Behringer vs. Mackie
DaveDrummer
Personally, I think you get what you pay for. I think Behringer preamps are
pretty good. Mackies..definetly a little better, but NOT worth the extra
$400..opinions?
EggHd
$400..opinions? >>
It's all subjective and then going into these lower price preamps is evern more
so, The little Mackie 1202 vlz preamps are decent for the price and usable for
sure but then again a 57 is not what they are going to do best.
But you know, depending on the rest of the chain and room and monitors and all
that crap, certain things at this level may not be your weakest link.
That said how a mixer or preamp is hooked into your Yamaha and the gain
stucture you set up there, could be something to look at.
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Preben Friis
"DaveDrummer" <DaveDrum...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:LboJb.103919$JW3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Check http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Behringer+Mackie ... 9,330 opinions
there .. and growing..
'Nuff said.
/Preben Friis
Ricky W. Hunt
news:20040102195858...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>
> It's all subjective and then going into these lower price preamps is evern
more
> so, The little Mackie 1202 vlz preamps are decent for the price and usable
for
> sure but then again a 57 is not what they are going to do best.
>
I usually mention this every time this combo gets mentioned (because
otherwise the 1202 is a good little preamp) but the combo of the 1202 VLZ
Pro/SM57 was about the worst I've ever heard. So if you're auditioning the
1202 (or a 57) be sure to try something besides that also.
Martin
>Pro/SM57 was about the worst I've ever heard. So if you're auditioning the
>1202 (or a 57) be sure to try something besides that also.
Yup, my 57 into my 1202 VLZ XDR is about as bad as it gets, especially on
acoustic guitar.
Martin
reddred
"DaveDrummer" <DaveDrum...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:LboJb.103919$JW3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I figured behringer mixers might be a 'value miracle' like kind of mixers
tascam had always made... but when I finally got my hands on one, the build
was shit, I've had portastudios that were better made. The sound of the
pre's isn't all you need to take into account, it's not so much the sound
but how long it's going to sound like that.
jb
Raddigan
I think the main difference between both mixers, is that one is far more
cheaper than the other in terms of price, even while having more bells and
whistles than the other...
Did I just make sense?
"DaveDrummer" <DaveDrum...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:LboJb.103919$JW3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Mike Rivers
In article <LboJb.103919$JW3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com> DaveDrum...@NOhotmailSPAM.com writes:
> I think Behringer preamps are
> pretty good. Mackies..definetly a little better, but NOT worth the extra
> $400..opinions?
Depends on what you're going to do with it, and whether you have the
mistaken thought that this is going to be a lifetime investment. If
you don't have much money now, you might as well get the cheaper
of the two. You'll either want to replace it or dump it in a couple of
years anyway. That's not a put-down, it's the truth. You outgrow this
stuff pretty rapidly. Few people who are starting from near the bottom
are willing to make their first investment a $20,000 mixer.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Magnus
i wouldnt buy any Behringer-product, since roumor has it they´re made
by Chinese children workers and one cant get a service manual . .
if you should buy a small mixer, check out the Yamaha MG series instead.
.
i would prefer the Mackie for it's quite pre's and for it built in PSU.
. .
Magnus
Roger W. Norman
Hmmm, where do you suppose they might be made now?
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"Magnus" <m.sod...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:1g6zm0o.12s4v6cj3togN%m.sod...@telia.com...
Scott Dorsey
You can't compare brands, you can only compare individual models. I don't
know about Behringer, but Mackie makes some stuff that is reasonable like
the 1202, and they make some stuff that is awful, like the CFX, and they
make stuff in-between.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Studiodude
level multi-track board but I didn't like the eq. I never had any
problems with the faders or any other part of the board, however, I
did have to send in the power supply for repair once. The main reason
that I switched to a D8B was to try to get away from the native PT
platform that I was currently using. I've heard a lot of mixed right
off a D8B in the past and was very impressed. I am now working with a
Mackie.
Mike Rivers
> Interesting since Mackie has taken their manufacturing out of the country.
> Hmmm, where do you suppose they might be made now?
Why, of course in China, by toothless old ladies who are forced to
solder surface-mounted components by hand at the equivalent of 75
cents a day, working 14 hour shifts in a room with no ventilation and
poor light, with only two outhouse breaks a day.
EggHd
Great advice.
John LeBlanc
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message news:znr1073143373k@trad...
>
> In article <3ff6c518$0$6740$61fe...@news.rcn.com> rno...@starpower.net
writes:
>
> > Interesting since Mackie has taken their manufacturing out of the country.
> > Hmmm, where do you suppose they might be made now?
>
> Why, of course in China, by toothless old ladies who are forced to
> solder surface-mounted components by hand at the equivalent of 75
> cents a day, working 14 hour shifts in a room with no ventilation and
> poor light, with only two outhouse breaks a day.
Wow when did they get a raise and benefits?
John
Richard Freeman
news:LboJb.103919$JW3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Contrary to popular belief there are basically two basic Pre- amp Circuits
used in the Majority of the modern Lower cost Mixers (dunno about the High
end Mixers they don't tend to cross my Bench) of course both can be either
well implemented or poorly implemented but I have noticed that when
Manufacturers get one working well they tend to stick to it with only minor
variations between Mixer models.
One Pre amp uses 4 discrete Transistors and the circuit can be found at :
http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm
This is the basic circuit topology used in the Mackie I have heard the
Behringer is the same but since until recently I have recommended customers
avoid Behringer (due to bad experiences with reliability - I have tried
Behringer lately and their standard of build has improved out of all sight
so I now would give Behringer a go) so I have not had any Behringer Mixers
cross the Bench so I cannot confirm their Mic pre amp topology.
The other Ciruit uses 2 discrete Transistors and is popular with Soundcraft,
Yamaha, Allen and Heath etc.
Properly implemented I really would not expect (and have not noticed myself)
a significant difference in sound between Mackie or Behringer Mic pre's I
have found that differences in desk gain structure, bussing, Eq's
(paricularly EQ) and Noise level ( I find Mackies somewhat Noisy) make more
of a difference in the sound and performance of a Desk.
I think in the price range you are after go with the cheaper option ( have
you looked at what Soundcraft have to offer - they are often in the Mackie
price range and tend to be a better desk all round) it should do the job.
Of course if you have the ability try Building the Mic pre in the link above
(dont bother with his EQs they tend to be pretty bad !) it works pretty
well.
Regards
Richard Freeman
Digital Larry
http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHRX1602
Pretty much exactly what I need. Does anyone else make anything like this
topology and size wise? I would pay more, 2-3x easily. If so, please
point me in that direction. I have been looking for several weeks.
George
Digital Larry <faultline1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHRX1602
why not buy the behringer?
George
Geoff Wood
"Ricky W. Hunt" <ricky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I usually mention this every time this combo gets mentioned (because
> otherwise the 1202 is a good little preamp) but the combo of the 1202 VLZ
> Pro/SM57 was about the worst I've ever heard.
I keep hearing this. Presumably there is a reason. I wonder what it is ?
Loading maybe - how about sarificing a little level and adding a little
resistance ?
geoff
Geoff Wood
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> of the two. You'll either want to replace it or dump it in a couple of
> years anyway. That's not a put-down, it's the truth. You outgrow this
> stuff pretty rapidly. Few people who are starting from near the bottom
> are willing to make their first investment a $20,000 mixer.
How'd ya feel if you'd bought a 'channel' made by a dude witht he same name
as a storybook bear, costing the equiv of 20K per channel of a small M or B,
that goes into terminal oscialation if you switch it on with a modicum of
gain reduction on the hi EQ ?
geoff
Geoff Wood
>
> In article <3ff6c518$0$6740$61fe...@news.rcn.com> rno...@starpower.net
writes:
>
> > Interesting since Mackie has taken their manufacturing out of the
country.
> > Hmmm, where do you suppose they might be made now?
>
> Why, of course in China, by toothless old ladies who are forced to
> solder surface-mounted components by hand at the equivalent of 75
> cents a day, working 14 hour shifts in a room with no ventilation and
> poor light, with only two outhouse breaks a day.
My Mackies (yes, that's an "s") were made in the good ole USA. I wonder if
they sound the same, better, or wirse than the current ones ?
geoff
Geoff Wood
"John LeBlanc" <john__...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Why, of course in China, by toothless old ladies who are forced to
> > solder surface-mounted components by hand at the equivalent of 75
> > cents a day, working 14 hour shifts in a room with no ventilation and
> > poor light, with only two outhouse breaks a day.
>
>
> Wow when did they get a raise and benefits?
Still waiting on the dental one, evidently.
geoff
Scott Dorsey
That's nothing. I have a preamp here from a company trying to break into
the high end market, which goes into oscillation when you plug a reactive
load into the output... like a transformer-coupled Ampex....
But these are examples of crappy design rather than crappy manufacture.
You see a lot more crappy design work on the higher end of the market,
because production runs are so small (and the companies are usually small
too), so the engineering costs don't get amortized across as many units.
While, on mass-produced gear you're more apt to see careful engineering
in an attempt to keep manufacturing costs down, and sloppy manufacturing.
Mike Rivers
In article <0GSJb.15726$ws.17...@news02.tsnz.net> ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam writes:
> My Mackies (yes, that's an "s") were made in the good ole USA. I wonder if
> they sound the same, better, or wirse than the current ones ?
I don't see any reason why they should sound any different, or even
last any longer than the same models made in China. There may have
been some parts substitutions to accommodate different automated
component handling, but I doubt that there were any design changes
that would affect the performance. However, rumor has it that offshore
manufacturing engineering is now part of the process.
So, I don't know, and until you decide to buy another Mackie, you
probably don't care other than to gloat. They might have had to change
their plans to make money, but there's no reason for them to have to
compromise quality. It's possible to get well made products from China
and this change was not made overnight. They've been working with
Chinese manufacturers for several years now. The DFX series of mixers
was the first line of whole products that have been made over there,
and the other products are being phased in. However I will say that
when I visited Mackie HQ in June of last year, (can we say "last year"
yet? - 2003) the manufacturing space and parking lot was pretty empty.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Mike Rivers
> OK so Behringer comes out with this RX1602 1U line mixer.
> Pretty much exactly what I need. Does anyone else make anything like this
> topology and size wise? I would pay more, 2-3x easily. If so, please
> point me in that direction. I have been looking for several weeks.
Many people have been looking for several years. Welcome to the club.
Line level mixers come and go, and the reason why they go is because
there just hasn't been the demand to support a low priced unit. They
were more common when people had a rack or a room full of synthesizers
or sound modules and wanted to mix them to a single pair of outputs.
That pretty much went away with multi-timbral synths, and later with
soft synths, and stereo sound cards with mixing in the computer. Now
the demand is coming back with the growth of multiple-output sound
cards.
I don't want to sound like a Behringer booster here, but they listened
to what people were asking for and they provided it. I have no idea
how good or bad it is, but if it has the right gozintas, gozoutas, and
knobs, maybe it's worth giving it a try when it becomes available.
Vladan
Scott Dorsey
>In article <Xns9465DB71058BFfa...@199.45.49.11> faultline1...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> OK so Behringer comes out with this RX1602 1U line mixer.
>
>> Pretty much exactly what I need. Does anyone else make anything like this
>> topology and size wise? I would pay more, 2-3x easily. If so, please
>> point me in that direction. I have been looking for several weeks.
>
>Many people have been looking for several years. Welcome to the club.
What do you want that you can't get from either the ARX unit, the Peavey
Architectural Acoustics unit, or the Rane "Swiss Army" mixer?
Mike Rivers
> What do you want that you can't get from either the ARX unit, the Peavey
> Architectural Acoustics unit, or the Rane "Swiss Army" mixer?
Probably more channels out the door for $100 or so. Besides, it's
"Ultra low noise."
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Sanaka
particular models than brands, how about the optionally battery
powered Behringer MXB1002?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=245582&is=REG
Is it, or is there any reason it would be, inferior in fidelity to
other Behringers?
It looks to be competing with the Peavey RQ200. Per mic preamp, this
is even less expensive than the Behringer UB802 ($20 vs. $25 per mic
pre)! I like plenty of mic inputs, and the battery option could be
real handy for me. Thanks!
Peace,
Sanaka
Scott Dorsey
>In article <bt9sk1$m13$1...@panix1.panix.com> klu...@panix.com writes:
>
>> What do you want that you can't get from either the ARX unit, the Peavey
>> Architectural Acoustics unit, or the Rane "Swiss Army" mixer?
>
>Probably more channels out the door for $100 or so. Besides, it's
>"Ultra low noise."
The Ranes can be chained into one another for more channels. If you want
a LOT more capability, Crest makes a great modular system although it takes
up too much rack space per channel for my uses.
I went with the ARX for a quick monitor mix on my 1"-in-a-suitcase kit
and I'm very happy with it. I keep meaning to rip out some of the input
coupling caps, though.
Scott Dorsey
>Since, as someone said, it's probably more important to compare
>particular models than brands, how about the optionally battery
>powered Behringer MXB1002?
>
>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=245582&is=REG
>
>Is it, or is there any reason it would be, inferior in fidelity to
>other Behringers?
My worry about something like this is that it's probably running a single
supply rail at a fairly low voltage, in order to get convenient battery power.
That's a recipe for limited headroom.
>It looks to be competing with the Peavey RQ200. Per mic preamp, this
>is even less expensive than the Behringer UB802 ($20 vs. $25 per mic
>pre)! I like plenty of mic inputs, and the battery option could be
>real handy for me. Thanks!
I'd wonder what the mike inputs are like, since the standard cheapie mike
input stages are a little harder to built without a negative power supply
rail. Be interesting to see a schematic.
Gary
> What do you want that you can't get from either the ARX unit, the Peavey
> Architectural Acoustics unit, or the Rane "Swiss Army" mixer?
> --scott
Just the combination:
1U, 8 stereo channels, no mic pres, main and monitor outputs. Fits
what I need exactly and that includes getting rid of my last hardware
synth.
Pan, level and monitor per channel. I'd even take 2U with an extra
AUX if I could get it.
Sanaka
kind of know what you mean. This is just the kind of thing I was
suspicious of with battery power. If this was the case only when batt.
powered, but ran 'normal' with dual rails when mains powered, I could
live with it. I had no luck on a schematic for either the Behringer
MXB1002 or the Peavey RQ200, but maybe these facts give some clue?:
For battery power, both require two 9v batteries, and can take an
additional 9v for supplying phantom power. On the Behringer, phantom
power supplied is 18v on battery, 23v on mains power. Almost
identical, the Peavey phantom power is "22 V typical with AC power, 8
V with two - 9V batteries, 17 V with 3rd phantom power battery" I
guess I'd buy the Peavey (2x as much $, but 6 mic ins) if it promised
to be noticeably better.
I am truly grateful for the time and effort you and other pros here
have taken to stoop down and help this newbie get his feet wet.
Peace,
Sanaka
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<btalj6$qpp$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
Scott Dorsey
>klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<bt9sk1$m13$1...@panix1.panix.com>...
>
>> What do you want that you can't get from either the ARX unit, the Peavey
>> Architectural Acoustics unit, or the Rane "Swiss Army" mixer?
>
>1U, 8 stereo channels, no mic pres, main and monitor outputs. Fits
>what I need exactly and that includes getting rid of my last hardware
>synth.
>
>Pan, level and monitor per channel. I'd even take 2U with an extra
>AUX if I could get it.
Wait, you want stereo inputs but you also want pans? Run that by me again?
Arny Krueger
news:pBSJb.15724$ws.17...@news02.tsnz.net
> "Ricky W. Hunt" <ricky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> I usually mention this every time this combo gets mentioned (because
>> otherwise the 1202 is a good little preamp) but the combo of the
>> 1202 VLZ Pro/SM57 was about the worst I've ever heard.
> I keep hearing this. Presumably there is a reason.
Beats me. I can think of worse things to plug into my Mackie mic inputs -
like a high-output condenser mic.
> I wonder what it is ?
To be determined. Theories abound.
>Loading maybe - how about sacrificing a little level and adding a little
resistance ?
If their source impedance is really so high, why do we think we can load
SM-57s with 100's of feet of conventional mic cable without devastating
their high end?
Scott Dorsey
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
>news:pBSJb.15724$ws.17...@news02.tsnz.net
>
>> "Ricky W. Hunt" <ricky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> I usually mention this every time this combo gets mentioned (because
>>> otherwise the 1202 is a good little preamp) but the combo of the
>>> 1202 VLZ Pro/SM57 was about the worst I've ever heard.
>
>> I keep hearing this. Presumably there is a reason.
>
>Beats me. I can think of worse things to plug into my Mackie mic inputs -
>like a high-output condenser mic.
The SM57 is VERY sensitive to loading.
>> I wonder what it is ?
>
>To be determined. Theories abound.
>
>>Loading maybe - how about sacrificing a little level and adding a little
>resistance ?
That would definitely help a lot, but the 57 really wants to see a reactive
load.
>If their source impedance is really so high, why do we think we can load
>SM-57s with 100's of feet of conventional mic cable without devastating
>their high end?
Quite the opposite, the problem is that the source impedance is really very
low, and if you don't load it down enough it rings like mad because it's
not damped enough.
Leoaw3
>
>Quite the opposite, the problem is that the source impedance is really very
>low, and if you don't load it down enough it rings like mad because it's
>not damped enough.
So is there some way to load down the input before it hits the Mackie? How
about deliberately putting a 100 feet of microphone cable between the two? Are
there any artificial load boxes? What kind of load -- capacitive, inductive,
resistive? If I built a little trial load box, what would I do?
Thanks,
-lee-
reddred
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:btbufm$s7d$1...@panix2.panix.com...
I think the unit is stereo, meaning the 8 channels can be panned to a two
channel bus.
jb
Scott Dorsey
You could try a step-up transformer with a terminating resistor on the
secondary.
Scott Dorsey
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:btbufm$s7d$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> Gary <midic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message
>news:<bt9sk1$m13$1...@panix1.panix.com>...
>> >
>> >> What do you want that you can't get from either the ARX unit, the
>Peavey
>> >> Architectural Acoustics unit, or the Rane "Swiss Army" mixer?
>> >
>> >Just the combination:
>> >1U, 8 stereo channels, no mic pres, main and monitor outputs. Fits
>> >what I need exactly and that includes getting rid of my last hardware
>> >synth.
>> >
>> >Pan, level and monitor per channel. I'd even take 2U with an extra
>> >AUX if I could get it.
>>
>> Wait, you want stereo inputs but you also want pans? Run that by me
>again?
>
>channel bus.
Okay, that's eight mono inputs. My real complaint with the smaller line
mixer is that most of them have only stereo inputs since they are intended
for use with stereo synths.
The ARX does everything the original poster wants, then, except for the
aux buss.
Scott Dorsey
>Thanks, Scott. Not that I really understand power supply design, but I
>kind of know what you mean. This is just the kind of thing I was
>suspicious of with battery power. If this was the case only when batt.
>powered, but ran 'normal' with dual rails when mains powered, I could
>live with it.
This would require replacing the insides basically.
I had no luck on a schematic for either the Behringer
>MXB1002 or the Peavey RQ200, but maybe these facts give some clue?:
>For battery power, both require two 9v batteries, and can take an
>additional 9v for supplying phantom power. On the Behringer, phantom
>power supplied is 18v on battery, 23v on mains power. Almost
>identical, the Peavey phantom power is "22 V typical with AC power, 8
>V with two - 9V batteries, 17 V with 3rd phantom power battery" I
>guess I'd buy the Peavey (2x as much $, but 6 mic ins) if it promised
>to be noticeably better.
Dunno, go to the local music store. Put a CD player into one end, and a
thing with an accurate VU meter on the other, turn it up until it clips,
and see how much output you get before it clips. Then try another mixer.
>I am truly grateful for the time and effort you and other pros here
>have taken to stoop down and help this newbie get his feet wet.
You need to go out and try things.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Contrary to popular belief there are basically two basic Pre- amp Circuits
>used in the Majority of the modern Lower cost Mixers (dunno about the High
>end Mixers they don't tend to cross my Bench) of course both can be either
>well implemented or poorly implemented but I have noticed that when
>Manufacturers get one working well they tend to stick to it with only minor
>variations between Mixer models.
>One Pre amp uses 4 discrete Transistors and the circuit can be found at :
>http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm
>This is the basic circuit topology used in the Mackie I have heard the
>Behringer is the same but since until recently I have recommended customers
>avoid Behringer (due to bad experiences with reliability - I have tried
>Behringer lately and their standard of build has improved out of all sight
>so I now would give Behringer a go) so I have not had any Behringer Mixers
>cross the Bench so I cannot confirm their Mic pre amp topology.
Actually, this is a 2-transistor circuit when you look at it carefully.
The two transistors on either side are cascaded together so you can think
about them as a single transistor on either side of the long-tailed pair.
This is the same basic circuit that the original Mackie 1202 used, and
the VLZ as well.
The VLZ Pro circuit takes a very different approach to things, using a single
long-tailed pair but with a constant current source on either side of the
pair. This is the standard "4-transistor" circuit that you see a lot. The
VLZ Pro uses a transistor with a higher gain so they don't need to cascade a
pair of them to get the gain up.
There is another variation out there as well, which uses two transistors in
a long-tailed pair, but with a single shared constant current source on the
bottom.
>Properly implemented I really would not expect (and have not noticed myself)
>a significant difference in sound between Mackie or Behringer Mic pre's I
>have found that differences in desk gain structure, bussing, Eq's
>(paricularly EQ) and Noise level ( I find Mackies somewhat Noisy) make more
>of a difference in the sound and performance of a Desk.
If you're using, them, yes. If you're just pulling out of the inserts and
only going through the mike preamps, you will notice all kinds of things that
are obscured by the rest of the electronics.
