with a midas 32 channel stage box i’m looking at the same price as an SQ7 and about £700 more than an M32. The Midas is really the cheaper option but how does it compare feature wise?

    Reply

  3. I think the Wing will be a great option for those long-time X32 churches that would love to upgrade without having to spend an additional $4k on upgrading peripherals like stage boxes or communication protocols. Fairly certain my church- that purchased 2-X32s a few years ago for video and FOH because of low cost of two digital mixers, digital communication, and stageboxes- would rather spend $3499 and purchase an additional stage box to handle local inputs than to purchase a $5-10k console with Dante and stage boxes.

    The ‘source’ way of thinking may actually be the correct way of thinking on digital mixers. On the X32, if you want to assign ‘channel 10’ to ‘channel `19’, nothing of channel 10 transfers to 19 except gain. Maybe I’m wrong, but it looks like more info than just gain will transfer on the Wing. At any rate, the thought process of assigning ‘sources’ to channels is helpful. The old way of thinking of ‘inputs’ and ‘channels’ was confusing to me.

    Reply

    • ” On the X32, if you want to assign ‘channel 10’ to ‘channel `19’, nothing of channel 10 transfers to 19 except gain”
      Technically that isn’t transferred either. It is just accessible to the channel strip screen. The actual control still resides at the input level (in OSC protocol, gain and phantom are stored using the /headamp commands).

      “it looks like more info than just gain will transfer on the Wing”.
      On the Wing, both inputs and channels now have scribble strip data (name, color, icon) which can be transferred from one to another (by clicking on the double arrows). The gain and phantom remains at the input level, but accessible on both the input and channel strip screens.

      Reply

  4. At the Moment there are really some problems with software, but I´m sure the behringer team will fix that soon. I see a golden future for the WING. We have to remember that the X32 console was also sold for over 3000 bugs in 2012/13.

    Reply

    • Thanks for seeing it that way. Yes the Wing is like the X32 back in 2012 when it was first released. Those were the good ol’ days when firmware releases were a monthly occurrence. I was actually surprised that they released/shipped the Wing so soon, particularly with the lack of editor and mixing apps.

      Reply

  5. “…..the mixer lacks a dedicated main output fader – not cool”
    actually I think forcing a dedicated “main fader” at this point of console technology is silly. Main Fader of what? L/R buss? What if you’re running L/C/R with subs feeding from an aux? What if front fills are running on a matrix feed? A fixed L/R fader is going to adjust your stereo mains and nothing else. What good is a L/R fader if the console is doing monitor duty running a rack of wireless IEMs? Since the Wing allows (as X32 never did) the ability to put whatever channel, output, matrix, DCA where ever you want on custom layers …… just assign a DCA to all the house output signals, name it PA and you have something far superior to the antiquated L/R Main Fader.

    Reply

    • I don’t agree. At all. However many Matrixes you might have running, a dedicated go-to-and-never-fail master fader is absolutely essential to my job as an FOH mixer. I do mix on Digico SD12’s, SD9’s and other consoles that don’t have one… and well… I miss it. I want it.. for when the band is just that tad too loud or too soft all of a sudden… and by the time you’ve found your bank of matrixes, my right index finger will already have done its job. There just ain’t no replacing that sweet master fader my friend.

      Reply

      • “….by the time you’ve found your bank of matrixes, my right index finger will already have done its job.”

        And if I had a dime for everytime I’ve found a X32 running L/C/R with it’s MONO center master pulled out of calibration w/ the MAIN (not to mention the AUX fed subs forcing a sliding “crossover freq” since they’re not tracking the MAIN which is being used as a volume control when it isn’t).

        If it’s critical to have a PA volume available to the user at all times then assign a DCA to the same slot on all layers. However, wasting a fader that permanently stays attached to the L/R buss prevents it from being used for something else for situations where L/R control makes no sense. They’re all virtual controls and they’re limited in number- let the user decide how to allocate them (as Wing does).

