FCC Proposes To Spank Behringer's Ass
Gary Hendershot
FCC PROPOSES FORFEITURE AGAINST BEHRINGER USA
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed a US$1 million
forfeiture against Behringer USA, Inc. (Bothell WA), for apparent
violation of the FCC’s equipment authorization rules.
The Commission came to the conclusion that Behringer apparently
violated the FCC’s rules by marketing in the US at least *50* models
of unauthorized digital audio devices. The rules mandate that these
devices be tested and verified compliant with FCC technical standards
before marketing them in the US. In proposing its forfeiture amount,
the Commission considered that Behringer marketed the unauthorized
devices for more than five years overall and for nearly a year after
it was on notice of the FCC's investigation, and that Behringer derived
substantial financial gain from the sale of the unauthorized devices.
Behringer is looking into the matter, but offered no comment when
contacted by Sound & Communications (magazine).
FCC news release in Acrobat PDF format:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263862A1.pdf
gunnar
Jim Anable
How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company!
mackerr
gunnar wrote:
> Old news. Already cleared up. No fine slapped.
You are correct, it is old news. Even when it was not old, who cares?
It is a relatively small fine. I don't know why you think it has been
cleared up, or why you think there will be no fine. AFAIK it is still
being investigated, and negotiated, and will be for some tome to come.
Mac
fretbuzz
"Jim Anable" <j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote in message
news:121572l...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gary Hendershot wrote:
>
Lots of previously read stuff snipped
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263862A1.pdf
>
> How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
> Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company!
Surely it has always been the case that companies will "borrow" (and quite
often improve on) ideas from other companies? One example, albeit from a
totally different sphere of manufacturing:
There's a show on BBC2 aimed at "petrolheads" - ie, those people whose lives
revolve around high cost, high fuel consumption cars - called "Top Gear";
Quite recently they did a review of some new model Mercedes and discussed in
detail some of the features of this particular model. In the sum-up of the
thread, the reviewer said "the features on this car now, will be on every
car in ten years" - now surely that's the same principle that people are
accusing Behringer of?
Let me ask you, would you refuse to buy a new car that wasn't fitted with
air bags all round? That was an idea that apparently started life on this
particular model of Mercedes and has since been 'acquired' by other
manufacturers along with with ideas such as disc brakes all round, 5 speed
gearboxes (for those of us who prefer manual shift, that is), hazard
flashers as standard and the list goes on.
And it's not just tangible items that get "borrowed" and re-marketed:
ideologies, theories, laws etc have been borrowed/stolen and re-marketed
ever since mankind formed meaningless grunts into what we term 'language'
and then used that language to control others.
It will always be the case that some company will come up with the so-called
"killer app.", to borrow a computer term, and then that idea will be taken
and developed or marketed at a more realistic price for the average guy (I
am thinking along the lines of Open Office here); if this didn't happen
then there would only ever be one make of any given item and we wouldn't
have such rich diversity the world over.
George Gleason
Seems like you must come from one of the cross posted groups listed
you ought get some info you simply looking like a dumb ass to the world
no fine was ever levied, this "action" has been known about for 2 years and
the PAPERWORK issue that spawned it has been corrected
Oh and BTW Roland rightfully decided to No sue as they got all hot and
bothered by a artists rendition of what the efx pedals MIGHT look like
the ACTUAL production units were found to be NOT
copies of any thing
Perhaps you want to Call PRS guitar company and ask about the GIBSON lawsuit
Gibson sued and won against PRS for copying
the decision was later reversed on appel
You need to get up to speed on this stuff or your going to have to start
enjoying the taste of your own ass, it has just been handed to you on a
platter
Paul van der Heu
> How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
> Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company!
So they designed and sell similar devices to those made by Roland/Boss.. So
what? Many companies now sell turntables similar to the Technics SL1200 and
I do not see you cry foul over that.
Mackie sell an active speaker (or at least did) which _very_ closely
resembles a model by RCF which has been on the market for some time before
the mackie clone appeared..
I would not be surprised is some competitor managed to sway the FCC to
investigate in order to at least slow down the speed at which Behringer is
gaining ground with some (I feel) excellent and very affordable digital
gear..
I believe it will turn out this will blow over just like any previous
attempt. Only the die hard Behringer haters will try and bring these
refuted non-issues up over and over just to throw mud..