>Of course if you have the ability try Building the Mic pre in the link above
>(dont bother with his EQs they tend to be pretty bad !) it works pretty
>well.
It's a nice design. I keep saying I'm going to do a DIY preamp article based
on the three-transistor circuit using the THAT transistors, but at this point
I am lucky enough just to get PC boards made for existing stuff.
Mike Rivers
> >>> I usually mention this every time this combo gets mentioned (because
> >>> otherwise the 1202 is a good little preamp) but the combo of the
> >>> 1202 VLZ Pro/SM57 was about the worst I've ever heard.
> The SM57 is VERY sensitive to loading.
More specifically, the SM57 sounds considrably better when presented
with the loading offered by the inputs of some other preamps.
Unfortunately, none of them cost nearly as little, particuarly on a
per-channel basis, as the Mackie. So if the budget fits, work with it.
If you can only afford a Mackie and an SM57, that shouldn't stop you
from recording music. If you can afford a Great River preamp but it
will be a while before you can afford another mic, well that will be a
good upgrade for your SM57. On the other hand, for the price of a
Great River preamp, you can get an assortment of mics, allowing you to
choose which one, in conjunction with your Mackie mixer, sounds best
with the source you're recording.
Another possibility is that for the price of an SM57, you can get a
Jensen transformer that makes for a good mic input stage, and put that
between your SM57 and your Mackie input. This won't turn your Mackie
into a Great River but it will go a long way toward making what makes
the SM57/GR combination better than the SM57/Mackie combination.
Engineering is all about choosing between alternatives, and the better
the engineer you are, the more intelligently you'll be able to make
those choices.
Gary
I guess I don't really need the pan. But that's what the Unit In
Question (UIQ) has. Or is that balance? Anyway it works when you
just have a mono signal coming in. I don't really tend to pan my
stereo sources at that point.
As time goes on, I am leaning in 1 of 2 directions:
#1 Stick with what I have, namely a Samson (ick) 4 buss mixer with
lots of stereo ins, 2 mic pres I ingore, 2 aux sends I ignore, EQ I
ignore, etc. running into a M-Audio Delta-66. To record I usually
send buss outputs 3/4 to inputs 1/2 of the Delta.
#2 Get something like the MOTU 828mkII with an extra ADAT I/F 8
channels of I/O. Even the (gasp) Behringer ADA8000 for $199 doesn't
look too bad (wouldn't be using the mic pres on that one either).
Then I could use the MOTU for mixing and wouldn't need an external
mixer at all. This is just about $1000 more expensive than doing
nothing and doesn't REALLY buy me anything except GAS relief and less
analog in the signal path.
Scott Dorsey
>
>As time goes on, I am leaning in 1 of 2 directions:
>
>#1 Stick with what I have, namely a Samson (ick) 4 buss mixer with
>lots of stereo ins, 2 mic pres I ingore, 2 aux sends I ignore, EQ I
>ignore, etc. running into a M-Audio Delta-66. To record I usually
>send buss outputs 3/4 to inputs 1/2 of the Delta.
If it works for you, keep it. It's certainly not going to be any worse
than the Behringer. When it breaks, replace it.
>#2 Get something like the MOTU 828mkII with an extra ADAT I/F 8
>channels of I/O. Even the (gasp) Behringer ADA8000 for $199 doesn't
>look too bad (wouldn't be using the mic pres on that one either).
>Then I could use the MOTU for mixing and wouldn't need an external
>mixer at all. This is just about $1000 more expensive than doing
>nothing and doesn't REALLY buy me anything except GAS relief and less
>analog in the signal path.
I personally find it really frustrating to mix with a mouse. Other people
seem to like it. Try it and see. Frankly, putting more converters in the
signal path does not seem like a recipe for better sound, and the user
interface is very irritating unless you get an external control surface. But
you might like it.
Mike Rivers
In article <yfqdndXsJ8p...@rockbridge.net> opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com writes:
> I think the unit is stereo, meaning the 8 channels can be panned to a two
> channel bus.
"Panning" isn't really the correct term here. It's like the "balance"
control on a home stereo system. When turned either side of center, it
reduces the level of the channel opposite the direction of rotation.
I suspect that, like the "pan" control on the stereo inputs of a
Mackie, if you plug a mono source into one of the channels, it's
normalled to the other channel of the pair and the control works like
a pan pot.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Gary
> reddred <opa...@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >I think the unit is stereo, meaning the 8 channels can be panned to a two
> >channel bus.
>
> Okay, that's eight mono inputs. My real complaint with the smaller line
> mixer is that most of them have only stereo inputs since they are intended
> for use with stereo synths.
>
> The ARX does everything the original poster wants, then, except for the
> aux buss.
> --scott
We're talking about the Behr. RX1602 right? 8 stereo channels. 16
inputs in the back (in pairs). Or you could use them as 8 mono
channels too if you like, but as you mention the reason I want them
stereo is just about everything IS stereo and I hate having to adjust
right/left independently.
I'm looking for reasons NOT to want to get this Behringer - and not
REALLY needing it is one of the bigger ones. It just seemed that its
topology/layout was unique, so it does represent a bit of risk-taking
by a company that many have slagged (perhaps rightly) as only knocking
off successful products by other companies.
George Gleason
>
> I'm looking for reasons NOT to want to get this Behringer - and not
> REALLY needing it is one of the bigger ones. It just seemed that its
> topology/layout was unique, so it does represent a bit of risk-taking
> by a company that many have slagged (perhaps rightly) as only knocking
> off successful products by other companies.
Gary , maybe do some reserch and find out how unfounded those claims are
then buy the product that is right for your application
there may very well be legit reason not to buy it, But beacuse behringer
made it is not one of them
George
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 12/30/2003
Gary
> What do you want that you can't get from either the ARX unit, the Peavey
> Architectural Acoustics unit, or the Rane "Swiss Army" mixer?
> --scott
The Rane "SM82" looks very close to what I am after - will investigate.
See this whole thing was just a ruse to get you guys to tell me where to look.
Yes I can spell torll.
Scott Dorsey
>
>We're talking about the Behr. RX1602 right? 8 stereo channels. 16
>inputs in the back (in pairs). Or you could use them as 8 mono
>channels too if you like, but as you mention the reason I want them
>stereo is just about everything IS stereo and I hate having to adjust
>right/left independently.
Then where do the pan controls come in? You can't pan a stereo signal.
Are these really balance controls in disguise?
If you want a stereo mixer, there are plenty of them, but most of them
do not have balance controls. Roland makes a very popular one.
>I'm looking for reasons NOT to want to get this Behringer - and not
>REALLY needing it is one of the bigger ones. It just seemed that its
>topology/layout was unique, so it does represent a bit of risk-taking
>by a company that many have slagged (perhaps rightly) as only knocking
>off successful products by other companies.
Well, do you want something cheap that will work for the time being, or
do you want something that will last for a good long while? If longevity
and reliability aren't big issues, don't fight it and buy the Behringer.
If they are big issues, you're probably going to be spending a good bit
more money, however.
Gary
> Gary <midic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >#2 Get something like the MOTU 828mkII with an extra ADAT I/F 8
> >channels of I/O. Even the (gasp) Behringer ADA8000 for $199 doesn't
> >look too bad. Then I could use the MOTU for mixing and wouldn't
> > need an external
> >mixer at all. This is just about $1000 more expensive than doing
> >nothing and doesn't REALLY buy me anything except GAS relief and less
> >analog in the signal path.
>
> I personally find it really frustrating to mix with a mouse. Other people
> seem to like it. Try it and see. Frankly, putting more converters in the
> signal path does not seem like a recipe for better sound, and the user
> interface is very irritating unless you get an external control surface. But
> you might like it.
> --scott
Well, it's not putting more convertors in the path, it's just
dedicating a convertor to each sound source. Oh perhaps I see what
you mean, it puts more convertors in the monitoring path, but not for
recording nor for strict playback. Only analog sources that get
digitized and reconstructed.
Now where GAS is concerned, reason may take a back seat, but with the
828 + 8 ADAT IN I described, I can have all 6 of my stereo analog
sources (3 of them are doubled by S/PDIF for recording) and dedicate
separate output mixes to headphones, main speakers, stereo aux sends
1/2 e.g. Each analog source can be directly recorded at optimal level
and monitored with effects without patching and mix setups can be
saved.
I have used SONAR and Cakewalk Pro Audio for several years as main
DAW. I even got the StudioMix control surface and never used it.
Just always drew envelopes. So I guess my mixing style consists of
lots of stops and starts and listening to specific sections then
transitions between sections, etc. while tweaking volume envelopes in
track view. But I would agree that in general its mixer is not as
convenient as a h/w mixer. It's just that I hardly ever move a mixer
knob any more as all mixing is done in SONAR. That's my angle and
part of it is not rational but fueled by the desire to play with new
stuff when the old stuff works great and exceeds what I can accomplish
with it.
I never came up mixing recorded music using a console, well not
entirely true I had my PortaStudio phase, but once I got into the DAW
stuff I didn't have a big repertoire of "mixer moves" that needed to
be carried into the new paradigm. So indeed I apparently did become a
mouse mixer. The end result is certainly amateur so maybe that proves
something.
reddred
"Gary" <midic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3b3fcd7.0401...@posting.google.com...
As excited as I am by DAW's (being a fusion of two of my favorite things -
computers and recording) It's not so much the mouse that bothers me, in
terms of the interface. It's the fact that there is too much of a focus on
the visual. I'd like to take a break from staring at the screen. Before the
DAW took over my little studio, I never had to look at much if I didn't want
to.
The thing about recording in a 'traditional' way is that is much more
focused on coordinating what you hear with what you can touch, instead of
what you see. I don't mind so much the 'stop-start-click', because it's not
so different than working with any software, it's more a question of being
interfaced with the PC throughout the process, visually. I don't find myself
closing my eyes as much and just listening, and I think there's an audible
change in my recordings...
I've been building audio computers since retiring my Amiga, and it's been a
long, exciting process of integrating more and more functions into an
inexpensive 'studio-in-a-box' (from midi-only onwards), but I'm really
looking to move the computer off to the side again and interface with the
music in a way I feel is more intuitive, more like playing an instrument.
The problem is doing it without breaking the bank!
jb
madmics
music shop near where I live that Mackie is going to significantly
reduce their prices first thing this year b/c they've been getting
buried by Behringer. Has anyone heard anything similar to this. I'm
sitting here waiting for this to happen b/c I don't wanna pay $400 for
the 1202 and then have it drop in price a week later.
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<btcfpr$p9e$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
Martin Glasband
infringement. Not like Greg Mackie to throw a fit for nothing. I wouldn't
be surprised if what you are saying is true to a point but maybe the reasons
aren't what you think they are. There's no love lost between Mackie and
Berringer if Mackie is out to lowball them. Probably a great opportunity to
get some pretty good gear and a lot of bang for your buck. This sounds like
war to me. <8-)
"madmics" <mad...@mp3rock.com> wrote in message
news:8f78b484.04010...@posting.google.com...
lohboy
from Mackie that goes by the moniker Tapco. It's priced more towards the
budget end of the market. I think that Mackie are trying to keep their
end user base as pro audio and introducing the Tapco as an entry point
into their more expensive stuff.
George Gleason
"Martin Glasband" <mart...@equitech.com> wrote in message
news:YdeLb.47325$ea1....@news02.roc.ny...
> I don't know about that but I do know that Mackie was suing Berringer for
> infringement.
If you have a current link to a current suit I would like to read it
the only suits I am aware of, Mackie had thier ass handed to them on a
platter.
anyone can sue anybody anytime, that does not establish merit to the case
if you just are rehashing a decade old myth either get up to speed on the
way Mackie tried to manipulate the courts or stop spreading innuendo and
hersay tripe
normanstrong
a
> music shop near where I live that Mackie is going to significantly
> reduce their prices first thing this year b/c they've been getting
> buried by Behringer. Has anyone heard anything similar to this.
I'm
> sitting here waiting for this to happen b/c I don't wanna pay $400
for
> the 1202 and then have it drop in price a week later.
Why don't you just buy the Behringer 1202 and have done with it.
Norm Strong
Mike Rivers
> This may be a little off topic but I was told by a guy that works in a
> music shop near where I live that Mackie is going to significantly
> reduce their prices first thing this year b/c they've been getting
> buried by Behringer.
I wouldn't be surprised. They have been losing market share and
they've been reinventing themselves, moving manufacturng to China to
reduce costs, and designing new product lines (such as the TAPCO
mixers and speakers) that are more in line with the low end Behringer
mixers, and which are also made in China.
> sitting here waiting for this to happen b/c I don't wanna pay $400 for
> the 1202 and then have it drop in price a week later.
The price of a 1202 won't change significantly since it hasn't been
made for several years. If you're talking about a new 1202 VLZ Pro,
well wait and see. I don't expect that the Chinese version will
differ significantly in specifications and performance, but that
remains to be seen.
Are you losing money by not having a mixer now, or are you just
waiting for an appropriate time to spend your money? Sometimes it
doesn't pay to wait if there's money to be made with the equipment
that you don't have.
Leoaw3
>the only suits I am aware of, Mackie had thier ass handed to them on a
>platter.
Huh? AFAIK, the Mackie/Behringer suit was settled out of court with terms of
the settlement not disclosed.....HOWEVER, all of a sudden after the settlement
SamAsh/Samson no longer sold Behringer products. Samson has then gone on to
make a line of products themselves -- often similar to Behringer, but not
exactly alike.
That seems a far piece from it being a bad settlement for Mackie.
-lee-
George Gleason
"Leoaw3" <leo...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040108192303...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> >the only suits I am aware of, Mackie had thier ass handed to them on a
> >platter.
>
> Huh? AFAIK, the Mackie/Behringer suit was settled out of court with terms
of
> the settlement not disclosed
Take a few minutes out of your life to follow what has been reported
here is a cut and paste from eariler in this thread, which substantiates my
position that Mackie was sent packing unable to show cause for a suit.
It was coming across a similar rant you posted against Behringer,
shortly after I bought a couple of the company's products - and had been
using them quite happily - that first provoked me into looking into what
all the fuss over the company might be about.
To cut a (very!) long story short, I have probably spent more time
researching this matter than anyone else here - though I'm entirely open
to being proven wrong.
The truth of the matter as I discovered it is VERY different from the
fantasy that you (and a few others) keep parading over and over again.
At the risk of boring most good folks here (and maybe I should insert a
health warning at this point - others might want to stop reading now and
get on with something more interesting - like watching a tape rewind)
let's look at what you have to say this time round:
I am not aware that we have any special or unusual 'gagging rules' that
apply to commercial suits in European courts.
Aphex's claim against Behringer is fully in the public record here in
Europe and the case was widely reported in the specialised press -
you'll find it (for example) on-line in the Sound on Sound web archive
and the claim itself can be read (if you read German) in the archives of
several university law departments. There is no evidence that either
party to the case applied for any kind of "gag". Even less that one was
granted.
You may like to know that at the very same time that Mackie brought its
case against Behringer in the U.S. - it lodged THE VERY SAME CLAIM on
THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER in the English courts. To say this is
unusual would be an understatement but - IMHO - says much about Mackie's
true motives and the tactics they employed - especially as neither
company sold the products that were the subject of the claim in the UK
at the time.
Mind you, had the claim been allowed to proceed, it would have hurt
Behringer's finances enormously (the company was a minnow compared to
Mackie at the time - oh how times have changed!) - our lawyers are every
bit as rapacious as yours.
Fact: Mackie's claim lodged here is in the public records.
Fact: Mackie's claim here was thrown out - on the legal technicality
that they had no design rights in Europe thanks to (a) the U.S.
Government's spat with the EC that had prevented reciprocal IP rights
from being automatically recognised on either side of the puddle and (b)
Mackie had never sold the product it complained of in the EC at the time
of the claim - therefore had never established any rights - another
reason for calling into question their motives for bringing a claim in
the UK - a market in which at the time, neither company sold enough
product to fund the purchase of a tin of baked beans, let alone
substantiate a claim for damages. Unlike Aphex, Mackie had no patents,
registered design rights or similar recognised rights. This alone says
more than needs to be said about the merits of Mackie's claim - if what
they had was so valuable and proprietary, why hadn't the usual
bureaucratic mechanisms been willing to recognise the fact beforehand?
Fact: The case and the reasons for its dismissal were reported and
discussed AT LENGTH in legal journals on this side of the pond. If you
search Google, you will see that I provided the substantive text of one
English legal journal article that discussed the issues involved (along
with all the FACTUAL EVIDENCE that supports what I say here).
So much for Behringer exploiting our underhand European legal system
then.
Fact: Behringer made no application to "gag" or suppress in any way
Mackie's claim against it.
Here's another fact: Aphex have been sued - successfully - ... for
stealing the design of one of the company's products ... from a former
employee. Personally, I find it far more reprehensible when a well-
funded company abuses an individual - someone who may not be in a
position to defend his rights.
It's a fact of life that large companies sue each other from time to
time - sometimes with reasonable grounds for complaint but just as often
as a tactic in the war that is called international business.
> (yeah this is old, and y'know,
> I'm not TELLING anybody what they oughta do,
> I'm just telling stories)
>
These aren't just stories - I'd call them fairy tales except that they
are delivered with so much spite and malice.
You don't even have the excuse of believing they are true - I tried to
discuss this with you (and you refused to respond) when you last made
similar statements over in alt.music.4-track.
> While BOTH parties were ORDERED to say NOTHING more than 'We're happy
> with the court's decision' ... one need look no further than at
> MACKIE's original filing documents (quickly removed from public
> disclosure by Behringer's use of the court rules) and then what
> actually HAPPENED.
> I hardly think 'cash settlement' covers it.
Really? Care to look at the facts? And the chronology?
Mackie made a claim - in part that Behringer had 'cloned' its 8-buss
mixer and stolen proprietary circuit designs for its mic preamps.
Whether this claim was reasonably based - or may have had some other
motive became clear as events unfolded.
Mackie's lawyer stood on the courtroom steps and brayed for all to hear
that this heinous bunch of foreign ne'er-do-wells had ripped off his
client big time and stolen their birth right etc., etc. ad nauseum.
Then he went into court.
A short time later (so I have been told by people who were there) he
slunk out again quietly with his tail firmly between his legs.
It seems the judge had taken the technically advanced step of actually
looking at the two mixers and observed that the control layouts were no
more similar than a dozen other products whose brochures he had
obtained. In fact, if you care to look, it's obvious that the circuit
boards are anything but clones - the control positions are entirely
different and the Behringer has an extra EQ control in each channel -
among dozens of differences.
As to Mackie's "proprietary circuit designs" it seems the judge was of
the opinion that neither product could reasonably claim much in the way
of proprietary design. Both use IC opamps extensively - and the basic
circuits used can be found in any op-amp cookbook - or the data sheets
given away FREE by the semiconductor manufacturers. Not something Mackie
has ever been keen to let the buying public know too much about, of
course.
The judge suggested Mackie might want to go away and reconsider its
position.
Mackie very quickly (I believe within hours) reached a commercial
settlement with Behringer - which says precisely NOTHING about the
merits of Mackie's claim.
It was *Mackie* that wanted the secrecy gag.
After all, it had issued its lawyer's courtroom steps statement as a
press release (that was widely reported in the U.S trade press) and by
insisting on privacy now, its own embarrassment (at effectively losing
its action) got swept under the carpet AND ... Behringer never got to
tell its side of the story.
So, people like you continue to peddle out that bought lawyer's sales
pitch as fact years afterwards.
As a businessman, I have to say to Mackie's PR department, very well
done.
As a moral human being, I find it objectionable that these falsehoods
are still wheeled out so long after the true events became public.
>
> Uri and the boys have a solid years-long reliable history of this sort
> of theft-hing as, to name 2, dbx and APHEX are well aware... APHEX
> being the only one before Mackie that knows how tenaciously devious B
> is, having fought them and won. MACKIE was the the biggest stunt like
> this they ever tried to pull..
Theft is a very serious matter. As is calling someone a thief.
I have never found any record of dbx ever suing or making a claim
against Behringer - in the U.S. or Europe.
Please don't stop at 2 - if you know of other companies subjected to the
"theft-thing" by Behringer let's hear about them.
At the time Aphex brought its claim against Behringer, business practise
- and the law - was very different from what prevails today. Aphex also
tried (and failed) to sue other companies who were producing 'exciter'
type products. Aphex's business at the time depended on RENTING its
exciter to big studios for mega-bucks per hour. The availability of a
box that could be bought for a few hundred dollars was bad news for
Aphex - potentially ruinous to its business.
Behringer's mistake was believing (on the basis of advice) that Aphex's
patents were invalid. This point has subsequently become moot (go read
the literature). The company (foolishly as it proved) did produce a
close copy of Aphex's product. Then sold it for pennies in comparison to
Aphex's prices. I wonder if Aphex would have been so upset had Behringer
demanded $20,000 per box? Or was it that the upstart had shown that the
emperor had no clothes?
Behringer readily admitted its actions. The fact that the case went
through a full trial shows only that both parties believed they had a
case to argue - and the court agreed with them - courts not being known
for their willingness to hear frivolous claims - or defences. At the end
of the court action, Aphex won and Behringer paid the compensation
awarded by the court. Personally, I don't find Aphex's subsequent
bleating that the court didn't award it "sufficient" compensation makes
me feel warm and cuddly toward the company. Let's hope their stock
holders felt sorry for them though.
Behringer (and dozens of other companies) continue to make 'exciter'
type products.
If you believe Aphex's actions were motivated by nothing more than just
ire at having been unfairly wronged you live in a different (and
somewhat more naiive) world than the one I inhabit. And if you think
Behringer were alone in "reusing" a design you don't want to look too
closely at some of the most renowned and (nowadays) most highly prized
guitar amps, for example. And you needn't look too far way from home to
find some of the "perpetrators". Many's the (now highly respected
company) that got started by "improving" the work of another.
