Behringer 369 compressor/limiter review - What's new at Behringer?

We’ve been waiting for this one! Behringer had been talking about it for over a year, and we were beginning not to believe it, and yet, here it is at last! The Nev…oops…sorry…Behringer 369 is finally available, and it’s with some impatience that we’re throwing ourselves at this copy of the legendary compressor.

But before the sonic revelry, a little bit of background.

Origins and design of the Behringer 369 against the Neve 33609

Behringer

Behringer is a German brand whose credo in recent years has been to produce synthesizer clones, effects pedals, and the like, all largely inspired by other, often highly reputable products, at a significantly lower cost. Like brands such as Warm Audio, Audioscape, and Stam Audio, Behringer has also turned its attention to the world of sound recording, developing compressors and preamps that bear a strong resemblance to iconic products from companies like Universal Audio and Neve. Today, we’re going to take a look at the Behringer 369, which draws its inspiration from the famous Neve 33609, a legendary compressor/limiter.

The 33609? What is it?

Originally developed as an internal compression module for consoles, the Neve 33609 evolved during the '70s into an external compressor in a 19-inch (rackmount) format. Since then, several versions have been released, each with various technical modifications. Let’s mention a few of them (in chronological order) :

• The first version, nicknamed “Metal Knobs”, which remains one of the most coveted, often for sky-high prices
• The  “33609/C” version, with, among other things, modified output transformers
• A “Japanese” version (the 33609 J) followed by a “discreet Japanese” version (the 33 609 J/D)
• Until the very latest version named 33609/N, from the same series as the preamplifiers 1073N. This newest version stands out from its predecessors by the addition of an attack time switch, allowing modulation between a fast attack (3 ms) or a slower one (6 ms, and with reduced sensitivity to frequencies below 100 Hz)

What are the differences between the Behringer 369 and the Neve 33609?

The Behringer 369 offers a design resembles the Neve 33609, both aesthetically and feature-wise. We find the limiter and compressor sections (both independent, with threshold, release, and attack settings for each, plus a ratio and gain for the compressor) and those two large rectangular meters, so easily identifiable by their distinctive vintage look.

With the attack control on the compressor section and the various Control/Bypass/Mono/Stereo switches on the right-hand side, everything suggests that the 369 is inspired mainly by the latest version of the 33609 (the 33609/N). The only notable differences are:

• The In/Out activation switch and the Bypass switch are both reversed compared to the original (In up, Bypass down)
• The Behringer features Midas transformers as compared to the Marinair transformers used by Neve.

For the more curious, the “Control” function allows you to take control of the compressor via an external remote control, as seen here with the Behringer WING, which is then plugged into the back of the compressor via Sub-D.

Manufacturing quality of the Behringer 369: first impressions

Out of the box, the new Behringer is more than promising. Although the rack depth has been halved, the machine remains relatively heavy, which, coupled with the design so close to the original, quickly inspires a certain confidence. The desire to play with it only grows. That is, until that fateful moment when I turn one of the potentiometers, which at first seems a little loose, before literally snapping off and sticking in my hand. Gee, did I do something wrong? Has my puny little body finally developed oversized muscles? Let’s try it out with a second pot, which in turn breaks after only two small rotational movements. Wow! How to lose all credibility in a matter of seconds!

However, the unit is neither a prototype nor a demonstration copy, but a brand-new machine straight out of its original box, which says a lot about the quality of the materials used and what Behringer saves money on! Fortunately, only the cap is broken, while the pot remains operational. The cap, on the other hand, can’t be screwed back on, as it’s made of molded plastic (and of rather poor quality). Clearly a far cry from Neve’s famous metal knobs! If the same misadventure happens to you, you’ll then have to arm yourself with pliers to turn the damaged potentiometer, which, let’s face it, is far less practical.

Comparative audio tests: Behringer 369, Neve 33609 and UAD plugin

But let’s get past this big disappointment and see if the unit is up to the task, audio-wise. To test the Behringer compressor, we had some fun putting it up against the Universal Audio plugin version and, above all, as you might have guessed, against a real Neve 33609, in this case a 33609/JD.

Electronic battery tests: comparing the three compressors

The first test features a TR808 loop in mono. Right away, the 369 and 33609 beef up the signal and give it more life. The Neve cleans up the lower end of the spectrum with a nice attack and a more exciting “snappy” side, while the 609 keeps a more consistent low end, offering a slightly less nervous sound, but one that almost sounds fuller. The UAD plugin, meanwhile, fares rather well, slightly recalling the color of the Neve with a rendering that’s nevertheless a little less 3D.

Extracts 01: threshold 0, release 100, ratio 2:1, gain 0 and attack slow

The three compression colors are relatively close. However, the low/mid/high balance is far from identical depending on the compressor used, which complicates comparative listening. To clarify all this, let’s see how each reacts to the separate elements (always with the same settings).

So, whether on kick, clap or snare, the UAD is definitely a little duller than its competitors. The 33609 is drier and more energetic, with very good management of the well-packed low and midrange. The Behringer 369, with its less clear-cut compression at the bottom of the spectrum, delivers a less compact sound, but one that seems infinitely broader and more open. Could this be a repeat of the 33609/N’s characteristic of being less responsive to low frequencies in the “Slow” position? The manual doesn’t mention this, and switching to “Fast Attack” doesn’t appear to alter the 369's frequency sensitivity.