--
Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows,
how are you gonna guarantee my safety..
--John Crichton - Farscape pilot
Pat Roller
@corp.supernews.com:
> Gary Hendershot wrote:
>
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263862A1.pdf
>
> How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
> Boss/Roland.
SO no different from anyone else operating in the audio gear field.
Mackie rip off Allen and Heath, Behringer rip off Mackie.
Tonester
"Jim Anable" <j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote in message
news:121572l...@corp.supernews.com...
> Gary Hendershot wrote:
>>
>>
>> FCC news release in Acrobat PDF format:
>>
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263862A1.pdf
>
> How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
> Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company!
Why not? Same quality at half the price...I say the consumer wins in this
case thanks to Behringer.
Rod
"Pat Roller" <dontm...@here.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97839A76C...@80.5.182.99...
Behringer is filling a void. Good gear at a reasonable cost. Hmmm.
How insidious is that? Riddle me this...if Behringer gear is "copied" and
"knock-off", why would anyone who thinks the high end brand name is the cats
ass care? The brand name is emblazoned on the fron of every Hartke, SWR,
Eden et al. If your rig is one of those, why would you care if a company
comes in and markets cheaper equipment based on existing technology.
As far as the FCC is concerned, well, it's just like any other
"standards" outfit. Like CSA, URL, ISO and others, they need their "cut"
before issuing a "stamp of approval". I work in an industry where standards
and codes rule the day, and let me tell you, it's a joke. BTW, has anyone
heard of a V-Amp bringing down a jet because of not up to standard
electronics? It's music gear, not instrumentation for retrieving
satellites.
Brian Running
You must be thinking of something else, this latest action was announced
on February 16 of this year:
inc0gnit0
Don't get me wrong, I do own several Behringer pieces, but I purchased
them knowing exactly what they were.
My Truth reference monitors are very fair knock offs of Genelec's. My
32 channel mixing console is a great Mackie steal... So much so that
it is regarded at the "lawsuit" board. Hence why it's been
discontinued and is no longer available.
Their multicom is a very useful tool... I have three of them and
insert compression and gate on each of 12 board channels, mostly for
the drums and vocals. But I'll get a far nicer dbx two channel
compressor for the mains when I can afford one.
My two power amps are nice, punchy, loud enough, and clean...
I only say "loud enough" because Behringer's idea of wattage just
doesn't compare other manufactures' amps of the same rating...
It is widely known and never doubted that Behringer is an "about a
year" company... Not all, but a high percentage of their stuff will
work just fine for "about a year", then it will begin a steady
decline...
They claim to have only a 1% failure rate, but 1% is only the stuff
that fails the first year and reported under warranty and tabulated in
their statistics. The rest fails heinously after that first year and
can't be claimed under warranty, is hardly worth repairing, and is
never counted...
One of my EP2500's is showing clip on one channel for no reason and
running extremely hot compared to the other one. Extensive trouble
shooting proves that it's just a failure with the amp. I am days away
from the warranty expiring and although Behringer has a "one for one"
warranty exchange policy, I am getting a stiff run around from the
company on getting it settled, even with an authorized Behringer
dealer running point for me on the deal...
But its been written up and recorderd - it's under warranty. I will
get my new amp... Or else!!! Yeah right...
I bought most of my Behringer things to get up and running quickly. I
knew full well that a percentage of it would crap out, but was assured
that if it did so during the first it would be exchanged out right for
a new piece... I figured I was taking a gamble, but with such low
prices and so many pieces, I thought the odds would be in my favor.
That "year" is drawing to an end and right on schedule knobs are
getting scatchy, my amp is tanking, and my lights on my EQ are cutting
in and out... But I still think I am on the plus side...
I think...
However, don't think that by buying Behringer you are getting a deal..
Buy it, knowing what it is, what it's worth, and what it's for.
It's not QSC or Crown... It's not Mackie... Hell, it's not even
Peavey...
In my opinion... Their utility pieces are just fine... EQ's,
compressors, etc.. Don't trust their power amps any farther than you
can through them. They will not compare to an old Peavey CS800 that
you can piss on - kick off the back of truck - use it to hold open
doors and weight down your rain tarp and 20 years later it still loud
and true.
I'd never again trust the lion's share of the sound to Behringer...
Not the amps, the speakers, or processors that shape the primary
sound. From here out, I'll trust their EQ's and that's about it...