Remember, Aphex is the company that was sued by a former employee for
stealing his personal designs.
Fact: Mackie failed to prove its claim that Behringer stole anything
from them - or, in fact, ever did it any harm at all.
Apart from taking business away from it by delivering equivalent
products to market more cheaply than Mackie could or would or wanted to.
>
> As I remember it being laid out in this case,
Your memory is far from reliable
> Behringer was in bed
> with with their major USA distributor SAM ASH/SAMSON on this deal, with
> SA putting up much money to finance having a sample of the then-new
> Mackie 8-bus sent to Behringer's China contractor to back-engineer it
> and copy it for production. Pretty much the longstanding SOP for
> Bheringer taking another mfgr's box and dead-copying the
> circuits/design/parts and then putting Behringer paint on it (the APHEX
> case is almost laughable on this.. it's in the rap archives).
I'll ask you again - please provide references (to the rap archives or
anywhere else) that provides FACTUAL evidence to support these
statements. As its stands, this statement is simply not true.
> At the
> same time B wanted desperately to have somethign BIG to show at the
> upcoming Musik Messe trade show so they took a Mackie 8-bus and
> actually repainted the steel and stuck Behringer knobs on it as a dummy
> showpiece. The first B 8-busses off the line were remarkable clones of
> the Mackie and then were modified minimally to be 'different enough' to
> get through agressive lawyer wrangling.
See above - this is simply not true. Do you have any facts to support
this claim? And how do you know so much of Behringer's internal
discussions, marketing plans and company secrets?
> Mackie's investigation into this was throurough, down to B's bribing of
> Mackie OEM specialty-parts suppliers to slide them parts for the B
> boards so they'd work.
Can you name any "specialty-part" inside Mackie's 8-buss mixer?
Specifically, amy part that is unique to Mackie and would be required to
make a copy work? That box looks stuffed full of commodity components,
switchgear and so-so parts to me. If there's magic in there I've never
found it.
I'll do something similar for you if you like. I'll name a hundred
components both products share in common - with each other and just
about every other mixer of similar configuration and price point.
Bribery is a serious offence BTW, something any court would look on very
gravely - if it were shown to be true.
> Mackie filed suit and immediately pulled ALL
> Mackie product from SAM ASH... THAT was a chunck of lost change to ASH.
> The case vanished into B's usual agressive use of the Euro court's gag
> rules and then...
So ... Behringer lost Sam Ash as a distributor - not as a result of any
wrong-doing on its part but as a result of strong-arm tactics on the
part of Mackie bullying Sam Ash into doing its bidding.
Boy, I'd be really proud to support Mackie over that set of actions.
Can you provide a reference that shows Behringer making *any* use "of
the Euro court's gag rules"? FWIW, I am European and have no idea what
you are talking about - our legal system and practices are not a million
miles away from those in the U.S. and you will find American lawyers
practising law in London as commonly as you will find European lawyers
practising in Chicago.
>
> Court ruled and NOBODY was allowed to throw victory parties.
> Mackie's smile at the press announcement seemed a TAD more real than
> Uri's though...
Er ...
1. Mackie made a claim
2. Claim is thrown out by court
3. BUT only after Mackie had pulled all its damaging PR stunts AND
strong-armed the loss of Behringer's U.S. distribution channel
4. THEN Mackie engineers a settlement that saves its face and sweeps the
whole mess under the carpet without allowing Behringer any public right
of reply.
and you wonder why Greg was smiling more than Uli?
Let's see - his lawyers make a pretty good fist of bleeding all the
spare cash out of a competitor on a frivolous claim, he - at a stroke -
destroys the competitor's distribution network in his home market and he
gains himself several years to continue to enjoy a protected market,
during which period he continues to sell his goods at artificially high
prices - and prepares his company to use the very same 'unfair, cheap,
exploited labour' and 'shoddy manufacturing techniques' he so loudly
railed against.
Not to mention his PR department persuades much of the public that he's
the good guy in all this and his competitor is a bag of worms.
Sheesh!
Smile? I'm only surprised he was able to suppress a belly laugh.
> what happened:
>
> amongst other things the most visible repercussions were
>
> 1-Behringer immediately ABSOLUTELY cut all ties with their single major
> US distro and warranty service/repair agent: SAM ASH
>
No - as you have already explained, Mackied bullied Sam Ash into cutting
ties with Behringer. Get your facts straight - and the right way round
please.
> One Don;t Do This voluntarily in the middle of the stream as it were
>
>
> 2- they were forced to build their own distribution, sales and service
> network and facility from the ground up, apparently PROHIBITED from
> arranging ANY similar sort of arrangement with ANY other existing
> company
>
Er ... where does it say Behringer were prohibited from doing business
with any U.S. company? That would be a truly extraordinary ruling if it
were true (it's not) and something that wouldn't last five minutes in an
appeal court.
If there's any basis to this at all, it may be that Mackie used or
threatened similar commercial pressure elsewhere to achieve a similar
result to that it got at Sam Ash.
Apart from that possibilty, I do believe you are talking out of your
bottom.
Sorry to spoil your party line but Samson and Behringer continue to work
together on certain product designs and manufacturing. Ever looked at
both companies current range of headphone amps? Or compressors? For
example.
Not much evidence of legal prohibition there then.
> This is tough, it's debillitating, it's expensive, it makes Bad PR with
> customers... which is why One don;t do #1.
>
It's worked well enough for Mackie all these years.
Wouldn't you say?
>
> Copying a paint-scheme and a general ergonomic approach to putting
> parts in a box isn't -stealing- (witness Greg Mackie's TAPCO and then
> MACKIE's influence on budget mixer design on the industry in teh 70's
> and then the 80's... witness APPLE's similar influence with the iMac
> adn G3 case design). and that's why YAMAHA/SPIRIT/EVERYBODYelse who
> actually DESIGNED their own boxes to get in on the Mackie concept
> weren;t in court.
BUT ... part of Mackie's claim WAS that Behringer copied the design and
layout of its mixer.
And Mackie were unable to show the court that Behringer copied anything.
So their motivation was ... ?
> CLONING the innards (and outards in some cases)
> however IS and Behringer built the foundation for their market position
> on this model.
You have no (none, zero, nada, nichts, rien, SFA) evidence to support
the allegation that Behringer ever cloned any Mackie product.
If you seriously believe that Behringer's success is based on sales of
their 8000 mixer your really are living in a dream world. That mixer is
a pure vanity product - a "look-at-me-and-see-what-I-can-do" exercise
that probably cost the company money on every one that went out the
door.
Your apalling lack of knowledge of the company (and the man) you are so
willing to abuse is self evident. You need to look elsewhere entirely in
Behringer's product range to see where it made (and makes) its money.
And you'd do well to understand how the company really operates.
Fact: R&D cost amortised over production runs of the scale exercised by
Behringer contribute pennies to the unit cost of each box. The
suggestion you might "save" or gain competitive advantage by stealing
someone else's design is what's laughable.
Bluntly put, it's not worth a bean. It's a no-brainer. Not worth even
considering.
Fact: If the company's QA and product quality was even fractionally as
bad as some here have made out the company would have been dead in the
water long ago. To succeed with such a business model, your failure rate
has to be miniscule. If you know anything at all about high volume, high
tech manufacturing you may have come across terms such as "six sigma" -
something Motorola used to crow about for example. I happen to know that
Behringer works to similar principles - and enjoys impressive numbers
for product quality. This does not happen by accident. And it absolutely
could not happen for someone who knew no more than to steal other's
designs - there's far more involved in the
design/purchasing/manufacturing/distribution processes than could ever
be discovered by merely "back-engineering it and copying it for
production."
To the very best of my knowledge, Behringer has never copied any Mackie
product. All the *evidence* (not gossip, PR spin or malicious self-
serving rumour) in the public domain suggests the opposite.
It's worth repeating that MACKIE'S CLAIM WAS NOT PROVEN
If such evidence existed - sufficient to persuade a U.S. judge - do you
honestly think Mackie would have settled? Why on earth would it have
done so - especially after all its gung-ho statements and wringing of
hands about how wronged it had been.
Could it possibly be that Mackie had achieved its commercial objectives
and had nothing nore to gain (but plenty to lose) by pursuing the claim
further?
I wouldn't be surprised to find this case part of a course at Harvard
Business School titled 'Tactical use of commercial litigation'. It's a
bloody classic!
> Sure they have a bunch of stuff they actually paid someone to design
> for them, I'm sure many professional theives have their family cars and
> MOST of the stuff in their homes all properly paid for...
I find this remark just plain insulting.
Have you ever visited Behringer's web site? Have you seen just how many
different products that company produces?
Last time you made similar statements and remarks in group, I gave you a
list of about 40 products old and new taken at random from Behringer's
web site and asked you to state which ones were cloned from other
company's products.
I opened the question out to include *any* product the company has ever
made - and they list them all on the web site.
As I'm still waiting for your reply, I assume you have yet to find a
single product that Behringer has placed on the market that has been
cloned, copied or stolen from anyone else.
Ever heard the phrase 'put up or shut up'? Time to do one or the other
on this subject, perhaps?
FYI, I've been to Behringer's HQ in Germany and seen their R&D
department. It's impressive - in a large, separate, well equipped
building, well staffed with good, honest people - and stuffed full of
original product designs. All originating in-house.
> You can all do what you will, most folks don;t care and for them, it's
> fine. I just don't see me encouraging this sort of thing.
No-one here would encourage copying or theft of other people's hard
work.
Equally, I think most here take a view as dim as I do about someone who
regularly bad-mouths and repeatedly lays down malicious and unfounded
slurs against another member of our community.
>
> Mileages and all that
>
You are entitled to your opinions and to believe whatever you will.
But please don't parade them as facts unless you can support them with
hard evidence.
I'll make my usual statement - I have no connection whatever with
Behringer or Mackie or Aphex other than as a satisfied customer and user
of each company's products.
And if you too want to go visit Behringer's R&D department, give them a
call. They are a very friendly and open company whose people are
justifiably proud of their work and the products they design and make. I
have no doubt they'd be pleased to welcome you and to put your mind at
rest.
As for me, I'll continue to speak as I find. Comparing similar Mackie
and Behringer products, the biggest difference I find is the price. In
terms of performance, reliability, durability and fitness for purpose I
can't see or hear anything that would have me pay the substantial
premium demanded for a functionally equivalent Mackie.
And that is Mackie's problem.
Fact: Behringer is now a much more successful company than Mackie.
Fact: Mackie now makes product in China.
orb
my advice is: pass on the "who stole what from who" stuff.... it doesn't
make the components sound any better (or worse for that matter)... instead,
worry about where your clothing came from, or the food you eat, or the
politicians you voted for, or the environment, or violence on tv, or
whatever... it isn't any more productive, but at least you'll be able to
have "meaningful conversations" with a wider range of people.
anyway, whoever the original poster was (probably retired or dead by now but
wtf)... try doing something sorta like this:
1) check / compare features (online, at your local store, whatever)
2) select the one that has what you need (assume in a couple years you'll
wanna buy a better one or quit the whole scene)
3) (this is the tricky bit apparently)...BUY IT
4) when someone says "you shoulda got something else" say "shut up and play
yer guitar"
5) don't quit the day-job... you'll always need more cash.
...guess the number of postings must be inverse to the cost... trying to
imagine how many there'd be with a subject header like "Neve vs SSL"...
rob
ps ~
> "George Gleason" wrote (in part... correction: in v-e-r-y small part)
> Take a few minutes out of your life to follow what has been reported...
i gotta tell ya George, you must read INCREDIBLY fast if the "few minutes"
comment is based on personal experience...
George Perfect
says...
> did i miss the point of the original question? (823,378 posts ago maybe?)
>
>
> ...guess the number of postings must be inverse to the cost... trying to
> imagine how many there'd be with a subject header like "Neve vs SSL"...
>
It's one of those urban myths that has grown out of all proportion to
its merits. I just got irked that someone tried tearing a strip out of
me for choosing something I just bought (by following your suggested
procedure BTW) and decided to look further into it.
Truth is better than fiction any day. Especially when good value gear is
involved - not to mention the fortunes of a company delivering that gear
to market.
AFAIK, Neve and SSL have never found it necessary to get involved in the
kind of competitive tactics exhibited in the Mackie-v-Behringer fiasco.
There's nowt wrong with good old fashioned free market competition, in
which companies and products compete - and find buyers - on merit.
Just a thought, but given recent events, maybe Mackie would have been
better served by staying home and looking after the farm rather than
pick fights and cry wolf - when it didn't even have any chickens! :)
> rob
>
> ps ~
> > "George Gleason" wrote (in part... correction: in v-e-r-y small part)
> > Take a few minutes out of your life to follow what has been reported...
>
> i gotta tell ya George, you must read INCREDIBLY fast if the "few minutes"
> comment is based on personal experience...
Rob - I wrote that stuff originally - and it only took me a few minutes
to write. OK "few" here is relative but we're not talking hours or even
a significant portion of an hour. I can certainly read the whole piece
in a few minutes and hope it wouldn't take others any longer.
Whatever, I hope your life isn't so busy that you can't take a little
time to consider - and maybe help right - what seems to be a significant
wrong.
That said, this subject really deserves to die. It's just a few
individuals, motivated by who knows what, that keep spreading the old
malicious lies.
I'm grateful to the 'other' George (Gleason) and others who chip in to
balance the score when these boneheads pop up. I'd far rather discuss
more important matters - such as the best mic for $40, the best way to
record a didgeridoo or which chart-topper can only squawk through
Autotune ;>) - than be known as the guy who always jumps up to defend
Behringer. They're a really nice company BTW and it's time folks
accepted that they don't need defending - by me or anyone else.
Maybe we should just rudely and crudely tell the ill-informed to go
educate themselves when they start this thread up again and leave it at
that.
--
George
Newcastle, England
(Please remove leading 'NOSPAM' to reply by email)
Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth by hitting back - Piet Hein
Tony Pearce
"orb" <o...@NOSPAMthebugs.ca> wrote in message
news:8atLb.192387$ss5.13440@clgrps13...
> ...guess the number of postings must be inverse to the cost... trying to
> imagine how many there'd be with a subject header like "Neve vs SSL"...
I think it might be more accurate to say there would be a direct correlation
between the number of posts for each, and the number of owners!
And the number of owners of each is inversely proportional to price.
TonyP.
Geoff Wood
"George Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KDnLb.10951
> Mackie made a claim - in part that Behringer had 'cloned' its 8-buss
> mixer and stolen proprietary circuit designs for its mic preamps.
> Whether this claim was reasonably based - or may have had some other
> motive became clear as events unfolded.
Cloned electronically and physically. Down to the the colour, layout,
legend font, everything. Unfortunately people cj=hose to do business with
such a low-life company.
LCD.
geoff
George Perfect
nospam says...
Geoff, would you happen to have any more evidence to support this claim
than the others who have made identical allegations here and elsewhere?
I keep asking and no-one ever comes up with any. Everyone, without
exception has failed to provide any factual information or evidence to
support this serious slur. Plenty of spin and 'he said, she said' guff
that always disappears like the smoke it is.
I have a standing "put up or shut up" offer on the subject to anyone who
wants to repeat this statement.
Would you care to substantiate your "offering"?
Mike Rivers
In article <20040108192303...@mb-m04.aol.com> leo...@aol.comnospam writes:
> That seems a far piece from it being a bad settlement for Mackie.
Unfortunately we consider a "bad settlement" to be where the party
filing the suit doesn't end up with a large pile of money. I don't
think this was ever Mackie's goal, they just wanted to protect their
position in the market. They got what the needed.
Mike Rivers
In article <KDnLb.10951$Ub6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net writes:
> To cut a (very!) long story short, I have probably spent more time
> researching this matter than anyone else here - though I'm entirely open
> to being proven wrong.
Out of curiosity, why? You've made your equipment choices based on
your experience (I hope) and not legal issues.
> You may like to know that at the very same time that Mackie brought its
> case against Behringer in the U.S. - it lodged THE VERY SAME CLAIM on
> THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER in the English courts. To say this is
> unusual would be an understatement but - IMHO - says much about Mackie's
> true motives and the tactics they employed - especially as neither
> company sold the products that were the subject of the claim in the UK
> at the time.
Sounds like a protective measure to me, probalby on the advice of
their lawyers. It seems smart to me since the market was opening up
over there at the time.
> Fact: Mackie's claim here was thrown out - on the legal technicality
> that they had no design rights in Europe thanks to (a) the U.S.
> Government's spat with the EC that had prevented reciprocal IP rights
> from being automatically recognised on either side of the puddle and (b)
> Mackie had never sold the product it complained of in the EC at the time
> of the claim
Ain't technicalities wonderful? They prevent someone from taking care
that a problem won't arise. This is not Mackie's fault, but was a
great score for Behringer. It told them that it was OK for them to
jump into this market with Mackie copies without risk. Is this right?
Is it legal? (apparently the courts though so, on the basis that it
was not illegal)
> Unlike Aphex, Mackie had no patents,
> registered design rights or similar recognised rights.
Aphex had some circuit innovations. Mackie had none. They really had
nothing to patent. They did, however, have some legitimate claim on
intellectual property of circuit board layouts and portions of
instruction manuals. (as did Aphex, which apparently did stick)
> This alone says
> more than needs to be said about the merits of Mackie's claim - if what
> they had was so valuable and proprietary, why hadn't the usual
> bureaucratic mechanisms been willing to recognise the fact beforehand?
What Mackie had was marketing smarts - to put together a set of
conventional circuits in a way that produced a product that was in
demand and could be manufactured at a price that a lot of people would
be willing to pay. I know of no laws that protect that in concept. So
they were flying without a safety net. It was a good ride while it
lasted.
> Mackie very quickly (I believe within hours) reached a commercial
> settlement with Behringer - which says precisely NOTHING about the
> merits of Mackie's claim.
>
> It was *Mackie* that wanted the secrecy gag.
Isn't that just another way of playing the game? Get some publicity,
and walk away shaking hands on a deal. Neither company was destroyed
in the process, and, at least for a few years following, both
flourished. Today, both are what I'd consider kind of weak, but that's
the story throughout the market at nearly every point on the scale.
> As a businessman, I have to say to Mackie's PR department, very well
> done.
>
> As a moral human being, I find it objectionable that these falsehoods
> are still wheeled out so long after the true events became public.
We can say the same about any of the high profile divorce suits that
we read about almost weekly if we look for them.
> I wonder if Aphex would have been so upset had Behringer
> demanded $20,000 per box?
On principle, yes. But Behringer had the good sense to know that they
couldn't sell it for $20,000. The thing is that Behringer's product
brought the technology to a just-growing new industry (the
personal/home/project studio) that didn't have the budget nor the
projects to warrant leasing of the Aphex exciter. Aphex didn't have
any customers in this portion of the market, and knew that if they
changed their strategy (which they eventually did) they'd alienate
the customers that helped build them up. This is in a sense comparable
to Behringer lowering the bar and bringing mixers to people who never
thought they could afford them.
> Behringer readily admitted its actions. The fact that the case went
> through a full trial shows only that both parties believed they had a
> case to argue - and the court agreed with them - courts not being known
> for their willingness to hear frivolous claims - or defences. At the end
> of the court action, Aphex won and Behringer paid the compensation
> awarded by the court.
What was the basis? Was there actually a financial loss calculated
(and validated to the court) - like former Aphex rental customers
doing major label projects who were buying the Behrniger exciter? Or
was it a punitive settlement? Seems to me that there were ads at the
time with Marvin Ceasar waving a check for $20,000 from Behringer,
hardly lunch money.
> > Behringer was in bed
> > with with their major USA distributor SAM ASH/SAMSON on this deal, with
> > SA putting up much money to finance having a sample of the then-new
> > Mackie 8-bus sent to Behringer's China contractor to back-engineer it
> > and copy it for production.
I thought this part was silly, but just another arguing point for the
lawyers. Any would-be investor could have walked into a Sam Ash store,
bought a Mackie mixer, and sent it to China asking for copies to be
made. The only difference is that Samson got the sample at dealer
cost.
> Could it possibly be that Mackie had achieved its commercial objectives
> and had nothing nore to gain (but plenty to lose) by pursuing the claim
> further?
I think this is quite possible. Smart, too. They knew how much money
they spent, and its value as a marketing tool. Mackie built their
success on two things equally - competent (though not necessarily
brilliant) engineering and marketing.
> FYI, I've been to Behringer's HQ in Germany and seen their R&D
> department. It's impressive - in a large, separate, well equipped
> building, well staffed with good, honest people - and stuffed full of
> original product designs. All originating in-house.
I would certainly believe this today.
George Gleason
I appreciate the work you did to uncover the closest believable facts I
have found on this subject and unless someone else presents a very
compelling case, I feel you did your home work and are speaking from a
position of knowledge, not predijuce
George Gleason
George Gleason
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1073650392k@trad...
>
> In article <20040108192303...@mb-m04.aol.com>
leo...@aol.comnospam writes:
>
> > That seems a far piece from it being a bad settlement for Mackie.
>
> Unfortunately we consider a "bad settlement" to be where the party
> filing the suit doesn't end up with a large pile of money. I don't
> think this was ever Mackie's goal, they just wanted to protect their
> position in the market. They got what the needed.
I would say they did in the short run
but the seperation of Behringer and Sam Ash offered Befhinger(or forced
behringer) to establish a true world class distribution and service network
IMO
I doubt Behringer would be anywhere near as viable had the suits never been
filed
they say there is no bad publicity
george
George Perfect
>
> In article <KDnLb.10951$Ub6.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> > To cut a (very!) long story short, I have probably spent more time
> > researching this matter than anyone else here - though I'm entirely open
> > to being proven wrong.