        Reply

      • I’d rather have a DCA controlling the house output. A DCA can give single-fader control of a main bus, buses, matrix bank, or whatever sends signal to the house. Even at my church, where there is a single main bus, I still use a DCA. At church, if the channel inputs are properly gain staged, and there’s a full band’s worth of inputs to mix, the main fader must be well below -18 dBFS for a comfortable listening level in the house (or else all the channel faders must be well below -18 dBFS, which is way worse). Using a DCA for the house level I can keep the main level down where it needs to be, and still mix with the house level fader near the -18 dBFS mark. If the band is too loud or too soft all of a sudden, not only can I reach for that single fader to deal with the sudden level change, but I have more fader range. Plus, if the level change is just a dynamic of the song the band is playing, I can just put the fader back at -18 dBFS and achieve exactly the house level I had earlier in the song.

        Reply

  6. Not only does the Wing have a dedicated main output fader, it has 4 dedicated main output faders. one per main output buses.

    Reply

  7. Great overview, Chris. I feel like the price point is a bit deceptive due to the limited physical I/O. In most church settings, the cost of stage boxes will need to be factored into the initial cost of the WING. By the time you’ve done that, you’re closer to the price point of some of the other consoles you’ve mentioned here. Of course, the exception is those who’ve already invested in the Behringer/Midas ecosystem. But for those who are upgrading and already have analog runs, $3500 won’t get you a drop-in replacement.

    Reply

    • The ‘drop-in’ factor is why we didn’t go with Allen Heath GLD systems back in 2016. There were few low-cost options then for users that needed more than 4 or 8 local inputs. The stage boxes added too much to the cost.

      Reply

  9. OK so this bit about separate input and channel is nothing new, my A&H iLive does it. Except Wing has it back to front unless I read you wrong. Having all processing on channel allows me to have multiple users on the same input but different processing on each. Example, 5 singers on 5 microphones each set for the individual. Next set, 5 new singers using same microphones but at the push of a button assigned to 5 different channels set for group 2. Yes your Kia badge thing is relevant, but have Behringer really improved as much as Kia? I have mixed events on A&H SQ and all Behringer’s trinkets won’t take me from SQ’s solid sequential workflow.

    Reply

  10. Interesting stuff. After two and a half years our volunteer staff still struggles with our M32. So……..(with that being said). as cool as the wing looks (is?), you need to have a crew that will dedicate the time to learn how to use it.

    Reply

    • Interesting – some form of learning curve is expected when adjusting to a new mixer, but that degree of ongoing difficulty is surprising. Has there been a large amount of turnover with your tech volunteers, is there a lack of time/material for training, or is it something else?

      Reply

  12. I’m a little confused at your distaste of the “source vs. channel” issue when you later suggest buying an SQ mixer if budget allows. The SQ (actually all A&H Mixers) are based on sources not channels. It’s been around for over a decade and Behringer has always been behind on that aspect (OK…granted the whole buying Midas thing and several others meant this was coming so just hear me out).
    With that said, what I really want to know is did I miss anything about the idea of using sources? My understanding is that you take an input (such as channel 1 of my stage box) and then assign it to a channel strip (such as channel 7 on layer 2 of the WING). So there is no such thing as saving channels, I am saving inputs when I make presets. Right? If that is the case, then it is finally a competitor to the A&H series of consoles that have been doing this for years. If I misunderstand and it doesn’t work like that, then I might side with you and be really upset about the feature. I’m just a little confused at this point. Thoughts?

    Reply

    • I was a bit confused on it myself and had to review their material a number of times. For me, it was more about the distaste for one person mixing on a Sunday with their “prefered” layout and then someone else setting up their own layout the next time. Now we have custom banks with our console and we often make those user-dependent for personal preferences.

      Reply

      • Gotcha. Yeah on some of the boards I’ve used in various church settings we had custom layers, but I have preferred the GLD, iLive, and SQ setups where everything is always customizable. In that sense, I’m excited for the WING. On the other hand, I’ll admit that the X32 is straightforward and I don’t ever need to worry about it getting messed up!

        Reply

      • Yes, I immediately looked at this and thought ‘SQ’ and ‘M32’ and even X32R + iPad. I had hoped the smaller channel count would mean lower cost, rather than redundant on board pres + stage boxes so I’m surprised they didn’t make a motorised control surface for use with the X/M32 R boxes ?! That would offer more modular flexibility like the Presonus RM series and potentially serviced those of us who want a flexible system for live use and recording. I just can’t see why I’d want to buy this. It’s too expensive, and doesn’t, imho, fill a need. If the MR32 recorded at 96k as we all had hoped it would, I would buy it but I think I’ll go SQ. Disappointed.