My mixer? Well... Where else was a gonna get a 32 channel board with
24 mic pre's that can stand next the Mackie in terms of function, if
not longevity and quality? And for only $600? Over the years, if a
couple channels fail, I'll still be in the pink... But I'll always be
shopping for a better replacement before it is completely worthless...
About a week ago, I did a walk-in sound job for a jam band called
YDoYouAsk? Their Behringer board - the EXACT same board I ordered
from Coffey Music, then refused so I could purchase the one I have,
had two dead channels, one effects processor was blacked out, and one
earphone channel kept cutting in and out while I was trying to PFL the
instruments.
Not the same model number, but THE board that Coffey's ordered for me
and I didn't buy it, and they did. I'm glad I got the one I did.
It's a much higher model and I'm hoping that it will do a little
better with the gamble of time vs. function.
Their multicom had two dead compressor channels and none of the
indicators displayed accurately what was happening to the sound...
And it was all less than a year old and taken very good care of. It
just plain crapped out!
So don't fool yourself. Behringer is what it is, and nothing else.
Buy it knowing that and you'll be okay. Buy it thinking this:
>Why not? Same quality at half the price...I say the consumer wins in this
>case thanks to Behringer.
And you'll be terribly disappointed.
As always, buyer beware... And especially, beware of Behringer...
-Todd
http://southernedgeband.co.nr
http://www.geocities.com/inc0gnit068
George Gleason
"Brian Running" <brun...@xxtdsxx.net> wrote in message
news:4412f145$1...@newspeer2.tds.net...
some of us are not dependent on press releases to get industry information
this has been known about for close to two years
You seem to be"out of the loop"
mcsteve
(But didn't attribute this part)
As the man said, old news. Here, at least. Notice of this
FCC action was posted here on Feb 17. The topic has already
been discussed at length, and nearly beaten to death, I might add.
Search Google groups for "FCC Behringer" between Feb16, and Mar 1,
2006.
--
Steve McQ
"Can I have more redundant posts in my monitor?"
mcsteve
My previous post was in regard to the topic being flogged
on a.a.p.l.s. didn't notice the crossposts, at first.
Anyway, it's *still* old news.
-----------------
Steve McQ
"Can I have more unwarranted hysteria in my monitor?"
Brian Running
> this has been known about for close to two years
> You seem to be"out of the loop"
Well, George, maybe you ought to start relying on press releases. This
fine was levied less than a month ago, it is not "old news", and has not
been "cleared up." Your loop seems to be out of the loop.
George Gleason
"inc0gnit0" <inc0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4413eebf....@news.adelphia.net...
> Wow... Same quality? Hardly so... Don't kid yourself.
>
the siginature
which may be bullshit as well
I run gear from every company from Meyers down to Mackie
behringer is one of the most solid performing cost effective solutions on
the market
I beat the piss out of thier gear , it simply isn't failing
I am dumping my(bss) Opal EQ's and putting all deq2496's
in
this rig will do sound for some of the biggest names in music
I am about to design a showcase 1000 seat room featuring a all behringer
system, this room will run 24/7
There is no company who supports their customers better than behringer
of course slagging them on line is not a great way to insipre a company to
go above and beyond the written warrentte
BTW try to run the mackie tapco amp in ANY application your putting the 2500
in and get back to me on how long the mackie ran before it flamed out
liquidator
>
> My
> 32 channel mixing console is a great Mackie steal... So much so that
> it is regarded at the "lawsuit" board. Hence why it's been
> discontinued and is no longer available.
>
>
was thrown out of court.
George Gleason
there was aPROPOSED fine
can you tell the diffrence between a PROPOSED fine and a actual FINE
You are out of the loop on this kid.
this has been around publicly about 10 months.
You are clearly making ASSUMPTION for a mlimited information base
it is also clear you are not in contact with ANYONE directly dealing with
this issue
You are simply SPECULATING something based on a press release
I am not doing that but Due to confidentiality agreements I need to limit
the info I put forth before a FINAL determination is reached
George
George Gleason
"liquidator" <liqui...@collide.org> wrote in message
news:duuuqi$14km$1...@news3.infoave.net...
I continue to wonder why these idiots keep making
this anti behringer crap>
if they took 20 minutes to reserch the facts they would discover they are
talking out thier ass
looking like jerk-offs to the rest of the audio community who actually has
taken the time to read up on the Behringer Vs Mackie stuff
>
inc0gnit0
When I declined to purchase the board that I had originally ordered, I
was working with the same store to secure the my second choice.