>
> Out of curiosity, why? You've made your equipment choices based on
> your experience (I hope) and not legal issues.
>
We each have our ways of spending our spare time, don't we? Looking back
I doubt I'd have started down this particular road if I'd known just how
much of my time it would eventually take.
Actually, the thing that got my goat was a personal attack on my
integrity for supposedly having the low morals of a gutter thief to deal
with Behringer.
Let's just say I'm not the kind of guy who, being the only witness to a
car crash, drives off letting the offending party get off on a
technicality.
> > You may like to know that at the very same time that Mackie brought its
> > case against Behringer in the U.S. - it lodged THE VERY SAME CLAIM on
> > THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER in the English courts. To say this is
> > unusual would be an understatement but - IMHO - says much about Mackie's
> > true motives and the tactics they employed - especially as neither
> > company sold the products that were the subject of the claim in the UK
> > at the time.
>
> Sounds like a protective measure to me, probalby on the advice of
> their lawyers. It seems smart to me since the market was opening up
> over there at the time.
It's certainly open to interpretation. As I've already said *more than
once*, as a businessman I can see the motivation and admire the result.
The method is what sticks in my craw, however. I believe there's a name
for what Mackie did - and that name is 'dirty tricks'.
One interepretation that does not work though, is that Mackie were the
injured, hard-done-by party that folks keep peddling. And Behringer
certainly were not and are not the villains that people paint.
Let's get real for a moment. Any lawyer could (and almost certainly did)
tell Mackie that bringing its suit in London was a complete and utter
waste of time. I can think of no reason for it to do so (including your
suggestion of protecting its future speculative revenues - something you
won't find in a book of law, BTW) other than trying to put the squeeze
on its opponent.
>
> > Fact: Mackie's claim here was thrown out - on the legal technicality
> > that they had no design rights in Europe thanks to (a) the U.S.
> > Government's spat with the EC that had prevented reciprocal IP rights
> > from being automatically recognised on either side of the puddle and (b)
> > Mackie had never sold the product it complained of in the EC at the time
> > of the claim
>
> Ain't technicalities wonderful? They prevent someone from taking care
> that a problem won't arise. This is not Mackie's fault, but was a
> great score for Behringer. It told them that it was OK for them to
> jump into this market with Mackie copies without risk. Is this right?
> Is it legal? (apparently the courts though so, on the basis that it
> was not illegal)
Er... the point you just missed is one that the rest of your message
seems to suggest.
Simply put (again, sigh) Behringer didn't copy anything. Mackie failed
to show they copied anything ... because Behringer didn't copy anything
belonging to Mackie. Or anything at all, in actual fact.
>
> > Unlike Aphex, Mackie had no patents,
> > registered design rights or similar recognised rights.
>
> Aphex had some circuit innovations. Mackie had none. They really had
> nothing to patent. They did, however, have some legitimate claim on
> intellectual property of circuit board layouts and portions of
> instruction manuals. (as did Aphex, which apparently did stick)
That, surely is the point. Mackie are not unique in being able to spot
applications for technology. Behringer (among others) are pretty good at
it too.
Mackie had a high cost base to feed, was used to an easy ride in its
home market and (IMHO) chose an immoral and underhand way of trying to
gain unfair advantage.
Can I just say once again (sigh, sigh, sigh) BEHRINGER DID NOT COPY ANY
OF MACKIE'S PROPERTY.
One look at the two products shows they don't share circuit boards.
The circuits for both come straight our of the standard reference books
(as do most in this market sector - as Scott said just recently).
Behringer has its own way with manuals. Their's doesn't even look like a
Mackie manual.
Sheesh!
>
> > This alone says
> > more than needs to be said about the merits of Mackie's claim - if what
> > they had was so valuable and proprietary, why hadn't the usual
> > bureaucratic mechanisms been willing to recognise the fact beforehand?
>
> What Mackie had was marketing smarts - to put together a set of
> conventional circuits in a way that produced a product that was in
> demand and could be manufactured at a price that a lot of people would
> be willing to pay. I know of no laws that protect that in concept. So
> they were flying without a safety net. It was a good ride while it
> lasted.
Absolutely. And good luck to them.
Their problem - as I have repeatedly said - was that somebody
(Behringer) did it better.
They just didn't like being beaten fair and square.
>
> > Mackie very quickly (I believe within hours) reached a commercial
> > settlement with Behringer - which says precisely NOTHING about the
> > merits of Mackie's claim.
> >
> > It was *Mackie* that wanted the secrecy gag.
>
> Isn't that just another way of playing the game? Get some publicity,
> and walk away shaking hands on a deal. Neither company was destroyed
> in the process, and, at least for a few years following, both
> flourished. Today, both are what I'd consider kind of weak, but that's
> the story throughout the market at nearly every point on the scale.
Sadly it's a game that businesses play daily.
It stinks.
And I say that as a businessman of some modest experience.
BTW - you need to update yourself on Behringer's financial performance.
The company is doing very nicely, thank you. Going from strength to
strength and - unlike Mackie - expanding world-wide in fact (and not in
the sense of your baseball world series <g>). They also design, develop
and manufature a product range that is far, far wider than Mackie's
narrow focus.
As an outsider, I have to say that of the two, I find Behringer by far
the more impressive company.
Maybe, just maybe, just sometimes, the best justice gets handed down in
the real world and not the courts.
>
> > As a businessman, I have to say to Mackie's PR department, very well
> > done.
> >
> > As a moral human being, I find it objectionable that these falsehoods
> > are still wheeled out so long after the true events became public.
>
> We can say the same about any of the high profile divorce suits that
> we read about almost weekly if we look for them.
Arguably, there isn't the potential for collateral damage on the same
scale in those matters.
People have been fabricating pure lies about Behringer and all but
instructing those even less well informed (but probably more decently
motivated) than themselves NOT to buy Behringer products under any
circumstances.
Imagine working for Behringer (not Mackie) and see how that feels.
I should say again that I don't (and never have) worked for or with
either company.
>
> > I wonder if Aphex would have been so upset had Behringer
> > demanded $20,000 per box?
>
> On principle, yes. But Behringer had the good sense to know that they
> couldn't sell it for $20,000. The thing is that Behringer's product
> brought the technology to a just-growing new industry (the
> personal/home/project studio) that didn't have the budget nor the
> projects to warrant leasing of the Aphex exciter. Aphex didn't have
> any customers in this portion of the market, and knew that if they
> changed their strategy (which they eventually did) they'd alienate
> the customers that helped build them up. This is in a sense comparable
> to Behringer lowering the bar and bringing mixers to people who never
> thought they could afford them.
If there's any pattern in Behringer's 'game plan' this is it. The
company succeeds by (in business-speak) exploiting the dilution of
technology. None of its products is leading edge (yet!) - just far
enough behind the curve to be able to deliver a high price-performance
ratio.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with this way of working. If you have
a PC on your desk, my dollar says that you have taken advantage of
precisely the same economic mechanism - it's probably at its most
obvious and transparent in the IT industry (where I spend most of my
time).
But those who suggest that Behringer don't do R&D and have no smarts of
their own are so far wide of the mark you have to wonder where their
heads spend most of their time.
Behringer's market position is like that of a surfer who has to
constantly ride the crest of the wave. The company not only has to keep
abreast of new and developing technologies, it has to find ways to bring
those technologies to market at affordable prices. The range and depth
of the skill set the company has to possess and deploy in order to
maintain its position is dauntingly impressive.
That includes a serious R&D and design department - all of its very own.
>
> > Behringer readily admitted its actions. The fact that the case went
> > through a full trial shows only that both parties believed they had a
> > case to argue - and the court agreed with them - courts not being known
> > for their willingness to hear frivolous claims - or defences. At the end
> > of the court action, Aphex won and Behringer paid the compensation
> > awarded by the court.
>
> What was the basis? Was there actually a financial loss calculated
> (and validated to the court) - like former Aphex rental customers
> doing major label projects who were buying the Behrniger exciter? Or
> was it a punitive settlement? Seems to me that there were ads at the
> time with Marvin Ceasar waving a check for $20,000 from Behringer,
> hardly lunch money.
Mike, the court considered the claim in far more detail than you or I
are ever likely to. That neither party was satisfied with the outcome
suggests to me that the judge got his ruling just about spot on.
$20,000 is less than a company the size of Behringer spends on toilet
rolls each year.
As you say, both companies are still around.
>
> > > Behringer was in bed
> > > with with their major USA distributor SAM ASH/SAMSON on this deal, with
> > > SA putting up much money to finance having a sample of the then-new
> > > Mackie 8-bus sent to Behringer's China contractor to back-engineer it
> > > and copy it for production.
>
> I thought this part was silly, but just another arguing point for the
> lawyers. Any would-be investor could have walked into a Sam Ash store,
> bought a Mackie mixer, and sent it to China asking for copies to be
> made. The only difference is that Samson got the sample at dealer
> cost.
Unless and until someone PROVES this happened, please excuse me if I
hang on to my belief that this is no more than fantasy, hearsay
bullshit.
I've seen nothing to show that Ash ever did any such thing.
But let's just step into the real world for a moment, shall we?
It is a common, legal, ethical and everyday occurrence for companies to
examine competitor products. In the service sector (and much of
manufacturing these days also) the process even has a name -
benchmarking. In which both parties openly engage in exploring and
learning from each other.
Look in the back of the Chrysler (or Ford, or GM) design shop and you'll
find Lincolns, Jaguars, Mercedes, Audis and all sorts in various states
of disassembly. Talk to their product specialists and you'll find that
they actively purchase and very methodically drive competitors' vehicles
and assess them on road-holding, comfort, features etc.
Then their backroom boys take the things apart to find out how their
opposite numbers did it.
Not only would I not be surprised if Behringer (or one of its partners)
had examined a Mackie mixer (and let me say again that this is very
different from the silly accusation made about Ash and the Chinese) - I
would be absolutely stunned (to the point of disbelief) if someone from
Mackie tried to tell me that it had not bought (and did not still buy)
Behringer products in order to measure, assess and disassemble them.
The point that is not so silly - but actually a serious allegation - is
the bit about 'asking the Chinese to copy ...'.
For the record (for the last time, please?) that did not happen.
Mackie might have claimed it did but its claims were thrown out.
Unproven.
IOW - untrue, false, wrong. Whatever strength of description you want to
apply to their actions.
>
> > Could it possibly be that Mackie had achieved its commercial objectives
> > and had nothing nore to gain (but plenty to lose) by pursuing the claim
> > further?
>
> I think this is quite possible. Smart, too. They knew how much money
> they spent, and its value as a marketing tool. Mackie built their
> success on two things equally - competent (though not necessarily
> brilliant) engineering and marketing.
But they are not unique. And (as time has shown) they weren't the best
or - in the long run - even good enough at it.
>
> > FYI, I've been to Behringer's HQ in Germany and seen their R&D
> > department. It's impressive - in a large, separate, well equipped
> > building, well staffed with good, honest people - and stuffed full of
> > original product designs. All originating in-house.
>
> I would certainly believe this today.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The people I spoke to in
Behringer's R&D department have in most cases worked at the company for
years. In R&D. I saw not only their current work but some of their past
design and research projects.
Gotta say I wouldn't be writing so adamantly on this topic if I hadn't
seen with my own eyes - and seen other things that are not and probably
never will be public.
Behringer is a nice company. Don't take my word for it, call them and go
see for yourself.
You know Mackie from the inside. I don't. But, for the record, I don't
believe that Mackie is full of bad people or is a bad company. Far from
it.
I have stated my sympathy for the company and the plight it found itself
in. That someone (let's be generous here) took the decision to try to
safeguard its workforce and their families is nothing to be ashamed of
but something to applaud.
But the way they went about it was wrong.
That's what the record shows, and that's what people need to recognise.
And stop hurling unfounded abuse at Behringer.
From our humble position as consumers, let's just look, listen, evaluate
and decide.
On product merits, that is.
George Perfect
g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Mr. perfect
That's George to you and anyone else here, please, George :)
> I appreciate the work you did to uncover the closest believable facts I
> have found on this subject and unless someone else presents a very
> compelling case, I feel you did your home work and are speaking from a
> position of knowledge, not predijuce
> George Gleason
Thank you for those kind words. Like you, I remain open to persuasion if
anyone has knowledge that hasn't come my way despite my best efforts.
Trouble is, I keep asking and challenging - and nobody ever answers.
Rest assured that everything I write about I have seen with my own eyes.
The opinions and interpretations (such as they are) are mine, of course.
Kind regards
Analogeezer
I'm not gonna suggest that Behringer didn't clone the look but did you
actually ever even look at those two mixers?
Your statement is wildly inaccurate.
The original (and new model) Behringer 8 bus had mutes and solos on
the B Mix which the Mackie did not...that's a MAJOR Difference right
there.
The Mackie had a fully parametric (with adjustable Q) sweepable
mid-range EQ band whereas the Behringer did not...another MAJOR
difference.
The aux return section was arranged differently as well.
Finally the biggest difference was with the Behringer the EQ was
towards the top of the channel strip, with the auxes down low, whereas
the Mackie was reversed (Auxes up top, EQ down low).
Given all of these differences how could the B brand be a physical
Clone of the Mackie?
Are you suggesting that the cicuit boards were the same underneath,
and that Behringer used little strings and wires attached to the pots
to adjust the aux and EQ knobs, which were in fact reversed on the
channel strip?
I'm no big fan of Behringer but I keep hearing this bit of
misinformation repeated again and again, and it's not remotely close
to being correct.
Geez if you are gonna slag something, get your facts straight...
Yeah they used the same knobs and fader caps, and meter display, parts
they sourced from the same supplier as Mackie.
But are the boards physical clones of each other? No way?
Analogeezer
Preben Friis
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
news:oIwLb.16507$ws.18...@news02.tsnz.net...
>
That's bullshit. You have obviously never compared the two.
Physically ... Behringer has aux'es below EQs and no analog meters in
the VU-bridge, EQs on B-bus, different routing, etc etc...
Electronically ... Behringer uses NJM4580 OpAmps, Mackie uses NJM 4560 etc
etc ...
So ... I guess you're the lowlife. You're spreading false rumors.
Is every ball-microphone a clone of a SM-58? Is every side address LDC a
clone of an U87? Is every second electric guitar a clone of a Stratocaster?
Is every acoustic guitar a clone of a Martin? Is every piano a copy of a
Steinway? Is Lexus a clone of Mercedes? If so, why don't you blame half the
world for making clones?
Best regards
/Preben Friis
Geoff Wood
"George Perfect" <NOSPAM...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
>
> Geoff, would you happen to have any more evidence to support this claim
> than the others who have made identical allegations here and elsewhere?
It's no secret, it's not a rumour. They were in the shops. Exact clones
of Mackie 24.8 8-Bus console. Splitting image, except the name said
"Behringer". Dunno if the PCBs were clones too.
It's not a secret, or a rumour, and was the subject of a court case the
upshot of which was that B were not allowed to sell that particular model in
the USA.
> Would you care to substantiate your "offering"?
Short of finding one and shipping it to you, what would satisfy you ?
http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/05/21/1997/?PHPSESSID=f2ef87a801d219ee485a1af25a0cc40a
http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/06/24/1997/?find=06/25/1997
And yes, I have seen them with my own eyes.
Geoff Wood
"Analogeezer" <analo...@aerosolkings.com> wrote in message
>
> Are you suggesting that the cicuit boards were the same underneath,
> and that Behringer used little strings and wires attached to the pots
> to adjust the aux and EQ knobs, which were in fact reversed on the
> channel strip?
>
> I'm no big fan of Behringer but I keep hearing this bit of
> misinformation repeated again and again, and it's not remotely close
> to being correct.
OK, the details may differ ( I never inspected that closely), but are you
suggesting that the layout, shape, knobware, control legends, meter bridge,
colour, and features were *not expressly designed* so that Joe Bloggs
walking into a shop would recognise it as being the console that they had
seen advertised and reveiwed elsewhere ?
>
> Geez if you are gonna slag something, get your facts straight...
Reasonably straightish
> Yeah they used the same knobs and fader caps, and meter display, parts
> they sourced from the same supplier as Mackie.
> But are the boards physical clones of each other? No way?
OK, but 'better' or 'worse'. Still posing as the former M product,
presumably for a reason other than sycophancy or admiration.
geoff
Geoff Wood
"Preben Friis" <no...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:btmuk1$970oj$1@ID-
>
> So ... I guess you're the lowlife. You're spreading false rumors.
OK, thanks ..
Part of what I have stated is from my own physical observation, and part is
from heresay - which transpires to be incorrect.
Thanks again Mr highlife, for reminding me just what a zero I am.
geoff.
George
> OK, but 'better' or 'worse'. Still posing as the former M product,
> presumably for a reason other than sycophancy or admiration.
>
so they both got knobs from the same lowest cost supplier
is a ford a copy of a chevy cause they both came with goodyear tires?
Knob makers like to sell lots of knobs, one way to do that is to sell to
a mfgr who is making lots of product, like M and B
George
George Perfect
nospam says...
> OK, the details may differ ( I never inspected that closely), but are you
> suggesting that the layout, shape, knobware, control legends, meter bridge,
> colour, and features were *not expressly designed* so that Joe Bloggs
> walking into a shop would recognise it as being the console that they had
> seen advertised and reveiwed elsewhere ?
Great. Another slave to accuracy prepared to call someone a thief.
> >
> > Geez if you are gonna slag something, get your facts straight...
>
> Reasonably straightish
If I called you a thief, you'd probably demand - quite rightly - a
somewhat higher standard of proof than "Well - he kinda looks a bit like
the guy who robbed me".
>
> > Yeah they used the same knobs and fader caps, and meter display, parts
> > they sourced from the same supplier as Mackie.
>
> > But are the boards physical clones of each other? No way?
>
> OK, but 'better' or 'worse'. Still posing as the former M product,
> presumably for a reason other than sycophancy or admiration.
These two products look no more alike than any two analogue mixers of
similar size and function.
Just to calibrate your senses, go look at a Ghost master section and
compare it to that on the Mackie 8-buss.
Then come back and tell us all how close the Behringer board is to the
Mackie.
You do have working eyes, dontcha?
Geoff Wood
"George" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:g.p.gleason-064F...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > OK, but 'better' or 'worse'. Still posing as the former M product,
> > presumably for a reason other than sycophancy or admiration.
> >
> I can't find any evidence to support any of your claims
OK, it must be in my imagination then.
> so they both got knobs from the same lowest cost supplier
there are many cheaper knobs around.
> is a ford a copy of a chevy cause they both came with goodyear tires?
The similarity is a 'little' closer than the knobs.
> Knob makers like to sell lots of knobs, one way to do that is to sell to
> a mfgr who is making lots of product, like M and B
And the other similarities were just coincidence ? Wanna buy a bridge ?
geoff
Geoff Wood
> similar size and function.
The first time I saw one I assumed it was a Mackie 24.8. And I *had* a
Mackie 24..
> Just to calibrate your senses, go look at a Ghost master section and
> compare it to that on the Mackie 8-buss.
>
> Then come back and tell us all how close the Behringer board is to the
> Mackie.
> You do have working eyes, dontcha?
Have you ever seen the product we are talking about ? Hint - they haven't
been around for 5 years or so - B'ringear stopped making that model, for
some reason.
geoff
George
> And the other similarities were just coincidence ? Wanna buy a bridge ?
>
> geoff
>
>
I need a more reserched reliable seller
George
George Perfect
nospam says...
>
> "George Perfect" <NOSPAM...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >
> >
> > Geoff, would you happen to have any more evidence to support this claim
> > than the others who have made identical allegations here and elsewhere?
>
> It's no secret, it's not a rumour. They were in the shops. Exact clones
> of Mackie 24.8 8-Bus console. Splitting image, except the name said
> "Behringer".
No, they were not.
>
> It's not a secret, or a rumour, and was the subject of a court case the
> upshot of which was that B were not allowed to sell that particular model in
> the USA.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> > Would you care to substantiate your "offering"?
>
> Short of finding one and shipping it to you, what would satisfy you ?
I'd settle for a pair of brochures that show two mixers - one badged
Mackie and one badged Behringer that have identical control layouts for
a start.
Start looking. You won't find any but it'll keep you out of harm's way.
As you've already been told elsewhere in this thread these two mixers
don't even get into he same street as each other. Apart from both being
a sorta similar shade of black, using commodity ladder displays for
their meters and being covered in knobs they couldn't be much more
different if they tried.
>
> http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/05/21/1997/?PHPSESSID=f2ef87a801d219ee485a1af25a0cc40a
>
> http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/06/24/1997/?find=06/25/1997
This is your proof? Two badly paraphrased extracts from less than
independent press releases?
May I quote from one of them? In which the good folks of Sweetwater say:
"... we at Sweetwater Sound have elected to maintain our long-standing
decision not to carry Samson or Behringer products..."
May I now refer you to this page of the Sweetwater site:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/manufacturer/Samson/
What's that? Sweetwater selling Samson products? Lots of Samsom
products?
You do know that many of Samson's products are clones (in a considerably
more accurate use of the word than you appear to understand) of
Behringer's product range?
You do know that. Don't you?
You wouldn't have a problem telling me whose and which products bear a
striking resemblance to Samson's S-range - the S.Com, S.Com-4 and
S.Phone for starters, now, would you? Or vice versa, of course.
I just love it when people of dubious commercial motive adopt the moral
high ground. Somehow they always end up with egg on their face.
Now, which came first - the chicken or the egg? Who 'cloned' whom?
>
> And yes, I have seen them with my own eyes.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Go read this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&selm=MPG.192661c49196fb0989705%40News.CIS.DFN.DE&rnum=67
to - if nothing else - discover how and where those press releases
originated.
