What is the difference between these two mixers?

Yeah, it's apples and oranges, a little.

The specs aren't quite equal. The 4000 unit is a little more powerful. I see only one onboard graph on the 4000. The channel count is strange the way they list it (or the promo copy is wrong, or they are counting channels differently on the two units (8 mono, 4 stereo on the 4000, 9 mono, 4 stereo on the 2000) . The 4000 has a "feedback eliminator", if you find that handy (and they can be, but they aren't the holy grail of feedback elimination, nor do they claim to be). They mostly do the same thing. The form factor wouldn't concern me at all.

Not sure why they varied the form factor between the two, maybe there was an advantage to the flat-mixer layout on the 4000. And it's odd that only one graph is included with the 4000, but two on the 2000.

If I were in the market for such a unit, I'd probably go with the 4000 because it's more powerful. Both units look perfectly capable for what they are intended. I can't speak to comparing them with other makes, I very seldom use powered mixers, although I own a Yamaha powered mixer for our rehearsal space.

 

Ehh, with a god case for the mixer, I wouldn't say that. Space consideration could come into play and you could use the mixer head version (the 2000) to place CD players or other equipment on top of.

It's really about the features you need in a mixer way more than the form factor. In my opinion, anyway.

 

In a nutshell, yes.

 

Happy to help. Good luck.

 

Not sure if this is what you need and i've only had a quick look at the provided images (not the specs) but
The 4000 has two foldback sends against one for the 2000 (probably not necessary for your use)
The 4000 has gain pots and level faders making it easier to set instruments with differing signal levels. It also has PFL for each channel aiding line checks without undue noise and has mute buttons for each channel. Handy if you need to have one mic for a function MC without having all channels live.
The only thing i can see that the 2000 has over the 4000 is the extra EQ for the monitors but having used gear like this that shouldn't be a deal breaker. I'd probably go for the 4000 for those extra things, and owning a Mackie powered mixer with a similar form factor to the 2000, i do prefer a desk with faders rather than pots.......... except for when some d**khead leans over the desk and spills a drink.

 

the pmp2000 is more for small venues where the band does a set and forget mix,you can easily have it on a table next to a band member who can easily tweak it, ie for when you do your own mix,there is no sound guy. We used to use them in small pub shows, with the desk type,you need a table to set it on,you have to reach over it to do things etc, the amp type you can have it on top of an amp, or on a table with more gear on top like a CD player or lighting desk, it's more compact.

 

GKon - keep in mind that ANY powered mixer limits you to the built-in capabilities of that mixer. A 6-piece band I sub with has the PMP6000 (basically same as 4000 with more inputs) as their primary mixer. They use the main outs to run stage monitors and use the mon 1/2 outs as L/R feeds to an external amp that powers FOH. They do not use subs. This means the main fader on each channel controls the monitor level and mains level is controlled by the rotary knobs for Mon 1 and Mon2. Less than ideal, but they do this because the main outs (800w peak @ 4-ohms per channel, or 400w peak @ 8-ohms per channel) wasn't enough power for their main speakers (350w RMS @ 8-ohms).

NOTE my use of peak and RMS !!!
Very important and huge difference when looking at power ratings.

"peak" is maximum output...
RMS (sometimes called continuous or program power) rating is approx 55% of peak.

Most vendors tend to label/rate their equipment with peak values.. something you will only ever hit for milliseconds. Ignore it! It's basically worthless when deciding what you need. Look at the RMS, program or continuous power ratings in the specs.
Those need to be matched with your PA speakers equivalent ratings.

The "Rule of Thumb" for powering passive PA speakers is that they should be powered with and amp that can produce 1.25 to 2.25 times the RMS rating of the speaker to allow for transients in your music (very important for subs and EDM/dance) and headroom to handle those transients.

So.. a 300w RMS/Program 8-ohm speaker [should theoretically be powered by] an amp that can produce between 375w and 675w at 8-ohms.

if you use the PMP4000, you should match it up with PA speakers with the following specs (or you will not have enough volume).
4-ohm speaker --> 600w RMS/program/continuous
8-ohm speaker --> 300w RMS/program/continuous

In today's world, those are overly generous numbers meaning you should realistically look at 500w/250w speakers. Either should be fine for smaller indoor shows with a smaller band. It would be marginal (barely enough) for a the average US club venue. Keep in mind that you also have no subs factored into the equation and that the style of music is also a huge factor. Folk needs a whole lot less than hard rock!

NOTE: there are other factors involved in how loud your speakers with get (such as sensitivity), but that's probably too much info right now.

 

What are you using for speakers?

 

This might make your decision a bit harder.
I've used the PMP6000 many times which is basically the same as the 4000 just with extra channels and we run the FOH off the desk (Two yamaha 15" and horn 250w bins) and then use powered wedges for foldback and come out of the mono output for an 18" EV powered sub. As GKon said, they quote peak power and I am always surprised how much i have to push this desk to get decent volume even in a small to medium room. In the same room I get better sound while pushing the desk less from my older model Mackie 608m through RCF Art 300 12" and horn FOH with the EV sub. Mind you these are both arguably better speakers and desk.
Here in Australia the new model PPM608 is around $300 more than the Behringer PMP4000 (probably €200) however the Mackie specs are a little different to my older model (no gain level pot and new Class D amp being the main difference). Might be worth having a look and listen if the prices are similar over there although if you are on a tight budget the Mackie will most likely be out of the question. If i were setting up a PA on a budget right now I'd either be a tight-arse and go for the Behringer or look for something like the Mackie second hand. You are definitely better off, and will have less stress at gigs, by spending a bit more now rather than getting 12 months down the road and wishing you had more headroom.
If there is a decent store near you they should be able to power up some relevant speakers from both mixers and crank them up for you to hear which you prefer.

 

RUN DO NOT WALK, stay away from the Behringer stage gear, I have a $700 PMP5000 paperweight , exactly 6 days after wnty was up it blew a power amp out and they would do NOTHING for me. The thing was only in our rehearsal space not running near the advertised potential , and blew the heck up. A friend of mine bought one of the 32 channel Xenyx models with the motorized sliders and what not for his desk console, the thing has spent more time in repair than in the studio , he has been using his 24 channel peavey for the most part since and no problems . Behringer QC and customer service is horrendous