The Behringer rep told me directly that due to legal complications
with Mackie on that particular model, it was no longer available. I
was also told that most places were having clearance sales on that
model to unload then and I was advised on where I could find them
still in stock...
Everywhere I take that board, people call it the "lawsuit" board.
Thrown out of court or not, maybe Behringer recognize the thin line
they were treading and dicontinued it on their own. Either way, that
board is no longer available...
-Todd
George Gleason
> My information came straight from Behringer sales rep.
>
> When I declined to purchase the board that I had originally ordered, I
> was working with the same store to secure the my second choice.
>
> The Behringer rep told me directly that due to legal complications
> with Mackie on that particular model, it was no longer available. I
> was also told that most places were having clearance sales on that
> model to unload then and I was advised on where I could find them
> still in stock...
>
> Everywhere I take that board, people call it the "lawsuit" board.
>
> Thrown out of court or not, maybe Behringer recognize the thin line
> they were treading and dicontinued it on their own. Either way, that
> board is no longer available...
>
> -Todd
Yes it is Public record that Mackie brought a suit
it is also public record that mackie was kicked out of court for bringing a
baseless suit
there was no copying
it was the 8000 was updated to the 9000 which is still in current
distribution
The upgrade was why the board was discontinued
mackie's suit was not a issue as there was nothing on which mackie could
claim a copy or any other fault by behringer
this IS public record
George
inc0gnit0
am lying about so many first hand experiences with failed Behringer
products and the extensive run around I am getting in trying to
maintanence a simple warranty matter?
Interesting.. I thought this was a discussion list. But yet, you
don't seem willing to discuss your experiences and compare them to
mine, but would rather insist outright without knowing of me or of my
experiences that I am just plain full of shit.
Do you give everyone you encounter the same benfit of the doubt?
In trying to resolve my warranty matter, I've been counseled by an
endless stream of people who say either I shouldn't have bought the
amp in the first place, or instead of a replacement I should get my
money back in order to purchase another, better amp... and on and
on...
Sales, techs, or otherwise, I've heard more opinions of Behringer that
coincide with my own. I've never heard anyone out who begins the
discussion by saying Behringer is junk, because I don't believe that
it is and such an opinion sells Behringer short. But, in the same
argument, you have to acknowledge Behringer at its level - simply a
cost effect solution, as you put it. Certainly not the hold grail of
sound gear.
Hey... Try to take part in meaningful, thought out discussions instead
of just outwardly bashing someone for participating with first hand
knowledge from their own experience... I didn't make any hard fast
decrees. I only shared from my exerpience with my opinion.
Excuse me for taking part in your world...
So, why would my signature be bullshit? A personal attach to make
yourself feel better?
Why would anyone wish to take part in these discussions, just to be
greeted with a response like yours?
>BTW try to run the mackie tapco amp in ANY application your putting the 2500
>in and get back to me on how long the mackie ran before it flamed out
Yeah.. And BTW, I run the mains through a Mackie with years of hard
road wear on it and it's doing very well. However, my EP2500, which
was driving the subs on the same system was only 13 days shy of one
year old before it crapped...
Our monitors on two CS800's that are older than any piece in the rack,
are still as clean and true as the day they first powered up...
So, based solely on my experience, what other story am to tell?
And please... instead of just claiming "bullshit" again like some
random fuck-nut, how about engaging me in a discussion in order to let
me see your point of view?
-Todd (no shit!)
Keith Adams
distinguished. You're making my panties damp.
"George Gleason" <tbmo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:WdDQf.9909$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
George Gleason
"Keith Adams" <keith...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ueEQf.23506$992....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Oh George. You're so in the know,so connected,so viril and
> distinguished. You're making my panties damp.
>
stops
george
Texas Pete
Yo, Keet' - Your panties most likely are damp because you
involuntarily peed 'em, you should check it out. HTH.
TP
ps - "viril" gots an "e" on the end of it, so from now on don't try to
pretend that you're smart, okay?
liquidator
> My information came straight from Behringer sales rep.
This part I simply don't believe.
> Everywhere I take that board, people call it the "lawsuit" board.
>
This is supposed to impress? Means absolutely nothing.