George
>
> Have you ever seen the product we are talking about ? Hint - they haven't
> been around for 5 years or so - B'ringear stopped making that model, for
> some reason.
>
> geoff
>
>
I bet youd even be hard pressed to buy a new windows 98 disk from MS
either
it's a bitch that things get updated and discontinued just when ya need
them to establish conspiricy theorys
George
George Perfect
nospam says...
>
> "George Perfect" <NOSPAM...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > These two products look no more alike than any two analogue mixers of
> > similar size and function.
>
> The first time I saw one I assumed it was a Mackie 24.8. And I *had* a
> Mackie 24..
How far away were you? If you want to tell me you tried one out and were
still confused, I'll call you a liar again. Either that or start to feel
sorry for your obvious disability.
>
> > Just to calibrate your senses, go look at a Ghost master section and
> > compare it to that on the Mackie 8-buss.
> >
> > Then come back and tell us all how close the Behringer board is to the
> > Mackie.
>
> > You do have working eyes, dontcha?
>
> Have you ever seen the product we are talking about ? Hint - they haven't
> been around for 5 years or so - B'ringear stopped making that model, for
> some reason.
I've seen more of both than you have. That much is obvious.
FYI, Behringer were not "forced to stop selling" their 8000 series mixer
- they CHOSE to withdraw it from the U.S. market. The company didn't
even sneeze at the loss of profit that decision might have cost. They
continued to sell the product in every other country (more than 40) in
which the company sells its products worldwide. Including the whole of
Europe. The Behringer 8000 outsold the Mackie 8-buss many to one over
here.
Right up until last year.
When the model was replaced by the new and more advanced 9000 series.
So - I've answered your question. Perhaps you'd be good enough to answer
mine.
What's the difference between the master section on a Soundcraft Ghost
and that of the Mackie 8-buss?
And which came first?
Mind you don't make yourself look even more of a prat though.
Mike Rivers
> Can I just say once again (sigh, sigh, sigh) BEHRINGER DID NOT COPY ANY
> OF MACKIE'S PROPERTY.
Sure you can say it. There are others who say that they saw it. I
don't know who they are, and I didn't see it myself. I don't think
we'll ever know.
> One look at the two products shows they don't share circuit boards.
You have to go back a ways, and may be you did. Again, I don't know
for sure, but from the outside they sure looked mightly similar, at
least in the early days of the Behringer mixers, and they were
obviously targeted to exactly the same market. In music, I'd say it
was like George Harrison copying She's So Fine when he wrote My Sweet
Lord. I thought that was a frivilous lawsuit too, but George lost that
one. Sure, there were a lot of mixers that looked like the Mackie
which came out shortly afterward. ART had one, and there were a couple
of others. But none were (as time proved) a serious threat to Mackie's
market position.
It seems that this whole issue is polarized. There are those who hate
Behringer claiming that they took advantage of Mackie's engineering
and combined it with low manufacturing cost (and perhaps lower quality
though this doesn't seem to be true). There are those who hate Mackie
because they were market leaders - essentially MADE the market - for a
long time. All in all, nobody likes anybody very much, but they're
happy to be able to save some money on a box with knobs and faders.
There are those who have found from experience that at least some
products that Behringer has designed on their own are really poor
performers, but they look great, are marketed right against similar
products at double or more the price, and the target customer is not
experienced or educated enough to make a sound decision. In many cases
he doesn't learn until well after he's paid his money and used it for
a while that it's a poor product. I'd use a Behringer headphone
amplifier just about anywhere because it doesn't HAVE to be any better
than it is. Would a Furman be any better most of the time? Probably
not (most of the time). But I've heard a couple of those Behringer
preamps with the chrome front panels and they don't sound very good.
But hey, it sure LOOKS great, and it solves the problem that the
person who's been trying to plug his mic into the line input of his
laptop computer is having.
> Behringer has its own way with manuals. Their's doesn't even look like a
> Mackie manual.
This is certainly true for the Behringer products I've used. I don't
think that anyone has accused them of copying a manual, but rather,
copying pages from a manual - block diagrams, and in the case of the
original Exciter, an Aphex schematic.
> Their problem - as I have repeatedly said - was that somebody
> (Behringer) did it better.
Marketing? Better than Mackie? Nope, not at all. They rode on Mackie's
coat tails and just came up with a cheaper product that looked enough
like the origianal that people bought it because of the price.
> As an outsider, I have to say that of the two, I find Behringer by far
> the more impressive company.
I don't really want to be impresed by a company, I want to be
impressed by the performance of their products and the competence and
effectiveness of their support when I need it.
> If there's any pattern in Behringer's 'game plan' this is it. The
> company succeeds by (in business-speak) exploiting the dilution of
> technology.
And this is something to be proud of?
Aphex made the Exciter when nobody else was packaging even order
harmonic distortion. Behringer made a copy. I think they also had a
copy of the Aphex Compellor at the time too. Mackie made compact
mixers that outclassed the only other serious player at the time,
TASCAM. Mackie said "meeee toooo." Everybody makes mic preamps.
Line 6 came up with the idea of a modeling guitar amplifier. Meee
toooo. TASCAM made some low priced digital mixers. Meeee tooooo. And
while there are plenty of people making powered control room monitors,
the Behringer Truth looked a whole lot more like the Mackie 824 than
any of the KRKs or Tannoys or Genelecs.
> None of its products is leading edge (yet!) - just far
> enough behind the curve to be able to deliver a high price-performance
> ratio.
Right - no risk. Great business plan. I'm the sort of person who
lives on the trailing edge of technology, but I feel more comfortable
buying a technicalogical product from a company that was smart enough
to think of the idea, develop it, find the problems, and get it to
market. If I don't support those companies, who's going to be first
next time around?
> There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with this way of working. If you have
> a PC on your desk, my dollar says that you have taken advantage of
> precisely the same economic mechanism - it's probably at its most
> obvious and transparent in the IT industry (where I spend most of my
> time).
I bought a PC clone with 256K of memory, two 360K floppy drives, a
Hercules clone mono graphics board with a big 13" amber monitor for
$1000 and thought I got a pretty good buy. I added a 20 MB hard drive
to it for another $400 a couple of years later. I'm typing this on a
much more powerful computer that I bought second-hand for $800. But
somehow things don't get done any faster with it, and I spend more
time sitting at it than I did with the PC. And the keyboard is a lot
crummier because you can't buy a good keyboard any more since people
only want to spend $10 on one unless it's wireless. I see
technilogical progress, but not a lot of practical progress.
On the other hand, thanks to my Mackie HDR24/96 recorder, my
recordings, even going through the same trusty old analog console, are
quieter than they were with an analog recorder, and they sound better,
too.
> But those who suggest that Behringer don't do R&D and have no smarts of
> their own are so far wide of the mark you have to wonder where their
> heads spend most of their time.
Sure, they have to do something. But there's a difference between
product engineering and innovation. Both are important skills, and
without one, you don't have new products.
> Behringer's market position is like that of a surfer who has to
> constantly ride the crest of the wave. The company not only has to keep
> abreast of new and developing technologies, it has to find ways to bring
> those technologies to market at affordable prices.
Substitute "products" for "technologies" and I'll agree with you. What
have they done first that's caught on like wildfire? They see that
there's a valid need, and they figure out how to fill that need at
lower cost than the company who's currently filling the need.
> It is a common, legal, ethical and everyday occurrence for companies to
> examine competitor products.
Certainly. I was working at Mackie (contract, six months, so don't
accuse me of being a loyal Mackie employee) at the time the HDR24/96
was about to be introduced. They had a couple of TASCAM MX2424's
around the engineering shop, but they weren't trying to copy it, or
even match it feature-for-feature. They were comparing their designs
and ideas with what TASCAM was doing so they could offer something
enough different (as well as a little cheaper) so that a customer
would have reasons to choose one over the other based on something
other than price.
This is why I don't see much point to the Sam Ash and Sampson issue.
So Mackie was pissed that Sam Ash was pushing Behringer mixers to
their customers over Mackie mixers. So they said "Go sell the
Behringer line. We won't sell you ours any more." I can see that,
though it's like cutting off the nose to spite the face. I didn't see
any TASCAM dealers lose the TASCAM line because they started carrying
Mackie recorders.
> I
> would be absolutely stunned (to the point of disbelief) if someone from
> Mackie tried to tell me that it had not bought (and did not still buy)
> Behringer products in order to measure, assess and disassemble them.
Actually, I don't recall seeing any Behringer products around the
place while I was there. Maybe they made a rule against it. There was
a Behringer logo stuck on to the ass gasket holder in one of the
bathrooms with a note saying "Catalogs. Take one." But(t) that was the
only Behringer I saw when I was around during the last half of 2000.
> > Mackie built their
> > success on two things equally - competent (though not necessarily
> > brilliant) engineering and marketing.
>
> But they are not unique. And (as time has shown) they weren't the best
> or - in the long run - even good enough at it.
Oh, I dunno. When was the last time you saw a really new mixer design?
While the Behringer digital mixer is certainly nothing like the Mackie
d8b, it's a lot like a grown up version of the TASCAM TMD-1000 with
the benefit of four or more years of technological improvements.
> I have stated my sympathy for the company and the plight it found itself
> in. That someone (let's be generous here) took the decision to try to
> safeguard its workforce and their families is nothing to be ashamed of
> but something to applaud.
I don't think that Mackie was in a plight during the Behringer lawsuit
days. They were riding high and wanted to stay there. The thing they
didn't do was push to improve their core products, but rather blew a
lot of money acquiring companies to bring them into related areas in
which they had little marketing experience. Some blame this on the
fact that they became a publicly traded company and had to show money
moving in order to keep the board of directors and the stockholders
happy. Unfortunately, more money moved out than moved in.
If I was president, I would have put $100K into updating the 8-bus
(analog) console and taken away the reasons to buy a Ghost or a
Eurorack. But I was just the guy who wrote the books for a short
while. I had a good time there, met some great people (most of whom
are no longer there), but it wasn't right for me, and I wasn't right
for them. Now I'm just a satisfied owner of a hard disk recorder and a
1402VLZ Pro mixer.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Preben Friis
"Geoff Wood" <ge...@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message
> Thanks again Mr highlife, for reminding me just what a zero I am.
If you need to be reminded later, anytime ....
Best regards
/Preben Friis
Ricky W. Hunt
>
> As you've already been told elsewhere in this thread these two mixers
> don't even get into he same street as each other. Apart from both being
> a sorta similar shade of black, using commodity ladder displays for
> their meters and being covered in knobs they couldn't be much more
> different if they tried.
>
How can you really make a mixer with a "different" layout and it really work
to a real-world degree? Does someone own the patent on fader usage? Can I
still use them if they slide left-to-right instead of up-and-down?
Geoff Wood
Geoff Wood
"George Perfect" <NOSPAM...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote in message ..
>
> How far away were you? If you want to tell me you tried one out and were
> still confused, I'll call you a liar again. Either that or start to feel
> sorry for your obvious disability.
Standing right beside it. Did I ever suggest I tried one out ? Good to see
the type of 'personality' Behringer attacts as apologists..
> FYI, Behringer were not "forced to stop selling" their 8000 series mixer
> - they CHOSE to withdraw it from the U.S. market.
I wonder why ...
> What's the difference between the master section on a Soundcraft Ghost
> and that of the Mackie 8-buss?
Haven't got a Ghost to see, but it's probably a different shade of colour,
different knobs, different layout, different legend fonts, different meter
panel.
> And which came first?
Mackie 24.8
> Mind you don't make yourself look even more of a prat though.
OK.
geoff
Mike Rivers
In article <znr1073681367k@trad> mri...@d-and-d.com (that's me!) writes:
> Mackie made compact
> mixers that outclassed the only other serious player at the time,
> TASCAM. Mackie said "meeee toooo."
I must have been on a roll here. Of course I meant Behringer said
"meeee toooo."
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
George Perfect
says...
>
> How can you really make a mixer with a "different" layout and it really work
> to a real-world degree? Does someone own the patent on fader usage? Can I
> still use them if they slide left-to-right instead of up-and-down?
I won't repeat what others have already written in this thread. The
control layout and feature set of thee two products is entirely
different. They are certainly not "clones" of each other.
George Perfect
> > still confused, I'll call you a liar again. Either that or start to feel
> > sorry for your obvious disability.
>
> Standing right beside it. Did I ever suggest I tried one out ? Good to see
> the type of 'personality' Behringer attacts as apologists..
Cheap jibes are always the sign of a fool losing an argument. FWIW, my
comment was intended to stop you digging yourself further into the mire
in public.
> > FYI, Behringer were not "forced to stop selling" their 8000 series mixer
> > - they CHOSE to withdraw it from the U.S. market.
>
> I wonder why ...
If that statement is true, do a Google search and catch up with your
reading.
>
> > What's the difference between the master section on a Soundcraft Ghost
> > and that of the Mackie 8-buss?
>
> Haven't got a Ghost to see, but it's probably a different shade of colour,
> different knobs, different layout, different legend fonts, different meter
> panel.
OK - you got the colour difference right. Other than that, you really
should go look at one to get a better appreciation of what the term
"Exact clones ..." might mean.
George Perfect
>
> In article <znr1073681367k@trad> mri...@d-and-d.com (that's me!) writes:
>
> > Mackie made compact
> > mixers that outclassed the only other serious player at the time,
> > TASCAM. Mackie said "meeee toooo."
>
> I must have been on a roll here. Of course I meant Behringer said
> "meeee toooo."
Faux pas time, huh?
Don't worry - I knew what you meant :)
George Perfect
> > OF MACKIE'S PROPERTY.
>
> Sure you can say it. There are others who say that they saw it. I
> don't know who they are, and I didn't see it myself. I don't think
> we'll ever know.
Fact of the matter is, the accusation that comes up (originated by
Mackie) is specific - that Behringer "cloned" Mackie's 8-buss and copied
circuit boards and other design properties owned by Mackie.
One look (OK - two in deference to Geoff Wood who gets easily confused)
reveals that the feature set and control layout is *very* different.
There's no way these two came off the same drawing board.
And - let's not forget - Mackie didn't *own* any recognised design
rights. I'll come back to this point again as you raise it below.
>
> > One look at the two products shows they don't share circuit boards.
>
> You have to go back a ways, and may be you did. Again, I don't know
> for sure, but from the outside they sure looked mightly similar, at
> least in the early days of the Behringer mixers, and they were
> obviously targeted to exactly the same market. In music, I'd say it
> was like George Harrison copying She's So Fine when he wrote My Sweet
> Lord. I thought that was a frivilous lawsuit too, but George lost that
> one. Sure, there were a lot of mixers that looked like the Mackie
> which came out shortly afterward. ART had one, and there were a couple
> of others. But none were (as time proved) a serious threat to Mackie's
> market position.
Mike, excuse me for not having the time to do it again but if you care
to go back in the Google archives, you'll find a post from me which
links to photos of at least half a dozen black painted mixers that bear
resemblance to the Mackie 8-buss. If you were colour blind (or looking
at monochrome brochures) you'd find a whole lot more.
You know, when I visit the U.S., being unfamiliar with your cars I have
trouble telling a Ford from a Chrysler. To my unfamiliar eyes, the
vehicles all look like "clones" of each other and only the grille badges
tell them apart.
Of course, when I look a little closer, the details become apparent.
Drive a few and differences in comfort, road-holding and features become
clear.
These products compete - fairly - for our dollars and pounds on these
differences.
Despite (to my eyes) the strong visual similarity, it has never occurred
to me when I see a GM Voyager parked next to its Ford equivalent, both
painted charcoal grey, to accuse one or other of "cloning", "ripping
off" or in any way cheating on the opponent.
I believe you got to the heart of Mackie's motives when you say
"But none were (as time proved) a serious threat to Mackie's
market position"
Behringer represented a very serious threat to Mackie's business - by
doing no more than Mackie (read below) was itself doing - but better.
Mackie's big win in this shameful episode was the destruction of
Behringer's U.S. distribution channel, giving Mackie a much needed
breathing space. Unfairly.
>
> It seems that this whole issue is polarized. There are those who hate
> Behringer claiming that they took advantage of Mackie's engineering
> and combined it with low manufacturing cost (and perhaps lower quality
> though this doesn't seem to be true). There are those who hate Mackie
> because they were market leaders - essentially MADE the market - for a
> long time. All in all, nobody likes anybody very much, but they're
> happy to be able to save some money on a box with knobs and faders.
You guys really must get out more. That position is only (possibly - I'm
not convinced) true seen from within the U.S. borders. Out here in the
rest of the world, Mackie does not have the brand image of an innovator.
Others do.
As for taking "advantage of Mackie's engineering" that would only be
true if Behringer had conducted industrial espionage or recruited ex-
Mackie personnel to disclose the companies internal secrets.
Even in Mackie's wildest fantasies there has never been any suggestion
of such activity.
Behringer's engineering skills are its own.
>
> There are those who have found from experience that at least some
> products that Behringer has designed on their own are really poor
> performers, but they look great, are marketed right against similar
> products at double or more the price, and the target customer is not
> experienced or educated enough to make a sound decision. In many cases
> he doesn't learn until well after he's paid his money and used it for
> a while that it's a poor product.
Maybe someone else will pick up the task of counting how many products
Behringer makes over how many market segments. It's a lot.
Another way of looking at this is to recognise that Behringer is
"customer focussed". IOW it gives the market what it wants.
Complaints about poor performance and product quality seem to arise from
penny-pinching so-and-so's who take a box clearly aimed at the beginning
bedroom guitar player (or WHY) then submit it to 6 months hard life on
the road, gigging every night. Or complain that their $60 preamp doesn't
have the same features or sound quality as an Avalon or Manley (slight
exaggeration applied here for effect, obviously <g>)
> I'd use a Behringer headphone
> amplifier just about anywhere because it doesn't HAVE to be any better
> than it is. Would a Furman be any better most of the time? Probably
> not (most of the time). But I've heard a couple of those Behringer
> preamps with the chrome front panels and they don't sound very good.
> But hey, it sure LOOKS great, and it solves the problem that the
> person who's been trying to plug his mic into the line input of his
> laptop computer is having.
Know what? There are people out there who value looks and knob-count
over sonic performance. I have a 15-year old guitar wielding son who,
taken into the local music store at Christmas went straight to the amp
with the shiniest fascia, most knobs ... and a price tage he thought I
might be persuaded to stump up!
I see nothing wrong in this at all. If he keeps up his guitar playing,
as I hope he will, he should eventually learn that "quality" has
different meanings and his balance of desirable attributes is likely to
change. Given the opportunity to play through a few amps on the shop
floor he eventually chose one with better sound (and slightly fewer
knobs) so there's hope for him yet!
Some people never learn that lesson and are fated to repeated
disappointment.
But should we campaign to stop all manufacture of shiny boxes with too
many knobs?
Back to Behringer, they also make some preamps that sound very decent
and can stand professional use. It's strange these days when I *don't*
see at least one Behringer mic pre or compressor in the rack at any gig
I attend.
Horses for courses and all.
>
> > Behringer has its own way with manuals. Their's doesn't even look like a
> > Mackie manual.
>
> This is certainly true for the Behringer products I've used. I don't
> think that anyone has accused them of copying a manual, but rather,
> copying pages from a manual - block diagrams, and in the case of the
> original Exciter, an Aphex schematic.
I've seen the repeated claim that Behringer copied Aphex's manual though
I've never seen the two manuals themselves. FWIW, the company denies it
copied the Aphex manual in the way described.
Are you saying Behringer copied diagrams out of the Mackie 8-buss
manual? If so, that's a new one on me - and not something I noticed when
looking at the two manuals, I have to say.
>
> > Their problem - as I have repeatedly said - was that somebody
> > (Behringer) did it better.
>
> Marketing? Better than Mackie? Nope, not at all. They rode on Mackie's
> coat tails and just came up with a cheaper product that looked enough
> like the origianal that people bought it because of the price.
I was referring to manufacturing and design actually. You talk more
about design and innovation below so I don't want to go into that here
other than to say (again) that there's a whole lot more to putting out a
quality technical product than is widely recognised.
As for marketing, I think you are confusing strategy with ability. To
this day, Behringer rarely advertise (at least in the periodicals I read
- and I read almost all of the recording mags available over here). Yet,
somehow, the company's name is widely known and the brand is instantly
recognised - and recognisable.
That (and the company's financial performance) suggests to me that
someone (and I have met them) in Behringer's marketing department does
indeed know a thing or two about successful product marketing.
I'll let the "looked like" comment slide for the moment - we'll return
to it.
>
> > As an outsider, I have to say that of the two, I find Behringer by far
> > the more impressive company.
>
> I don't really want to be impresed by a company, I want to be
> impressed by the performance of their products and the competence and
> effectiveness of their support when I need it.
OK - I own and use several pieces of Behringer equipment. Each chosen to
fulfill a specific role. Each has performed exactly as specified and I
have to say I have been pleased with them all. As for reliability, apart
from one mounting bolt that came slightly loose on a monitor (an easy, 5
second fix) nothing has gone wrong. I have purchased quite a bit more
Behringer gear for my son's school (a harsh environment if ever there
was) and again it has all worked flawlessly - and continues to do so
despite some heavy treatment on occasion.
As to support, I have visited Behringer's HQ, gone through their service
department in some detail (it's an area of professional interest for me)
and reviewed the company's quality procedures, QA statistics and service
logs.
If Mackie (or 90% of suppliers of audio equipment) come even remotely
close to Behringer's performance in these areas, IMHO they would also be
in the top of the world class tables for these functions.
As we know, few companies in this market even come close and too many
pay little more than lip service to product quality or after-sales
service.
As to support, Behringer employs a full-time, multi-lingual support
staff at its Duesseldorf HQ who respond to support calls and emails
promptly and courteously. I have seen them in action. I've even called
the company up anonymously and found them to be courteous and helpful
beyond reason.