A third test with a stereo loop only confirms these feelings. It’s important to note that the attack of the 33609/JD is fixed at around 5 ms, whereas that of the 609 is 3 ms (fast) or 6 ms (slow). This inevitably accentuates the differences between the two machines.

Extracts 05: threshold 0, release a2, gain +2, ratio 1.5:1 and attack slow

Tests on acoustic drums: naturalness and musicality

On acoustic drums, the results are just as convincing. Neve and Behringer are both equally qualitative, each with a more personal color (the Neve sounds quite cemented, the Behringer a little deeper in the lower midrange) that will be just as effective in a mix. Stereo management is handled perfectly, and compression remains natural in both cases, resulting in a much more musical sound than with the plugin.

Extracts 06: threshold 0, release 100, gain +2, ratio 2:1 and attack slow

On a rockier drum kit, we had fun engaging the limiter and playing with the Behringer’s release. We deliberately left the level differences to hear more effectively how its compression acts, especially on the first drum hits whose impact evolves with the release time (sometimes more successfully than others!). Once again, the 369 reacts very well and proves that it can apply enormous compression for a result that’s always quite musical. Of course, it has no desire to reproduce the aggressive behavior of an 1176: you can make it pump, but never as violently as the Urei classic.

.

During this test, it was literally impossible to get the Neve’s limiter to react as strongly as the Behringer’s, which, after discussion with the studio’s maintenance engineer, seems to be due to a slight problem with the threshold potentiometer inherent in the machine’s age (which is understandable). We have therefore refrained from providing you with all the corresponding files, as the compression obtained is really not comparable.

Extracts 07: compressor: threshold 0, release 100, gain +2, ratio 4:1 and attack slow

Extract 07e: ditto + add limit threshold +4, release 50 and attack slow

Extract 07f: idem with release at 100

Extract 07 g: ditto with release at 200

Extract 07 h: idem with release at 800

Extract 07i: idem with release at a 1

Extract 07j: ditto with release at a 2

Bass and guitar treatment: efficiency and character

On the bass, the Behringer is very pleasant and effective, with a nice presence at the bottom and a slight dip in the lower midrange, resulting in a more modern, less typical sound than the Neve. The impact of the attack time parameter is striking, with two very distinct results. A fast attack delivers a more direct, impactful compression, while a slow attack delivers a livelier, yet controlled sound. As the 33609 has a fixed attack, a single audio extract was produced.

Extracts 08 b and 08c: threshold +10, release 100, gain +2, ratio 4:1 and attack fast

Extracts 08d, 08e and 08f : threshold +10, release 100, gain +2, ratio 4:1 and attack slow

On both acoustic and electric guitars, the three compressors offer three distinct balances, frequency-wise. As with bass, the 369 opens up the signal more, making it easier for the instrument to stand out in the mix. The Neve is more immediate, more homogeneous, with a dense low midrange and softer highs. The UAD plugin has nothing to be ashamed of, even if it’s still a notch below its two competitors.

Extracts 09: threshold +8, release 400, gain +2, ratio 2:1 and attack slow

Extracts 10: threshold +6, release 400, gain +2, ratio 2:1 and attack slow

Extracts 11: threshold +6, release 400, gain +2, ratio 4 and attack fast

(Warning, still no fast attack with the 33609 JD!)

Voice processing: from jazz to rap, the 369 to the test

Let’s finish the audio tests on voices with various timbres and ranges.

On soft vocals, the 369 works wonderfully, the Behringer perfectly rebalancing small dips in intensity and unifying the signal very well. The sound, however, is slightly less warm than that of the Neve, whose compression is as magical as ever.

On a jazz singer, the 369 sifts out the highs and sibilants, which remain present but with significantly less harshness. Its work on fast transients, on the other hand, is a little more artificial; it would probably have been wiser to set it to Fast for greater effectiveness.

On a folk singer with enormous dynamics, the Behringer does the job perfectly: the compression is very reactive and holds the signal with an iron fist, creating a more uniform rendering. Once again, the three compressors react very differently, with three different sonic directions and three quite distinct sets of compression (of which the Neve’s threshold-limiting concern obviously plays a big part)

Finally, on rap and rock, the Neve outclasses everyone a little with its splendid low midrange (so dear to the brand) and mids ideally sculpted to accentuate the greasiness of the voice, making it fit perfectly into a mix. The Behringer performs just as well, developing a less bass-heavy sound that could be effective in a more modern song (or arrangement) context. It’s also amusing to note the responsiveness of each machine to the percussives of the two singers, with a slightly more marked attack on the part of the Neve.

Extracts 12: threshold 4, release 400, gain +2, ratio 2:1 and attack slow

Extracts 13: threshold 4, release a2, gain +2, ratio 4:1 and attack slow

Extraits 14: compressor: threshold +4, release 100, gain +2, ratio 3:1 and attack slow + Limiter: threshold +14, release 50, attack slow

Extracts 15: threshold –4, release 100, gain +2, ratio 1.5:1 and attack slow

Extracts 16: threshold –4, release 100, gain +2, ratio 2:1 and attack slow