> Thrown out of court or not, maybe Behringer recognize the thin line
> they were treading and dicontinued it on their own. Either way, that
> board is no longer available...
I find it interesting you don't even name the board. I don't doubt you were
given information. But the court results were posted to Usenet and the law
suit was thrown out as having no merit.
shannon
Judging by the US sales figures in the documents your token protest
action is just pissing in the wind.
Your countrymen love them.
John Shaughnessy
wouldn't have to worry about who's in or out of "the loop" in the first
place.
Look at Digitech, they've made zillions selling ORIGINAL cheap crap...
--
Lessons, music and more at www.jmsjazz.com
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,
but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill
"George Gleason" <tbmo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:WdDQf.9909$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
inc0gnit0
>> My information came straight from Behringer sales rep.
>
>This part I simply don't believe.
I don't care if you don't believe it, except that it implies that I am
telling bold faced lies and that is wrong...
I was getting slow results on having the (alternate) board I wanted
ordered, so while in the store, I pressured the owner to call his rep
so we could resolve the matter right there.
The rep told the owner on the phone that he could not accept an order
for the board - the MX3282A (not the 8000 as someone else said) even
though he still had them on hand. He tried to offer the owner one of
the SL series, but that's the model that I refused earlier - the
SL2442FX Pro.
The phone was handed to me and I spoke *directly* with the sales rep
in order to explain exactly what it was I was looking for in a board
and why the SL was not the ticket...
Eight bus was my main desire in addition to number of mic pre's, and
aux's. The 9000 was his answer, but that was $400+ over my budget.
I pleaded with him to release one last MX3282A and he said that he
just couldn't because it was a legal matter involving Mackie. That's
when he told me where I might find them still in stock since I had
convinced him as to why the MX3282A was exactly what I needed.
I admit, it's plenty shameful to accept this information about
purchasing from another store, while on this store's phone, with the
owner right there, but I was already purchasing tons of other stuff
there. I confessed to the owner - a long time friend - that I needed
to consider purchasing the board elsewhere to get what I needed within
my budget.
It sucked, but we worked it out, and sure enough he eventually asked
me to bring my ill-gotten board out to run sound for his band. So all
was well...
>> Everywhere I take that board, people call it the "lawsuit" board.
>
>This is supposed to impress? Means absolutely nothing.
No, it's supposed to solidify the argument that Behringer tends to
"borrow" design specs from other products and everywhere I go, people
seem to know that. Why in the hell would that impress anyone?
Actually... When people say that, it has made me feel good. I feel
like I got the next best thing to a Mackie board for a fraction of the
price. Heh, maybe I am a little impressed!!!
Someone even told me that if I were to take it apart, the mic pre's
would even say Mackie right on them... Not sure about that tho'.
There'd certanily have to a license deal in that case...
>> Thrown out of court or not, maybe Behringer recognize the thin line
>> they were treading and dicontinued it on their own. Either way, that
>> board is no longer available...
>
>I find it interesting you don't even name the board. I don't doubt you were
>given information. But the court results were posted to Usenet and the law
>suit was thrown out as having no merit.
I named the board... What's the big deal? You want a picture of it?
Go to my website... There you can also see about half of all the
Behringer stuff I own and use daily.
By saying that you don't doubt that I was given the information you
sort of negate you first statement:
>> My information came straight from Behringer sales rep.
>
>This part I simply don't believe.
Which is it?
If I was given wrong information then please, by all means correct me.
I trust the rep's word based on who he is and who he works for, but
he's far from infoulable, I am sure...
But please... Don't just say it's so. State a case. I've given
examples based on my own experience and the experiences of those who I
have encountered who also purchased, used, and been disappointed by
Behringer. State more impressive evidence to the contrary and
convince me otherwise... PLEASE!!!
But at least you seem willing to follow a discussion about this stuff
rather than GeorgiePorgie fuck-nut or whoever he is, who is more bent
on calling people idiots and bullshitters without gathering all the
information from their point of view.
If he's so goddamned right, maybe he should set up a switch board and
start taking phone calls so he can set the rest of us morons straight.
Futher... Trust, me - Please - I'd love to be dead wrong about
Behirnger. I own a bunch of this stuff and I'd like to feel better
about its future reliability.
I'd also like to feel like I can still benefit from it as an
economical solution since there are plenty more pieces of my puzzle I
have yet to acquire.