Personally, I can't reasonably ask for more from a supplier. Especially
one who is in the business of filling and emptying a 40,000 square foot
warehouse of product every 24 hours, day in - day out.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, isn't Mackie the company that
released early batches of its HR824 monitor with faulty glue and
assembly that saw drivers falling out of the boxes? Aren't they the
company that released a Digital 8-buss mixer full of software bugs and
with a large number of advertised features missing and not supplied
until several software upgrades and a couple of years later?
Hardly qualifies them to criticise Behringer's (or anyone's) performance
(or ethics) in my book.
>
> > If there's any pattern in Behringer's 'game plan' this is it. The
> > company succeeds by (in business-speak) exploiting the dilution of
> > technology.
>
> And this is something to be proud of?
Yes, it most certainly is. Perhaps I didn't explain my meaning
adequately. "Dilution of technology" involves nothing underhand or
shameful. It (for the avoidance of doubt) does not involve "cloning" or
"ripping off" your competitors. It's an economic mechanism that applies
to all technologies - from the steam engine to the latest computer
chips.
When any new technology is developed, it is naturally very expensive and
available only to a few. Over time, ways are found to produce,
fabricate, manufacture, deliver etc. that technology more efficiently.
The price falls, more people can afford the benefits the technology
brings so the market widens from a niche into volume.
James Watt made the first steam engine at vast cost, affordable only by
mining companies who could justify the expense out of the profits made
from extracting highly valuable ore. Wind the calendar forward a few
years and the world is littered with thousands of steam engines pulling
trains all over the place, powering factories and generating plants and
millions enjoy their benefits for pennies.
Come up to date and nobody would seriously propose use of a steam engine
on economic grounds. IOW, the technology these days is close to
worthless.
As the rate of progress has accelerated, the time frame over which this
mechanism operates has shortened in some cases to weeks or months. If
you don't already know it, look up "Moore's Law" to glimpse the
exponential mechanism behind this rate of change.
In business, a company that conducts pure research into new technologies
is recognised as extremely high risk. Get it right (Intel, certain
pharmaceutical companies) and the rewards can be enormous. More get it
wrong than right.
For this reason, the vast majority of businesses sit well behind this
"bleeding edge".
I thought you recognised that both Mackie and Behringer occupy a similar
position in the scheme of things when you said that Mackie's strength
was (excuse me if I paraphrase - time prohibits me looking up your
quote) assembling existing circuit designs into an attractively priced
package (hope I got that right).
>
> Aphex made the Exciter when nobody else was packaging even order
> harmonic distortion. Behringer made a copy.
True - though the background is not as simple as the press releases made
it sound. I'm truly not trying to make apologies for the company here -
I don't need to for one thing as Behringer admitted its mistake and
apologised - but, as subsequent events proved, Aphex was on highly dodgy
ground with its claim in any case. It was comprehensively seen off by
the next defendant it tried to sue - for reasons that demonstrated that
the legal advice Behringer had obtained concerning the validity of
Aphex's patents and design rights was correct all along.
Aphex itself has a far from clean record when it comes to "ripping off"
the work of others.
> I think they also had a
> copy of the Aphex Compellor at the time too.
Never heard or seen any such claim elsewhere.
> Mackie made compact
> mixers that outclassed the only other serious player at the time,
> TASCAM. Mackie said "meeee toooo."
I understand you me(e)an to say Behringer instead of Mackie here. :)
Hang on a minute - can we have some consistency of standards here
please? You say it's OK for Mackie to produce a better mixer than TASCAM
(my old company, 30 years ago - just to get the affiliation record
straight) but NOT OK for Behringer to produce a better mixer than
Mackie?
> Everybody makes mic preamps.
They certainly do. Long live diversity.
> Line 6 came up with the idea of a modeling guitar amplifier. Meee
> toooo.
Er ... Digitech? Boss? Roland? Any number of software plug-ins?
Why pick on Behringer?
> TASCAM made some low priced digital mixers. Meeee tooooo.
At the risk of repeating myself: Roland? Soundcraft? Fostex? And let's
not forget Yamaha who got there first. Not to mention all the all-in-one
workstations with embedded mixers made by Akai, Roland, Fostex etc.,
etc., etc.
Er ... Mackie???
> And
> while there are plenty of people making powered control room monitors,
> the Behringer Truth looked a whole lot more like the Mackie 824 than
> any of the KRKs or Tannoys or Genelecs.
Gimme a break! Mackie's HR824 employs a passive radiator hidden behind
its amps on the rear panel. Behringer's B2031 has two, highly
distinctive, trapezoidal reflex ports prominently adorning its front
fascia.
Both are black, rectangular in shape and use active electronics.
The same could be said of 90% of the powered monitors on the market.
Again, why pick on Behringer?
I have met and spoken with the designer of Behringer's
speaker range and saw their new smaller monitors before they were
launched. Those designs are entirely original, drawn on a clean sheet of
paper.
Mackie was not even an early entrant to the powered monitor market. It
would be easier to allege that Mackie's designs are derivative (which is
what you seem to be suggesting here) than accuse Behringer of that act.
>
> > None of its products is leading edge (yet!) - just far
> > enough behind the curve to be able to deliver a high price-performance
> > ratio.
>
> Right - no risk. Great business plan.
Certainly is a good plan - though far from absent of risk. And as I
explained above, it's the same business plan adopted by Mackie.
Mackie is learning about risk right now.
> I'm the sort of person who
> lives on the trailing edge of technology, but I feel more comfortable
> buying a technicalogical product from a company that was smart enough
> to think of the idea, develop it, find the problems, and get it to
> market. If I don't support those companies, who's going to be first
> next time around?
Sorry - remind me again - what pure research or truly innovative
technology did Mackie ever invent?
As you said, the company's success was based on deploying circuitry and
components developed by others in a way that brought an attractive
product to market at a price affordable by the (relative) masses.
Hang on a minute - that's what you accuse Behringer of doing!
Far be it from me to comment on dual standards but can I at least ask
for some consistency in application of whatever standards you want to
use.
>
> > There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with this way of working. If you have
> > a PC on your desk, my dollar says that you have taken advantage of
> > precisely the same economic mechanism - it's probably at its most
> > obvious and transparent in the IT industry (where I spend most of my
> > time).
>
> I bought a PC clone with 256K of memory, two 360K floppy drives, a
> Hercules clone mono graphics board with a big 13" amber monitor for
> $1000 and thought I got a pretty good buy. I added a 20 MB hard drive
> to it for another $400 a couple of years later. I'm typing this on a
> much more powerful computer that I bought second-hand for $800. But
> somehow things don't get done any faster with it, and I spend more
> time sitting at it than I did with the PC. And the keyboard is a lot
> crummier because you can't buy a good keyboard any more since people
> only want to spend $10 on one unless it's wireless. I see
> technilogical progress, but not a lot of practical progress.
Aahh! Now we're getting somewhere! (gripes aside <g>)
Your first point suggests you understand - and take advantage of
"technology dilution".
Your second says you are happy to do business in other areas with
companies who DO "clone" products researched, designed and developed by
others.
If you apply the same standard to your PC as you seek to apply to Mackie
and Behringer, you would refuse to buy any PC that was not made by IBM.
By the same token, you would buy product from neither Behringer NOR
Mackie - as neither company has ever (by your definition) produced
anything truly original.
OTOH, if you apply the standards you accept for your PC, you should
rejoice that both Mackie AND Behringer exist to deliver yesterday's
leading edge technology in attractively packaged and affordable form.
See where I'm going with this?
>
> On the other hand, thanks to my Mackie HDR24/96 recorder, my
> recordings, even going through the same trusty old analog console, are
> quieter than they were with an analog recorder, and they sound better,
> too.
Good to hear. I see you do understand that the HDR24/96 is (by your
definition) a derivative product in its own right. It's the same shape
and colour as the (earlier) Tascam MX2424, performs an identical
function in largely similar way, its control layout is highly similar
and operates in a way familiar to any owner of an MX2424.
I could go on but I'm sure I've made my point.
See how easy it is to build a case of "cloning" or "rip-off".
>
> > But those who suggest that Behringer don't do R&D and have no smarts of
> > their own are so far wide of the mark you have to wonder where their
> > heads spend most of their time.
>
> Sure, they have to do something. But there's a difference between
> product engineering and innovation. Both are important skills, and
> without one, you don't have new products.
Run that by me again please?
I think we've established that Mackie is not involved in pure research
any more than Behringer (or 99% of the companies in the world).
There's also precious little difference between the way both companies
operate. One just does it better than the other.
>
> > Behringer's market position is like that of a surfer who has to
> > constantly ride the crest of the wave. The company not only has to keep
> > abreast of new and developing technologies, it has to find ways to bring
> > those technologies to market at affordable prices.
>
> Substitute "products" for "technologies" and I'll agree with you. What
> have they done first that's caught on like wildfire? They see that
> there's a valid need, and they figure out how to fill that need at
> lower cost than the company who's currently filling the need.
Where do I start? How about their digital EQ boxes. Their digital format
convertors. Their range of DJ products. Their MIDI foot controllers.
How many examples do you want?
As for your second question, I have to ask again what's wrong with
producing a product that people want at an affordable price?
That's EXACTLY what Mackie does!
>
> > It is a common, legal, ethical and everyday occurrence for companies to
> > examine competitor products.
>
> Certainly. I was working at Mackie (contract, six months, so don't
> accuse me of being a loyal Mackie employee)
Wouldn't. Didn't. I hope (through your writing here) that I know you
better than that.
> at the time the HDR24/96
> was about to be introduced. They had a couple of TASCAM MX2424's
> around the engineering shop, but they weren't trying to copy it, or
> even match it feature-for-feature. They were comparing their designs
> and ideas with what TASCAM was doing so they could offer something
> enough different (as well as a little cheaper) so that a customer
> would have reasons to choose one over the other based on something
> other than price.
Give that we have (conclusively) established that the product that
started this whole hate-campaign shares nothing but its colour, general
purpose and some widely available commodity components with Mackie's
desk, I can see no substance in the claim/accusation that Behringer ever
copied anything from Mackie.
For the record, Begringer's MX8000A mixer was a clean-sheet design and
owed no more to Mackie's 8-buss desk than Mackie's HDR24/96 owes to
Tascam's MX2424.
Full stop. Period.
In all this, Mackie is like the kid in the school yard who, faced with a
better ball player, picks up his ball and walks off so his opponent can
no longer demonstrate his superior skill.
But ... Mackie no more "owned" the rights to make balls than it did the
right to data-sheet mic preamp circuits and the general and familiar
layout of a mixing desk.
Just as the kids would go to the store and buy another ball, Behringer
went off and devloped more mixers. Like the better ball player it is,
its mixers provide better performance, more features and lower prices
than Mackie.
And just like the wrong-headed and lesser-skilled kid, Mackie find
themselves shunned and excluded from the game. It tried to defend an
inferior skill set by running off with its ball.
And it failed.
>
> This is why I don't see much point to the Sam Ash and Sampson issue.
> So Mackie was pissed that Sam Ash was pushing Behringer mixers to
> their customers over Mackie mixers. So they said "Go sell the
> Behringer line. We won't sell you ours any more." I can see that,
> though it's like cutting off the nose to spite the face. I didn't see
> any TASCAM dealers lose the TASCAM line because they started carrying
> Mackie recorders.
You provide a valid if generous interpretation. The wider record shows
that Mackie had a more serious intent in mind - and went about it with
more zeal than you credit.
>
> > I
> > would be absolutely stunned (to the point of disbelief) if someone from
> > Mackie tried to tell me that it had not bought (and did not still buy)
> > Behringer products in order to measure, assess and disassemble them.
>
> Actually, I don't recall seeing any Behringer products around the
> place while I was there. Maybe they made a rule against it. There was
> a Behringer logo stuck on to the ass gasket holder in one of the
> bathrooms with a note saying "Catalogs. Take one." But(t) that was the
> only Behringer I saw when I was around during the last half of 2000.
So Mackie get marks for motivating their workforce - if not for good
taste or neighbourly relations.
Look at it another way: If Mackie never opened up - or even looked at
the outside of a Behringer MX8000A mixer, is it any wonder their suit
was thrown out with such derision by the first judge who looked at it?
>
> > > Mackie built their
> > > success on two things equally - competent (though not necessarily
> > > brilliant) engineering and marketing.
> >
> > But they are not unique. And (as time has shown) they weren't the best
> > or - in the long run - even good enough at it.
>
> Oh, I dunno. When was the last time you saw a really new mixer design?
Not for many years before Mackie's 8-buss appeared. That product is no
more than a cut-down of some of the established big desks I worked on
back in the 70s. There's nothing original in its design other than the
thought that "Hey, with all this IC technology and automated
manufacturing we could cram a bunch of channels into a desk sized box
and make money".
Hardly earth-shattering stuff - or the work of genius.
And not even original thought. Plenty of others were doing similar
things at about the same time. You mentioned TASCAM, I believe as just
one.
> While the Behringer digital mixer is certainly nothing like the Mackie
> d8b, it's a lot like a grown up version of the TASCAM TMD-1000 with
> the benefit of four or more years of technological improvements.
Actually, IMHO it is closer to the Yamaha 01V.
And there's nothing wrong with "more years of technical improvements."
Some of those came from the chip manufacturers (and don't tell me Mackie
researches, develops and produces its own chips) but much of it is
original software design (yup - I do know it is original) AND - if you
want examples of innovation - Behringer's design of rotary encoders,
since taken up and copied by others.
>
> > I have stated my sympathy for the company and the plight it found itself
> > in. That someone (let's be generous here) took the decision to try to
> > safeguard its workforce and their families is nothing to be ashamed of
> > but something to applaud.
>
> I don't think that Mackie was in a plight during the Behringer lawsuit
> days. They were riding high and wanted to stay there.
It may not have been apparent to the outside world but my gut instinct
(and years of experience in boardrooms) tells me that the company's
senior managers could see which way the wind was blowing. If they
didn't, they certainly should have.
Mackie's current problems didn't just appear overnight. They took time
to develop and, unless the company has no internal controls and its
management truly were sleeping all these years, would have been readily
apparent to insiders.
> The thing they
> didn't do was push to improve their core products, but rather blew a
> lot of money acquiring companies to bring them into related areas in
> which they had little marketing experience. Some blame this on the
> fact that they became a publicly traded company and had to show money
> moving in order to keep the board of directors and the stockholders
> happy. Unfortunately, more money moved out than moved in.
Whichever way you look at it, Mackie has suffered from poor management
that made some truly terrible - and eventually costly - decisions.
The 'grow by acquisition' ploy is a common one when companies go public
and their management suddenly find themselves with a pile of cash (more
likely borrowings) and bereft of ideas for putting it to productive use.
Lacking any but stale ideas of their own, the temptation is to buy up
the "good" ideas of others. It rarely works.
>
> If I was president, I would have put $100K into updating the 8-bus
> (analog) console and taken away the reasons to buy a Ghost or a
> Eurorack. But I was just the guy who wrote the books for a short
> while. I had a good time there, met some great people (most of whom
> are no longer there), but it wasn't right for me, and I wasn't right
> for them. Now I'm just a satisfied owner of a hard disk recorder and a
> 1402VLZ Pro mixer.
I'm not sure that gambling on analog consoles in a digital age would
have been the right move but your sentiments are correct. Given Mackie's
high cost base (a weakness) and its background in design of novel and
attractive consumer products (a strength) it should, perhaps, have
concentrated on technologies (such as software) that can produce high
added value at low unit cost and driven the market with innovation.
If they were half the company you describe they would have done so.
Personally, I believe the company and its management adopted a
parochial, inward-looking view and tried to defend an untenable position
using entirely wrong-headed tactics.
I truly hope that Mackie acquires some new management that can turn the
company around and see it survive and prosper. We've already seen the
about-face with its decision to move production off-shore and launch the
budget TAPCO brand. Not enough, too late and too half-hearted from where
I sit - but I'm not on Mackie's board and have no knowledge of the
company's inner workings.
I think they need to bite the bullet and recognise that their Mackie
brand mixers don't actually offer any significant advantage over
competing products from Behringer, Phonic, Soundcraft and others. Their
current strategy seems to be to try to continue fooling consumers into
believing that there's something special about the design or build of
Mackie products.
Which is pure hooey - and consumers are very sensitive to hooey.
Who knows? Maybe (as someone suggested here yesterday) they plan to
slash their prices once their manufacturing costs fall. They can't have
anything for R&D costs on the balance sheet any more.
That would buy them another breathing space. The company then has to
learn again how to innovate and compete (fairly) if it wants to survive
long term.
As for Behringer, it goes from strength to strength. Given past history,
I could forgive the company (and its founder) if they didn't shed a tear
should Mackie disappear.
But, as the company thrives on competition, I have more than a suspicion
that they'd prefer to see Mackie survive as a worthy opponent.
Now THAT is a sigificant difference between them.
Mike Rivers
In article <hCILb.10571$xy6.26025@attbi_s02> ricky...@hotmail.com writes:
> How can you really make a mixer with a "different" layout and it really work
> to a real-world degree? Does someone own the patent on fader usage? Can I
> still use them if they slide left-to-right instead of up-and-down?
DJs do, don't they?
The kind of things that could be identical are, for example:
- The number of auxilary send controls and how they're assigned
pre/post
- The number of equalizer bands provided and the range of each band
- The layout of the console strip - it's pretty much universal that
faders are at the bottom, but what's directly above it varies. It
might be a bus pan pot, it might be a monitor level or pan, it might
be a mute button, etc.
- The inclusion of "extra" buttons such as fader/monitor level control
reverse, EQ assignment or split to monitor section, switch a pair of
aux send controls from two level contrtrols to a level and pan for a
stereo pair send.
etc.
If all of those things are identical on consoles from two different
manufacturers, you can be pretty sure that there was some copying
going on, even if the color scheme is different.
I'm not saying this was (or wasn't) the case at some time, but that
would be my first pass at determining whether one was a copy of the
other. Even if the circuitry was different in some aspects, I'd still
have to say that since the ergonomics are identical (rather than just
having the same functions) that this wasn't a coincidence.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Mike Rivers
> Fact of the matter is, the accusation that comes up (originated by
> Mackie) is specific - that Behringer "cloned" Mackie's 8-buss and copied
> circuit boards and other design properties owned by Mackie.
>
> One look (OK - two in deference to Geoff Wood who gets easily confused)
> reveals that the feature set and control layout is *very* different.
> There's no way these two came off the same drawing board.
These stories have to have originated somewhere, and there must have
been SOME basis of credibility or Mackie wouldn't have gotten upset.
Have you been to EVERY trade show that Behringer ever displayed a
mixer? I can see it being quite possible that when they decided that
they wanted to build a mixer like the Mackie (most of the stories
point to the Mackie 8-bus rather than the compact series) but hadn't
even built a prototype yet, and show time was coming up, that for
expedience they might have bought a Mackie, re-painted it, and
displayed it saying "This will be available in 8 months,
specifications and appearance may change without notice" and they do
the show. Someone (maybe even someone from Mackie) sees it and hits
the roof. There may not have been one ever sold, just exhibited.
Would that be grounds for a lawsuit? I don't think so, and apparently
a judge didn't either. But it COULD have happened, and I don't know
that you have enough information to be sure that it didn't.
> You guys really must get out more. That position is only (possibly - I'm
> not convinced) true seen from within the U.S. borders. Out here in the
> rest of the world, Mackie does not have the brand image of an innovator.
> Others do.
This is where the market is biggest, and Mackie has been more
available than the other brands. Soundcraft is harder to buy. A&H is
harder yet to buy. Yet those may be the leaders over where you are.
Big box dealers (and that's who sells most of this gear over here)
can't afford to sell brands that compete closely, nor can they afford
to train their sales clerks in the subtle differences. So when about
all they can tell a customer is that this one costs more than that
one, there's not incentive for the dealer to sell the more expensive
one.
Obviously this makes life difficult for the manufacturer of the more
expensive one. What are they to do? Say "Everybody claims that we've
been overpricing these for years so we'll just sell them for less than
the other company so you can push ours again." Well, no. They should
have planned for what happened, and put their R&D money into making a
better product at a lower cost so that they would be ready to sell
against the meeee toooo competition when it came along. Mackie, for
whatever reason, resisted that, and instead went into other areas -
digital recording, loudspeakers, installed sound - and they just
didn't do so well. It was a business decision, and some might say they
made the wrong one.
> As for taking "advantage of Mackie's engineering" that would only be
> true if Behringer had conducted industrial espionage or recruited ex-
> Mackie personnel to disclose the companies internal secrets.
There are no secrets. Anyone can take apart a Mackie mixer and make a
new product that's different and cheaper, but still recognizable as to
where its roots are. It would be more difficult to do that with a
digital mixer because it WOULD take some espionage to get at source
code.
> Complaints about poor performance and product quality seem to arise from
> penny-pinching so-and-so's who take a box clearly aimed at the beginning
> bedroom guitar player (or WHY) then submit it to 6 months hard life on
> the road, gigging every night.
How about the feedback destroyer that's the subject of much
disappointment in current discussions in rec.audio.pro?
> But should we campaign to stop all manufacture of shiny boxes with too
> many knobs?
No. But the buyers should be educated as to what they're buying.
Unfortunately no dealer (or marketeer) will tell a potential customer
that this is an inexpensive stepping stone and that if he continues on
his path, he'll want to replace it with something like that other one
that costs much more. No, they'll let the customer believe that he's
making a lifetime investment.
I have never said that there's no place in the market for low end
equipment. I just don't like the idea that people who buy it believe
that what they're paying $100 for is just as good as what I paid $500
for. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, and sometimes it doesn't
matter.