        Reply

      • “assign it to a channel, and then makes your channel settings, When you save those settings, they are saved at the input level, not the channel level. ”

        This is misleading. I havent read anything that would imply what you are saying is true. Did I miss something?

        Inputs are defined with their own settings (input gain, phantom power, mono /stereo, color, icon, name, tags) and then when you navigate to a channel you can select the channels input by name / tag, rather than having to think about what physical numbered input its plugged into. When I assign “kick” to channel 1 and make changes to that channel. I am changing channel settings not input settings.

        Reply

        • Kevin, your understanding is correct. Input settings are stored in the input level and the channel settings are stored in the channel level. If you want to see how that is done, save the snapshot to a USB stick and have a look at the (ASCII) file using a text editor. The only thing the input level influences the functionality of the channel level is the mode (mono, stereo, M/S). The mode can only be assigned at the input level. When the input(s) are assigned to the channel strip, it directly affects the functionality of that channel.

          Reply

      • It’s bit more novel than merely allowing you to assign a source on whatever fader you want (ie custom layers). My understanding is the source is defined prior to any patching into the channels on the Wing. This is one of the more confusing aspects of getting digital consoles patched correctly- especially when multiple stageboxes are hanging off the console. From what I can tell they’re going with more of a Dante type naming system where say you plug in “GUEST WL” into stagebox 3 channel 4, you actually name it. (this can be done remotely by stage crew via tablet apparently) When it’s time to select an input source for Wing’s CH 24, instead of using a spreadsheet to figure out what AES50 3:04 actually has plugged into it …. you simply skim down the source list find “GUEST WL” and patch it. It doesn’t matter if the stagehand plugged it into AES50 3:06 … the person patching FOH doesn’t even need to get a patch list from the stage. The greater the number of unassigned sources that are plugged into stageboxes the more powerful this naming convention is.

        Reply

        • “My understanding is the source is defined prior to any patching into the channels on the Wing”
          That is the better workflow for the Wing, as I have learned. Coming from the XM32 world, I first setup the channels first, assigning inputs, then defining the inputs. I quickly learned that this approach was “bass-ackwards”. But it can be done this way.

          The tablet app for the input configuration is currently in beta testing and hopefully will be released shortly.

          Reply

          • “XM32 world, I first setup the channels first, assigning inputs, then defining the inputs. I quickly learned that this approach was “bass-ackwards”.”

            It would be interesting to know if the naming of input sources is really just a form of alias (ie the console still sees and addresses stagebox inputs such as AES50 3:06, while the user sees a friendly name such as GUEST WL), or the console is actually using, as Dante does, the naming convention to make patches.

            The reason this is significant is it affects how a visiting engineer’s console config loaded into a Wing would manage a pre-patched stage of multiple stageboxes that would be encountered in a festival situation.

            My suspicion is it’s only an alias renaming of the source input.

            While there would be some powerful advantages to the system patching from name only, confusion would abound for less knowledgable users when changing an input name would break existing patch routing.

          • Oddly, it wouldn’t allow me to reply to your response Ronne. So I had to reply to mine.

            The actual routing index (which links the channel to the assigned source) is separate from the name. If the patching of the inputs is complete by the stage staff and a guest engineer comes in, he/she is free to assign these inputs to channels as he/she sees fit. During that assignment, the input scribble strip info can be copied to the channel’s scribble strip if desired (by clicking on the double arrow icon) – or the engineer may choose to setup the scribble strip differently. The underlying code (which is not OSC by the way) has separate data for both the source and the channel, including the name. Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

  13. Why wouldn’t a person in this price range simply get a Presonus StudioLive 32 s3 mixer? I know they might have gotten a bad rap with the Ai series and being slow to respond to market changes after the X32 arrived, but with 32 motorized faders, the ability to use Waves Plugins Live, and a very user friendly console interface, seems like a no-brainer.

    Reply

    • @Mike, because the Presonus is a decent board, but it’s still behind as far as IO and processing goes. Price point with what’s included and utilizing Midas stage boxes instead of Behringer is comparable, but there’s more processing built-in. Having owned a Wing for almost a year, I’d never give it up for Presonus build quality.

      Reply