But everytime I gig out and I look over at my EQ and the little lights
on the freq slides are out here and there, my heart sinks. Tap on
them, and they'll return... Now, my power amp. One of my Truth
monitors went out, but mysteriously two days later it came back...
etc...
How else am I supposed to feel?
And then I run sound for bands in central Maryland, doing walk-ins
with their Behringer gear and find they're having even worse problems
than I am.
I am still so glad I did not take that SL2442 that I originally
ordered... only eight or ten months out of the store and two dead
channels... sticky mute buttons... And no, it hasn't been abused.
Last summer I purchased some main speakers. Again, with budget
concerns in mind I ended up with two Peavey SP3's and two SP218's. I
worked a great deal and got them all for a little over $2k.
But in the course of shopping for them in just about EVERY worth while
store in Maryland, I couldn't find anyone who would say the first good
thing about Behringer's speakers. Many didn't even try to sell me
anything else specific, instead. They just said, "If you're serious,
you don't want Behringer."
I hated that, because I could have saved a lot of money going the
Behringer route, and it started to make me feel funny about all the
Behringer stuff I already purchased.
Now, I'm feeling funny all over again.
-Todd
§c©©t§
money grubbing politicoid fucks. As if they are any 'beacon of
truth and honesty' they're far more corrupt than any of the
organizations they get lobbied & paid to 'regulate'.
GO BEHRINGER!
Rod
> But please... Don't just say it's so. State a case. I've given
> examples based on my own experience and the experiences of those who I
> have encountered who also purchased, used, and been disappointed by
> Behringer. State more impressive evidence to the contrary and
> convince me otherwise... PLEASE!!!
>
ground up, and I like it. V-Amp Pro, EP2500, 1X15, 2X10 and rack for three
quarters the price Long and McQuades want for a mid priced Ampeg head. I
knew I was taking a chance, but it's miles better than that old Yorkville
rig I had. We'll see I guess.
Justice
wrote:
>The rep told the owner on the phone that he could not accept an order
>for the board - the MX3282A (not the 8000 as someone else said) even
>though he still had them on hand. He tried to offer the owner one of
>the SL series, but that's the model that I refused earlier - the
>SL2442FX Pro.
>
>-Todd
The board that mackie tried to sue Behringer over was the MX8000
board, with the 8 subgroups and the meterboard. Not the MX3282A.
The MX8000 was replaced by the MX9000 which is still available.
Also, if you are having trouble with getting your in warranty amp
replaced through your dealer. Go over his head and deal directly with
Behringer. call em -425-672-0816
inc0gnit0
>board, with the 8 subgroups and the meterboard. Not the MX3282A.
Yes... That's what someone said in another post. But what I was told
by Behringer was specifically in regard to the MX3282A... I'm not sure
what's up with that information, but I was still denied the
opportunity to have my dealer of choice order an MX3282A, also 8
subgroups, due to a legal matter said to involve Mackie.
The Behringer rep who told me that mentioned other dealers in my area
who normally carried the MX3282A, so that they might have it in stock.
If they were out, they were not going to be able to order it either.
Guitar Center had two left out of some twenty that sold lickety split
upon word of them being discontinued. I took the second to the last
one.
I called Behringer. They told me to take the amp to Wheaton, Maryland
for repair... Over two hours from my home. I told them I didn't like
that option and they told me to take it to my nearest dealer to be
assessed for exchange or repair.
My nearest dealer now has the amp and has requested a new one on my
behalf, but Behringer gives them conflicting information. One call
back said "we're familiar with that malfunction" and they would
replace it. My dealer started to execute the order of a new amp and
then Behringer tells them to take it to Wheaton- the nearest repair
facility.
Then they offer a third situation - that malfuction isn't covered -
and that leaves me high and dry. My dealer is still working on it.
They have a "one for one" warranty exchange policy... They should just
replace the amp and be done with it. It's a straight product failure,
cut and dry...
I am hoping the matter will be resolved this week and I'll have my new
amp very soon.
-Todd
John Shaughnessy
Hm, you learn something new every day...
--
Lessons, music and more at www.jmsjazz.com
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid,
but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill
"shannon" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:44133105$1...@clear.net.nz...