> Back to Behringer, they also make some preamps that sound very decent
> and can stand professional use. It's strange these days when I *don't*
> see at least one Behringer mic pre or compressor in the rack at any gig
> I attend.
I've gotta admit that when I see an equipment lineup in a traveling
road rack in the trade magazines, I do occasionally see a piece of
Behringer equipment in the list. It tends to be kind of specialized
stuff though, not mic preamps or mixers.
> Are you saying Behringer copied diagrams out of the Mackie 8-buss
> manual? If so, that's a new one on me - and not something I noticed when
> looking at the two manuals, I have to say.
I said that's what I heard. I don't know that it's true.
> As to support, I have visited Behringer's HQ, gone through their service
> department in some detail (it's an area of professional interest for me)
> and reviewed the company's quality procedures, QA statistics and service
> logs.
I only know about the US side. Apparently the only way to get any
Behringer product repaired over here is to send it to Seattle. There
may be some independent repair shops willing to give it a crack, but I
don't know if there are even service manuals available. (Mackie will
e-mail you a PDF version of the service manual if you request it) Stan
Jacox was trying to set up his Studio Manintenace Center as a service
depot for Behringer when they re-established themselves in the US a
few years back, but I don't think that ever happened.
A kid recording in his bedroom will find this an inconvenience but can
live with it. A touring musician who depends on a unit to work or at
least be fixable on the road will find it a real problem. A
professional touring act will probably either carry a spare or have
one back at home base that can be shipped to them overnight wherever
they are.
> Playing devil's advocate for a moment, isn't Mackie the company that
> released early batches of its HR824 monitor with faulty glue and
> assembly that saw drivers falling out of the boxes?
I didn't hear about that, but the initial design of their SRM-450
powered PA speakers had a convection problem with the design of the
heat sink on the power amplifier. When operated in the horizontal
(wedge monitor) orientation in the sun, they could overheat. This was
corrected.
> Aren't they the
> company that released a Digital 8-buss mixer full of software bugs and
> with a large number of advertised features missing and not supplied
> until several software upgrades and a couple of years later?
Software. It's always buggy and never gets finished on time. Sure glad
I don't own one. I won't comment on this product. It was an elegant
concept, but they didn't have a software development management process
in place so it was never finished. Marketing is always ahead of
development. This is true with just about every software product.
> I thought you recognised that both Mackie and Behringer occupy a similar
> position in the scheme of things when you said that Mackie's strength
> was (excuse me if I paraphrase - time prohibits me looking up your
> quote) assembling existing circuit designs into an attractively priced
> package (hope I got that right).
Close enough. This is why I never said that there was anything special
or sacred about a Mackie console as a piece of hardware.
> Hang on a minute - can we have some consistency of standards here
> please? You say it's OK for Mackie to produce a better mixer than TASCAM
> (my old company, 30 years ago - just to get the affiliation record
> straight) but NOT OK for Behringer to produce a better mixer than
> Mackie?
Mackie made a better mixer than TASCAM. That the Behringer mixer is
better than Mackie is questionable. You assert it, I don't disagree,
but I don't agree either. All I can recognize is the obvious - that
it's cheaper.
> > TASCAM made some low priced digital mixers. Meeee tooooo.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself: Roland? Soundcraft? Fostex? And let's
> not forget Yamaha who got there first. Not to mention all the all-in-one
> workstations with embedded mixers made by Akai, Roland, Fostex etc.,
> etc., etc.
Mackie only made one digital mixer (if you don't count the DX-8 that
they bought along with one of their acquisitions) and even in its
unfinished state, it was well ahead of any other digital mixer until
the Sony DMX-R100 came along.
> Again, why pick on Behringer?
Because that's the subject we're discussing here.
> As you said, the company's success was based on deploying circuitry and
> components developed by others in a way that brought an attractive
> product to market at a price affordable by the (relative) masses.
However, they did it in a way that, at least for me, worked better
(for some products anyway) than what other manufacturers did. When I
sold my Ampex MM1100, I was thinking that next time I really needed to
own a multitrack recording system, I'd buy a couple of DA-38's
(because that's what was current at the time). I never did, and then
Mackie and TASCAM showed 24-track hard disk recorders at the same
trade show. I was interested in both, and studied the TASCAM quite a
bit since it came out first, but decided that it wasn't really all
that well thought out. That was nailed for me when I helped out my
dealer by setting one up for one of his customers. By the time
Mackie's HDR24/96 was about ready to hatch, they offered me some work,
so I had an opportunity to become very familiar with it. Though it's
been three years since I was up there, I probably still know more than
most about it. It just made sense. More sense than RADAR, more sense
than Fostex's models, more sense than Roland or Yamaha's. Maybe it's
just that they think like I do - that I don't want to have to buy more
pieces (other than my choice of I/O cards) in order to make it
complete. To me, that's good engineering.
> Aahh! Now we're getting somewhere! (gripes aside <g>)
>
> Your first point suggests you understand - and take advantage of
> "technology dilution".
>
> Your second says you are happy to do business in other areas with
> companies who DO "clone" products researched, designed and developed by
> others.
>
> If you apply the same standard to your PC as you seek to apply to Mackie
> and Behringer, you would refuse to buy any PC that was not made by
Hey, you gotta have it. And I sure wish I still had the keyboard that
I had with my original IBM. Besides, if you'll cast your mind back,
you'll recall that PC-DOS came from someone else, not IBM, not
Microsoft. I don't remember who, but you could buy it. It was derived
from CPM.
> By the same token, you would buy product from neither Behringer NOR
> Mackie - as neither company has ever (by your definition) produced
> anything truly original.
Now you're being silly. I buy what makes sense to me at the time.
Other than the headphone amplifier that I mentioned, Behrniger just
hasn't made sense to me. I don't have to waste time trying to save a
few dollars - sometimes I'd just rather buy Mackie.
> OTOH, if you apply the standards you accept for your PC, you should
> rejoice that both Mackie AND Behringer exist to deliver yesterday's
> leading edge technology in attractively packaged and affordable form.
Why should I apply the same standards to buying a PC as buying a piece
of audio equipment? They're very different. I can get to the grocery
store just as well in a Ford Focus as I can in my Lexus, I just LIKE
the Lexus better. We don't have to be rational all the time.
> See where I'm going with this?
Frankly, no. Other than to try to discredit me.
> Good to hear. I see you do understand that the HDR24/96 is (by your
> definition) a derivative product in its own right. It's the same shape
> and colour as the (earlier) Tascam MX2424, performs an identical
> function in largely similar way, its control layout is highly similar
> and operates in a way familiar to any owner of an MX2424.
You couldn't be more wrong about any of this. Trust me. I know the
insides inside and out.
> I think we've established that Mackie is not involved in pure research
> any more than Behringer (or 99% of the companies in the world).
I think you're looking at the "pure research" thing too highly. I
don't exepct them to invent a new semiconductor topology, however
there is a rather clever mic input circuit in the VLZ-Pro preamp that
isn't right out of an application manual. For better or worse, Mackie
bought a kernel and wrote their own operating system because they
wanted something that looked like Windows but at the time no Windows
product worked well enough to meet their real-time specifications with
the hardware that fit their price point. That's engineering, not just
clever application.
> As for your second question, I have to ask again what's wrong with
> producing a product that people want at an affordable price?
>
> That's EXACTLY what Mackie does!
Nothing.
> For the record, Begringer's MX8000A mixer was a clean-sheet design and
> owed no more to Mackie's 8-buss desk than Mackie's HDR24/96 owes to
> Tascam's MX2424.
>
> Full stop. Period.
I'll hazard a guess that the fuss was started prior to the MX8000A.
> Look at it another way: If Mackie never opened up - or even looked at
> the outside of a Behringer MX8000A mixer, is it any wonder their suit
> was thrown out with such derision by the first judge who looked at it?
By the time I got there, this was all water over the dam, and Mackie
doesn't like to talk about the past, particularly when it's not to
their advantage. I'm sure that there were things that I just never
heard, and I that didn't really care to dig into.
> There's nothing original in its design other than the
> thought that "Hey, with all this IC technology and automated
> manufacturing we could cram a bunch of channels into a desk sized box
> and make money".
>
> Hardly earth-shattering stuff - or the work of genius.
So how come nobody did it before they did? Actually TASCAM did, but
they didn't make a lot of money because it was still too expensive,
and TASCAM had a certain stigma at the time. TASCAM essentially
started the whole concept of the home/personal/project studio, based
on selling hardware for far less than the on-the-surface functional
equivalent of that in professional studios. But there was a clear-cut
difference. If someone looking for a studio to record in called and
asked what kind of console or recorder you had, and the answer was
"TASCAM" many would look elsewhere. Still, TASCAM continued to grow
and improve their products.
Greg Mackie established a name for himself with the little TAPCO 6000
mixer that actually sounded pretty good. When he started Mackie, he
brought that product's reputation along with him, and when he first
showed the 1604 at a little table at an AES show, people believed in
the product from the start. And while the 1604 had its problems and
people who were used to a console having a lot of mic inputs scratched
their heads wondering why it was 16 channels but had only six mic
inputs, but it made sense to enough people to launch the company.
That's innovative engineering.
The fact that Mackie invested in automated assembly early on was also
innovative in the industry and proved that a company could be
successful building modestly priced studio electronics without
outsourcing.
> It may not have been apparent to the outside world but my gut instinct
> (and years of experience in boardrooms) tells me that the company's
> senior managers could see which way the wind was blowing. If they
> didn't, they certainly should have.
I think they should have, and that they didn't, and that was a
mistake. I don't necessarily think that broadening the product line
(as Behringer has, and as Mackie tried to do later on) is necessarily
the right thing to do when your experience is in a core product line.
On the other hand, people are buying mixers less (and less mixers) now
than they were half a dozen years ago. I think that Mackie's smartest
move recently was to get into control surfaces for DAWs. They pretty
much invented that market with the HUI years ago, but never took it
anywhere because ProTools was a slow starter back then. Maybe this
new rash of products will bring them around. That's filling a need.
All those people with comptuers as the core of their studio (recording
and mixing) will not be buying outboard compressors and equalizers,
but they might buy control surfaces.
The live sound market will still be good for outboard processors for a
few years yet, but that's where reliability is more important than
innovation. I hope Behringer can hold up.
> Whichever way you look at it, Mackie has suffered from poor management
> that made some truly terrible - and eventually costly - decisions.
I won't argue with that. When Greg ran the company in the early days,
they pretty much stayed on course. He had some wild ideas (like coming
to the Engineering department two weeks before the NAMM show and
telling them "we're going to show a digital mixer - build one") but
they did OK. When it became a public company and Greg couldn't play in
the lab any more, but had to take care of business and deal with the
board, the stockholders, and the politics, things started to get away.
> I truly hope that Mackie acquires some new management that can turn the
> company around and see it survive and prosper. We've already seen the
> about-face with its decision to move production off-shore and launch the
> budget TAPCO brand. Not enough, too late and too half-hearted from where
> I sit - but I'm not on Mackie's board and have no knowledge of the
> company's inner workings.
I don't have a good sense of what's really happening there. I was
surprised and pleased at their continued (or revitalized) commitment
to digital mixers, and they say they have some new products to show at
NAMM next week. Maybe we'll have a better idea of where they're going
shortly.
> I think they need to bite the bullet and recognise that their Mackie
> brand mixers don't actually offer any significant advantage over
> competing products from Behringer, Phonic, Soundcraft and others. Their
> current strategy seems to be to try to continue fooling consumers into
> believing that there's something special about the design or build of
> Mackie products.
Actually, they haven't really been pushing the mixers lately. Maybe
the offshore manufacturing isn't quite up to speed yet.
Shirley, I have better things to do this morning than continue
to debate with a satisfied customer.
Richard Crowley
> It would be more difficult to do that with a digital mixer
> because it WOULD take some espionage to get at source
> code.
Nah. We figure that as soon as we sell (or even sample)
the first new chip, our competition has it in their reverse-
engineering lab by the end of the day. [My employer makes
chips that are in >80% of the computers you-all are using.]
Retreiving hardware-based (mask or fuse) or field-programmed
(EEPROM) firmware is almost a low-tech garage operation
these days. Just ask the cable/satellite/game/etc crackers.
George Perfect
> These stories have to have originated somewhere, and there must have
> been SOME basis of credibility or Mackie wouldn't have gotten upset.
>
> Have you been to EVERY trade show that Behringer ever displayed a
> mixer?
Of course not. But I have it from the horse's mouth that it never
happened. Until someone can *prove* otherwise I'll take that over the
rumour merchants any day.
> I can see it being quite possible that when they decided that
> they wanted to build a mixer like the Mackie (most of the stories
> point to the Mackie 8-bus rather than the compact series) but hadn't
> even built a prototype yet, and show time was coming up, that for
> expedience they might have bought a Mackie, re-painted it, and
> displayed it saying "This will be available in 8 months,
> specifications and appearance may change without notice" and they do
> the show. Someone (maybe even someone from Mackie) sees it and hits
> the roof. There may not have been one ever sold, just exhibited.
It may be worth noting that there's an unsurprising lack of detail in
these allegations and claims. To the best of my knowledge and researches
(and I have t r a w l e d the archives) several people have made
similar suggestions in the past. No-one has managed to remember which
trade show it was where the offending mixer was supposedly displayed.
I say unsurprising because, for something that seems to exercise so many
folks so heatedly, I'd expect at least one person to have just a little
recall of where and when. Given the general quality of factual support
people manage to produce when asked, this is just one more piece of the
PR pie that got swallowed wholesale by too many folks who should know
better.
> Would that be grounds for a lawsuit? I don't think so, and apparently
> a judge didn't either. But it COULD have happened, and I don't know
> that you have enough information to be sure that it didn't.
This is like asking me to prove that ghosts do or don't exist.
Sorry - I work on normal principals under which it's the responsibility
of the person making a claim to show that it's true. It's certainly not
my responsibility (or Behringer's, in the name of justice!) to disprove
a wild allegation.
I thought you guys stopped throwing witches in the pond 500 years ago!
;)
> This is where the market is biggest,
Single biggest market, I might just about agree. I hate to be the one to
break it to you but the vast majority of the world's population lives
outside the U.S.
Europe as a single market (which exists in name and just about in
reality) is bigger than the entire U.S. market. Japan is not far behind
the U.S. - and about equal for high tech consumer goods. Add a few more
Pacific Rim economies and I'm afraid you are outnumbered
comprehensively.
And here comes China ...
Your own "good guys", the CIA, used to publish something called the
country handbook if you want to quickly check these facts. If neither
they nor your DoT can quickly give the numbers I'll point you to a UK
government web site where you can find your place in the world ;^)
> and Mackie has been more
> available than the other brands.
Hardly surprising when they have a habit of disrupting competitor supply
chains, is it?
> Soundcraft is harder to buy. A&H is
> harder yet to buy. Yet those may be the leaders over where you are.
A&H pulled out of the recording desk market years ago. They concentrate
on live sound these days. Shame, but there you are.
Soundcraft do very well and seem to be picking up market share as their
new range of budget mixers show what can be done - price competitive,
feature competitive and very good sound. They give Behringer who
(numbers wise) are I guess the market leader, a serious run - and show
what Mackie could have done. Soundcraft also operates in a high cost
economy (as does Behringer BTW) and has a loyal workforce etc., etc.
> Big box dealers (and that's who sells most of this gear over here)
> can't afford to sell brands that compete closely, nor can they afford
> to train their sales clerks in the subtle differences. So when about
> all they can tell a customer is that this one costs more than that
> one, there's not incentive for the dealer to sell the more expensive
> one.
That's universal these days. Worldwide IME.
But you read retailers wrong. They'd much rather sell an expensive item
than a cheap one as their costs are primarily floor space and unit
transaction related. The more $$ they get in a transaction the better
off they are.
So ... if they stock a cheap and an expensive brand, they need little
encouragement to sell up to the higher brand.
Of course, the manufacturer has to make it possible for them - in part
by not demanding such unrealistic prices that most consumers can't
justify the price hike.
>
> Obviously this makes life difficult for the manufacturer of the more
> expensive one. What are they to do? Say "Everybody claims that we've
> been overpricing these for years so we'll just sell them for less than
> the other company so you can push ours again." Well, no. They should
> have planned for what happened, and put their R&D money into making a
> better product at a lower cost so that they would be ready to sell
> against the meeee toooo competition when it came along. Mackie, for
> whatever reason, resisted that, and instead went into other areas -
> digital recording, loudspeakers, installed sound - and they just
> didn't do so well. It was a business decision, and some might say they
> made the wrong one.
Far be it from me to tell someone who just spent 300 lines telling me
what a fan he was of companies who innovate what Mackie should have
done.
But ... as you ask ...
They should have stopped sitting round on their arses congratulating
themselves on being market leader and all that; brought out a new,
innovative, exciting range of high perceived value products; shipped
manufacture of the old range off-shore and slashed its prices back home;
educated their retailers in what they were doing and clearly
communicated their marketing strategy (specifically which sectors of the
market the two ranges were aimed at).
What they seem to be doing instead is launching the old TAPCO (budget,
low perceived value, cheap and cheerful etc.) brand to "compete" (huh!)
with Behringer and the other "no-gooders".
Then stuck their heads in the sand, telling themselves that customers
will continue to buy the old stuff at the same prices they weren't
paying yesterday.
King Canute learned what happens when you shout orders at something that
doesn't listen. He drowned.
> There are no secrets. Anyone can take apart a Mackie mixer and make a
> new product that's different and cheaper, but still recognizable as to
> where its roots are. It would be more difficult to do that with a
> digital mixer because it WOULD take some espionage to get at source
> code.
We were talking about IBM PC clones earlier. If you look back to the
roots of the PC industry (as it is today) and the birth of Microsoft,
IBM thought it could retain proprietary control of the PC market through
its ownership of the BIOS (low level machine code burned into every
motherboard).
How wrong could they be?
Companies such as Phoenix and Award sprang up who locked programmers in
dark rooms with no possible knowledge of the IBM code and fed them
specifications of the interface (program calls and data passing
mechanisms) with the result that they soon had their own BIOS code -
distinctly different from IBM's and all their own work.
As a software developer I am very much aware of just how relatively
trivial it is to reverse-engineer (actually, that's a tabloid misnomer -
'reproduce' is a better term) just about any piece of code, given
sufficient motive and a little time.
You, perhaps, also need to understand that much of the code inside these
digital boxes is actually provided by the chip manufacturers. Just as
the semiconductor manufacturers have always published circuits to ease
use of their wares, so the chip manufacturers provide template operating
and application code. The core code running inside most of them is
pretty much identical.
You could reproduce most of the DSP based hardware boxes on the market
fairly easily if you wanted. (now there's an invitation to an argument -
just watch! <g>)
>
> > Complaints about poor performance and product quality seem to arise from
> > penny-pinching so-and-so's who take a box clearly aimed at the beginning
> > bedroom guitar player (or WHY) then submit it to 6 months hard life on
> > the road, gigging every night.
>
> How about the feedback destroyer that's the subject of much
> disappointment in current discussions in rec.audio.pro?
That was a first generation product and is, in any case (as the posters
you refer to make clear) valuable and useful if in a limited way.
This is a big step forward over Mackie's digital mixer efforts. I was
keen to buy one when they first appeared. All the way to the
demonstration when even Mackie's own staff couldn't stop the thing
falling over and couldn't hide their embarrassment at the lack of
advertised features.
>
> > But should we campaign to stop all manufacture of shiny boxes with too
> > many knobs?
>
> No. But the buyers should be educated as to what they're buying.
I wish you the very best of luck.
I'll make my contribution by doing the best I can with my teenage son.
More than that, I'll pass if you don't mind.
> Unfortunately no dealer (or marketeer) will tell a potential customer
> that this is an inexpensive stepping stone and that if he continues on
> his path, he'll want to replace it with something like that other one
> that costs much more. No, they'll let the customer believe that he's
> making a lifetime investment.
What a cynical and short-sighted bunch of retailers you must have to
deal with. My local stores are always keen to demonstrate the gizmo
that's about a lifetime outside my current expectations and perceived
need. The b*st*rds always manage to sow the seed that has me coming back
spending more money.
>
> I have never said that there's no place in the market for low end
> equipment.
Who said you did?
> I just don't like the idea that people who buy it believe
> that what they're paying $100 for is just as good as what I paid $500
> for.
I have no reason to believe that's the majority case. To whatever extent
it may be true, it's way beyond your reach and mine to make more than a
dent in it. Sure, we both do our bit by answering questions and giving
the best honest advice we can to folks here and (in my case) in am4t but
we reach an insignificant fraction of the buying public.
> I've gotta admit that when I see an equipment lineup in a traveling
> road rack in the trade magazines, I do occasionally see a piece of
> Behringer equipment in the list. It tends to be kind of specialized
> stuff though, not mic preamps or mixers.
I'm struggling to remember the last time I saw a live rig that didn't
have at least a couple of their compressors.
>
> > Are you saying Behringer copied diagrams out of the Mackie 8-buss
> > manual? If so, that's a new one on me - and not something I noticed when
> > looking at the two manuals, I have to say.
>
> I said that's what I heard. I don't know that it's true.
We're back to that standard of proof again. I may be odd but I think
it's wrong to sling mud unless you can prove it should stick.
> I only know about the US side. Apparently the only way to get any
> Behringer product repaired over here is to send it to Seattle. There
> may be some independent repair shops willing to give it a crack, but I
> don't know if there are even service manuals available. (Mackie will
> e-mail you a PDF version of the service manual if you request it) Stan
> Jacox was trying to set up his Studio Manintenace Center as a service
> depot for Behringer when they re-established themselves in the US a
> few years back, but I don't think that ever happened.
That may be right given that Behringer's distribution and service chain
was thrown into complete disarray and they've had to rebuild from the
ground up. If my ears are working correctly though, you won't have long
to wait to see European style service levels on your side of the water.
>
> A kid recording in his bedroom will find this an inconvenience but can
> live with it. A touring musician who depends on a unit to work or at
> least be fixable on the road will find it a real problem. A
> professional touring act will probably either carry a spare or have
> one back at home base that can be shipped to them overnight wherever
> they are.
Mike, it's a different world and a different market. If touring bands
want to gig with low-cost gear then common sense tells them to carry a
spare for anything critical. I thought you were on the side of the 'do
it right' brigade?
In any case, there's no evidence that Behringer gear is any less
reliable than Mackie equipment in that environment. In fact, if you read
one or two of the live sound guys who are regulars here, they seem to be
reporting greater reliability from Behringer than Mackie these days.
> I didn't hear about that, but the initial design of their SRM-450
> powered PA speakers had a convection problem with the design of the
> heat sink on the power amplifier. When operated in the horizontal
> (wedge monitor) orientation in the sun, they could overheat. This was
> corrected.
Here's a reference to a thread here in RAP that I found very quickly.
Similar stories were popping up in UK magazines and forums around the
same time, IIRC.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=
20010117100916.13421.00006992%40ng-md1.aol.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%
3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dmackie%2Bhr824%2Bglue
I'm sure Mackie replaced any faulty HR824s without fuss and with an
apology too.
My point is that folks who have slung mud at Behringer for the
occasional (always seems to be "my friend's best friend said ...") DOD
box need to get a little perspective.
Then there's that digital mixer again ... :)
>
> > Aren't they the
> > company that released a Digital 8-buss mixer full of software bugs and
> > with a large number of advertised features missing and not supplied
> > until several software upgrades and a couple of years later?
>
> Software. It's always buggy and never gets finished on time.
Hey - I design software and I resemble that remark!
> Sure glad
> I don't own one. I won't comment on this product. It was an elegant
> concept, but they didn't have a software development management process
> in place so it was never finished. Marketing is always ahead of
> development. This is true with just about every software product.
There's degrees and there's degrees of finished and bugginess. Even in
the oft-derided PC software market, it is entirely unacceptable to
launch a product that crashes and lacks advertised features.
Sorry - Mackie's performance, ethics and behaviour on this one just
plain stink.
And they took far too long to fix the thing and honour their promises. I
for one would need more persuading than I think I could tolerate to
trust my business to one of Mackie's digital products.
> > Hang on a minute - can we have some consistency of standards here
> > please? You say it's OK for Mackie to produce a better mixer than TASCAM
> > (my old company, 30 years ago - just to get the affiliation record
> > straight) but NOT OK for Behringer to produce a better mixer than
> > Mackie?
>
> Mackie made a better mixer than TASCAM. That the Behringer mixer is
> better than Mackie is questionable. You assert it, I don't disagree,
> but I don't agree either. All I can recognize is the obvious - that
> it's cheaper.
People who have used both (including me) tend to find that there's
precious little to choose between them sonically (though the Behringer
buss doesn't overload as easily) and feature wise. If the prices were
the same, I'd be happy to choose either according to which I found more
comfortable to use.
But, over here, the new MX9000 is less than HALF the price of the
equivalent Mackie, is newer and has better features and performance.
You can guess how long it takes most prospective buyers to make their
minds up, given a choice.
>
> > > TASCAM made some low priced digital mixers. Meeee tooooo.
> >
> > At the risk of repeating myself: Roland? Soundcraft? Fostex? And let's
> > not forget Yamaha who got there first. Not to mention all the all-in-one
> > workstations with embedded mixers made by Akai, Roland, Fostex etc.,
> > etc., etc.
>
> Mackie only made one digital mixer (if you don't count the DX-8 that
> they bought along with one of their acquisitions) and even in its
> unfinished state, it was well ahead of any other digital mixer until
> the Sony DMX-R100 came along.
No - in THEORY it should have been ahead. Most of the "ahead" functions
weren't delivered for three years or so - by which time even the much
cheaper Yamaha desks easily outpaced them.
Much of the appeal of Mackie's mixer was the supposedly "ProTools
quality" plugins and the fact that it could run an external display
monitor.
The company faiiled to garner sufficient support from plugin developers.
Those it did persuade had to charge a small fortune for their products
because the installed base was too small and Mackie's use of proprietary
interface (API) standards meant they had to do major rewrites to their
code. Support in such an environment is a nightmare for software
companies.
Besides, the darn thing's power supply howls like a banshee yet can't be
put any reasonable distance (like in another building) from the desk.
>
> > Again, why pick on Behringer?
> Because that's the subject we're discussing here.
Sorry - you don't get off that easy. The question asked why complain
that Behringer produced (among others) amp modellers, analogue mixers
etc. It wasn't aimed at you specifically but at the wider population -
on whose behalf I took it you were putting those examples forward.
Plenty of companies (including Mackie as we've seen) behave in the way
you described. So why single out Behringer for criticism?
>
> > As you said, the company's success was based on deploying circuitry and
> > components developed by others in a way that brought an attractive
> > product to market at a price affordable by the (relative) masses.
>
> However, they did it in a way that, at least for me, worked better
> (for some products anyway) than what other manufacturers did. When I
> sold my Ampex MM1100, I was thinking that next time I really needed to
> own a multitrack recording system, I'd buy a couple of DA-38's
> (because that's what was current at the time). I never did, and then
> Mackie and TASCAM showed 24-track hard disk recorders at the same
> trade show. I was interested in both, and studied the TASCAM quite a
> bit since it came out first, but decided that it wasn't really all
> that well thought out. That was nailed for me when I helped out my
> dealer by setting one up for one of his customers. By the time
> Mackie's HDR24/96 was about ready to hatch, they offered me some work,
> so I had an opportunity to become very familiar with it. Though it's
> been three years since I was up there, I probably still know more than
> most about it. It just made sense. More sense than RADAR, more sense
> than Fostex's models, more sense than Roland or Yamaha's. Maybe it's
> just that they think like I do - that I don't want to have to buy more
> pieces (other than my choice of I/O cards) in order to make it
> complete. To me, that's good engineering.
There you go! Product differentiation at work in a free market.
But how about if Tascam had taken umbrage at Mackie's audacity in
choosing to compete with it and had acted to shut down Mackie's
distribution or otherwise prevent the HDR24/96 from reaching your hands?
What price your ease of use and general satisfaction with the Mackie
product then?
RAP being the place it is, it shouldn't be too long before someone pops
up to say that the Tascam/Fostex/Alesis is really the bees knees and you
shouldn't be content until you've tried it/them.
Until then, spare a thought for all your fellow citizens denied access
to well-designed, quality built and low cost audio products manufactured
by Behringer. Each distinctive and with its own place in a free market.
>
> > Aahh! Now we're getting somewhere! (gripes aside <g>)
> >
> > Your first point suggests you understand - and take advantage of
> > "technology dilution".
> >
> > Your second says you are happy to do business in other areas with
> > companies who DO "clone" products researched, designed and developed by
> > others.
> >
> > If you apply the same standard to your PC as you seek to apply to Mackie
> > and Behringer, you would refuse to buy any PC that was not made by
>
> Hey, you gotta have it. And I sure wish I still had the keyboard that
> I had with my original IBM.
Throw that man a bone!
Try here:
http://www.cherrycorp.com/english/classic-line/keyboard-standard-g80-
3000.htm
IIRC Cherry were one of the OEM suppliers of the original IBM
'TypeMatic' keyboard and I think that one of the models in its still-
made Classic range has the original "IBM click" feel and TypeMatic
repeat feature.
> Besides, if you'll cast your mind back,
> you'll recall that PC-DOS came from someone else, not IBM, not
> Microsoft. I don't remember who, but you could buy it. It was derived
> from CPM,
You're thinking of Gary Kildall, founder of Digital Research and author
of CP/M (note the '/') - itself derived from work he did while at DEC
(Digital Equipment Corporation) on - unless I'm mistaken the PDP11
operating system - could have been RSTS.
As for PC-DOS, nope. That's Bill's original. Gary's product was called
DR-DOS and was a technically superior and more elegant o/s altogether.
Industry legend has it that Gary went into IBM asking for a reasonable
few cents on every copy sold. Bill went in and offered PC-DOS for an
insubstantial looking one-off payment.
The blue suits grabbed Bill's hand and the rest is history.
Wonder if they still have jobs at IBM?
Thanks for the wander down memory lane! :)
>
> > By the same token, you would buy product from neither Behringer NOR
> > Mackie - as neither company has ever (by your definition) produced
> > anything truly original.
>
> Now you're being silly. I buy what makes sense to me at the time.
> Other than the headphone amplifier that I mentioned, Behrniger just
> hasn't made sense to me. I don't have to waste time trying to save a
> few dollars - sometimes I'd just rather buy Mackie.
I'm not being silly. Nor am I either trying to sell you more Behringer
gear or making any criticism of your Mackie purchases. It most certainly
is not my place to do either of those things.
I was illustrating the logical extension of your argument. If you will
only deal with companies that innovate and never do business with those
who merely produce copies of technology and designs originating
elsewhere then you really shouldn't be using that computer you are
reading this on and you certainly shouldn't be buying products from
either Behringer or Mackie.
You'll have the devil's own job of finding companies that you can deal
with, mind you!
>
> > OTOH, if you apply the standards you accept for your PC, you should
> > rejoice that both Mackie AND Behringer exist to deliver yesterday's
> > leading edge technology in attractively packaged and affordable form.
>
> Why should I apply the same standards to buying a PC as buying a piece
> of audio equipment? They're very different.
Not when the ethics and general principles of choosing to support only
companies who innovate are concerned, surely.
> I can get to the grocery
> store just as well in a Ford Focus as I can in my Lexus, I just LIKE
> the Lexus better. We don't have to be rational all the time.
>
> > See where I'm going with this?
>
> Frankly, no. Other than to try to discredit me.
Whoa! No insult intended. Where I was going was a line that said the
real commercial world is a much more complex and chaotic place than your
arguments were setting out.
In today's high-tech marketplaces, very few companies produce raw
technology (chips and the like) yet thousands exploit those raw products
in largely similar ways.
It simply is not possible to say that you will only buy from companies
that innovate or design original products. This is nothing more than
recognising that technology dilution again.
You *can* easily choose between companies and products on other grounds
(quality, brand image, functionality etc.) just as you do when you climb
into your Lexus rather than the Ford - two products of similar purpose
and function yet with individual merits clearly distinguishable to you.
If you want to pursue the car theme, just look at the platform and
component sharing that goes on between car manufacturers these days. It
could reasonably be argued that several very well known makes are no
more than brand images these days. I'd suggest Saab (new owners GM and
platform, engine, transmission of the 9.3 is from the Vauxhall Vectra);
Jaguar (owners Ford - engines from the Mondeo; platform from a U.S.
model whose name escapes me); Aston Martin (Ford again; platform from
the old Jaguar XJ-S, engine is two Mondeo V6 units welded together);
Bentley (VW-Audi; engine from the VW Phaeton).
How many car examples do you need?
>
> > Good to hear. I see you do understand that the HDR24/96 is (by your
> > definition) a derivative product in its own right. It's the same shape
> > and colour as the (earlier) Tascam MX2424, performs an identical
> > function in largely similar way, its control layout is highly similar
> > and operates in a way familiar to any owner of an MX2424.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong about any of this. Trust me. I know the
> insides inside and out.
Mike - the point is that I KNOW I was wrong! That's why I went on to say
"see how easy it is to build a case of cloning". I was trying to
illustrate how easy it is to twist a few descriptions to make two
different products sound as if they share the same soul.
>
> > I think we've established that Mackie is not involved in pure research
> > any more than Behringer (or 99% of the companies in the world).
>
> I think you're looking at the "pure research" thing too highly. I
> don't exepct them to invent a new semiconductor topology, however
> there is a rather clever mic input circuit in the VLZ-Pro preamp that
> isn't right out of an application manual.
Scott Dorsey wrote here last week:
"The VLZ Pro circuit takes a very different approach to things, using a
single long-tailed pair but with a constant current source on either
side of the pair. This is the standard "4-transistor" circuit that you
see a lot. The VLZ Pro uses a transistor with a higher gain so they
don't need to cascade a pair of them to get the gain up."
That does not sound like original circuit design to me but textbook
stuff with - maybe - a slight twist.
> For better or worse, Mackie
> bought a kernel and wrote their own operating system because they
> wanted something that looked like Windows but at the time no Windows
> product worked well enough to meet their real-time specifications with
> the hardware that fit their price point. That's engineering, not just
> clever application.
In my book it's a bunch of amateurs playing outside their field of
expertise and trying to do it on the cheap. I can't remember the
specifics but I think the kernel they "bought in" was BEOS - an open
source operating system known for its "real-time" capabilities and
available for free (someone will now doubtless put me right on the
specifics).
If there's clever engineering involved, none of the credit belongs at
Mackie's door.
> > For the record, Begringer's MX8000A mixer was a clean-sheet design and
> > owed no more to Mackie's 8-buss desk than Mackie's HDR24/96 owes to
> > Tascam's MX2424.
> >
> > Full stop. Period.
>
> I'll hazard a guess that the fuss was started prior to the MX8000A.
But Behringer's first 8 buss mixer *was* the MX8000A !!
>
> > Look at it another way: If Mackie never opened up - or even looked at
> > the outside of a Behringer MX8000A mixer, is it any wonder their suit
> > was thrown out with such derision by the first judge who looked at it?
>
> By the time I got there, this was all water over the dam, and Mackie
> doesn't like to talk about the past, particularly when it's not to
> their advantage. I'm sure that there were things that I just never
> heard, and I that didn't really care to dig into.
>
> > There's nothing original in its design other than the
> > thought that "Hey, with all this IC technology and automated
> > manufacturing we could cram a bunch of channels into a desk sized box
> > and make money".
> >
> > Hardly earth-shattering stuff - or the work of genius.
>
> So how come nobody did it before they did? Actually TASCAM did, but
> they didn't make a lot of money because it was still too expensive,
> and TASCAM had a certain stigma at the time.
I think you just answered your own question. And hit the nail on the
head that Mackie's success was less the result of great thought and
planning than a fortunate accident of timing. They jumped into the
market when the cost was low enough to succeed.
I have to say again that this is what Behringer appear to be very good
at. Better than Mackie because they can do it repeatedly where Mackie
apparently cannot.
> TASCAM essentially
> started the whole concept of the home/personal/project studio, based
> on selling hardware for far less than the on-the-surface functional
> equivalent of that in professional studios. But there was a clear-cut
> difference. If someone looking for a studio to record in called and
> asked what kind of console or recorder you had, and the answer was
> "TASCAM" many would look elsewhere. Still, TASCAM continued to grow
> and improve their products.
You're talking to someone who worked for the company at the time.
>
> Greg Mackie established a name for himself with the little TAPCO 6000
> mixer that actually sounded pretty good. When he started Mackie, he
> brought that product's reputation along with him, and when he first
> showed the 1604 at a little table at an AES show, people believed in
> the product from the start. And while the 1604 had its problems and
> people who were used to a console having a lot of mic inputs scratched
> their heads wondering why it was 16 channels but had only six mic
> inputs, but it made sense to enough people to launch the company.
> That's innovative engineering.
Behringer's first products were just as innovative and owed nothing to
anyone but Uli Behringer.
Is there a point to this line of discussion?
>
> The fact that Mackie invested in automated assembly early on was also
> innovative in the industry and proved that a company could be
> successful building modestly priced studio electronics without
> outsourcing.
Behringer do it better, faster, cheaper and more consistently. They were
also there sooner.
>
> > It may not have been apparent to the outside world but my gut instinct
> > (and years of experience in boardrooms) tells me that the company's
> > senior managers could see which way the wind was blowing. If they
> > didn't, they certainly should have.
>
> I think they should have, and that they didn't, and that was a
> mistake. I don't necessarily think that broadening the product line
> (as Behringer has, and as Mackie tried to do later on) is necessarily
> the right thing to do when your experience is in a core product line.
> On the other hand, people are buying mixers less (and less mixers) now
> than they were half a dozen years ago. I think that Mackie's smartest
> move recently was to get into control surfaces for DAWs. They pretty
> much invented that market with the HUI years ago, but never took it
> anywhere because ProTools was a slow starter back then. Maybe this
> new rash of products will bring them around. That's filling a need.
> All those people with comptuers as the core of their studio (recording
> and mixing) will not be buying outboard compressors and equalizers,
> but they might buy control surfaces.
I agree that is one of the more interesting and promising market
segments right now but they will have to show true innovation and take
to heart the hard lessons they have learned about manufacturing cost and
market pricing if they are to succeed in a rapidly filling niche.
Especially one attached to PC market price expectations.
>
> The live sound market will still be good for outboard processors for a
> few years yet, but that's where reliability is more important than
> innovation. I hope Behringer can hold up.
LOL! I have no such fears for Behringer. You see Mackie's core strengths
in its founder and its products, I see Behringer's in different areas
entirely.
>
> > Whichever way you look at it, Mackie has suffered from poor management
> > that made some truly terrible - and eventually costly - decisions.
>
> I won't argue with that. When Greg ran the company in the early days,
> they pretty much stayed on course. He had some wild ideas (like coming
> to the Engineering department two weeks before the NAMM show and
> telling them "we're going to show a digital mixer - build one") but
> they did OK. When it became a public company and Greg couldn't play in
> the lab any more, but had to take care of business and deal with the
> board, the stockholders, and the politics, things started to get away.
It's a classic example of the entrepreneurial innovator forced into a
role he was never meant for, was no good at - and probably didn't want.
I speak from experience when I say that Greg (whom I don't know so
probably shouldn't refer to so informally) probably hated every working
day he was chairman or whatever of Mackie the company.
>
> > I truly hope that Mackie acquires some new management that can turn the
> > company around and see it survive and prosper. We've already seen the
> > about-face with its decision to move production off-shore and launch the
> > budget TAPCO brand. Not enough, too late and too half-hearted from where
> > I sit - but I'm not on Mackie's board and have no knowledge of the
> > company's inner workings.
>
> I don't have a good sense of what's really happening there. I was
> surprised and pleased at their continued (or revitalized) commitment
> to digital mixers, and they say they have some new products to show at
> NAMM next week. Maybe we'll have a better idea of where they're going
> shortly.
Should be an interesting show.
>
> > I think they need to bite the bullet and recognise that their Mackie
> > brand mixers don't actually offer any significant advantage over
> > competing products from Behringer, Phonic, Soundcraft and others. Their
> > current strategy seems to be to try to continue fooling consumers into
> > believing that there's something special about the design or build of
> > Mackie products.
>
> Actually, they haven't really been pushing the mixers lately. Maybe
> the offshore manufacturing isn't quite up to speed yet.
Uh-oh! A company that cuts itself off from its roots without a clear
strategy, direction and established new product line spells D.A.N.G.E.R.
to me.
>
> Shirley, I have better things to do this morning than continue
> to debate with a satisfied customer.
Don't call me Shirley! :)
See ya!
jazzman
> > I only know about the US side. Apparently the only way to get any
> > Behringer product repaired over here is to send it to Seattle. There
> > may be some independent repair shops willing to give it a crack, but I
> > don't know if there are even service manuals available. (Mackie will
> > e-mail you a PDF version of the service manual if you request it) Stan
> > Jacox was trying to set up his Studio Manintenace Center as a service
> > depot for Behringer when they re-established themselves in the US a
> > few years back, but I don't think that ever happened.
> >
> > live with it. A touring musician who depends on a unit to work or at
> > least be fixable on the road will find it a real problem. A
> > professional touring act will probably either carry a spare or have
> > one back at home base that can be shipped to them overnight wherever
> > they are.
Based on what I've read from you in the past, Mike, it seems odd that you
would post something of which you have no knowledge. While I am loathe to
get in the middle of a thread like this one, I would like to clear up your
ambiguity by adding some facts:
I had lunch with Stan in August, just before he left for Russia. I'll bet
he still monitors this group from overseas. He did open his shop in San
Rafael and recently (August) sold it. SMC is now operated by John Delpit,
one of his technicians. Today SMC is still one of 15 USA service centers
for BEHRINGER gear, with several more coming online in 2004. They all have
schematics, service training, and now an online resource for obtaining
updated service information via VPN. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify
this point.
Most BEHRINGER service centers do warranty work for all of the major
manufacturers in the industry, making that playing field pretty level
insofar as quality repair work is concerned.
JS
Roger W. Norman
google search, and did the initial footwork in comparing the two products
for the legal briefs, as I recall him saying in the mid nineties. He's also
immanently qualified and truthful to a fault. However, you want draw him to
this news group. But if you want facts...
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.
"George Perfect" <NOSPAM...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a68aaa44...@news.nildram.co.uk...
> In article <oIwLb.16507$ws.18...@news02.tsnz.net>, ge...@paf.co.nz-
> nospam says...
> >
> > "George Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:KDnLb.10951
> >
> > > Mackie made a claim - in part that Behringer had 'cloned' its 8-buss
> > > mixer and stolen proprietary circuit designs for its mic preamps.
> > > Whether this claim was reasonably based - or may have had some other
> > > motive became clear as events unfolded.
> >
> > Cloned electronically and physically. Down to the the colour, layout,
> > legend font, everything. Unfortunately people cj=hose to do business
with
> > such a low-life company.
> >
>
> Geoff, would you happen to have any more evidence to support this claim
> than the others who have made identical allegations here and elsewhere?
>
> I keep asking and no-one ever comes up with any. Everyone, without
> exception has failed to provide any factual information or evidence to
> support this serious slur. Plenty of spin and 'he said, she said' guff
> that always disappears like the smoke it is.
>
> I have a standing "put up or shut up" offer on the subject to anyone who
> wants to repeat this statement.
>
> Would you care to substantiate your "offering"?
>