Scott Dorsey
So, what are you doing about it?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Brian Running
> replaced through your dealer. Go over his head and deal directly with
> Behringer. call em -425-672-0816
You've got to hand it to Behringer's US customer service reps, they work
hard to keep their customers happy. Jim Savery is a good guy, and has
always gone to great lengths to take care of his customers.
PapaNate
> So, what are you doing about it?
Well first thing I'm doing is heading down to the FCC and getting a
job...those guys are obviously paid way more than I am currently...
George Gleason
the 8000 was the "lawsuit" board if there ever was one
george
George Gleason
> >The board that mackie tried to sue Behringer over was the MX8000
>>board, with the 8 subgroups and the meterboard. Not the MX3282A.
>
> Yes... That's what someone said in another post. But what I was told
> by Behringer was specifically in regard to the MX3282A... I'm not sure
> what's up with that information, but I was still denied the
> opportunity to have my dealer of choice order an MX3282A, also 8
> subgroups, due to a legal matter said to involve Mackie.
>
>
Get some facts
George
Dinguss
> FCC PROPOSES FORFEITURE AGAINST BEHRINGER USA
> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed a US$1 million
> forfeiture against Behringer USA, Inc. (Bothell WA), for apparent
> violation of the FCC’s equipment authorization rules.
>
> The Commission came to the conclusion that Behringer apparently
> violated the FCC’s rules by marketing in the US at least *50* models
> of unauthorized digital audio devices. The rules mandate that these
> devices be tested and verified compliant with FCC technical standards
> before marketing them in the US. In proposing its forfeiture amount,
> the Commission considered that Behringer marketed the unauthorized
> devices for more than five years overall and for nearly a year after
> it was on notice of the FCC's investigation, and that Behringer derived
> substantial financial gain from the sale of the unauthorized devices.
>
> Behringer is looking into the matter, but offered no comment when
> contacted by Sound & Communications (magazine).
>
>
> FCC news release in Acrobat PDF format:
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-263862A1.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dinguss (Michael Bradley-Robbins)
http://www.douglasguitars.com/
http://www.zinepublications.com/music/bass/
Paul van der Heu
>> How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
>> Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company!
>
> Why not? Same quality at half the price...I say the consumer wins in
> this case thanks to Behringer.
It's far from the same quality. They might look similar but are very
different and the BOSS units sound much better. That being said, they
Behringer ones are not bad units at all.. but not as good as the BOSS
ones.. Still at the price they're sold they will/do take a large chunk of
marketshare from BOSS..
--
Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows,
how are you gonna guarantee my safety..
--John Crichton - Farscape pilot
Phildo
>> Old news. Already cleared up. No fine slapped.
>
> You must be thinking of something else, this latest action was announced
> on February 16 of this year:
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-263862A1.html
>
And it's now March. This was done to death on here weeks ago. Jeez, get a
clue will you.
Phildo
Phildo
"Jim Anable" <j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote in message
news:121572l...@corp.supernews.com...
> How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
> Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company!
Your loss.
They didn't rip off anybody.
Get a clue.
Here's a cut and paste that may throw some more light on your lies:
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/manufacturin g/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.
Phildo
> My
> 32 channel mixing console is a great Mackie steal... So much so that
> it is regarded at the "lawsuit" board. Hence why it's been
> discontinued and is no longer available.
Complete and utter bullshit.
See my earlier post.
Phildo
Phildo
> My information came straight from Behringer sales rep.
And I am being ordained as the new Pope tomorrow morning.
Jeez, some idiots will believe any old crap. Get your facts straight before
posting such garbage in future.
Phildo
Phildo
"Jim Anable" <j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote in message
news:121572l...@corp.supernews.com...
> How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
> Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company!
So will you never buy jiffy condoms because they are just like the ones
Durex make? How about never buying Michelin because they copied the dunlop
design (round, black, made of rubber)? Hell, I bet your car has 4 wheels and
a steering wheel. Are you now gonna junk it because they copied the original
inventor?
Get a clue dimwit.
Phildo
Stu P
<snip>
>It is widely known and never doubted that Behringer is an "about a
>year" company... Not all, but a high percentage of their stuff will
>work just fine for "about a year", then it will begin a steady
>decline...
>
Really? Where I'm in-house we have three of those stereo compressors
(composers) and a quad-gate that are all over 6 years old without a
single failure working a minimum of 5 nights per week. We also have an
ada8000 that has been going strong for about 2 years and again, no
dramas. It ain't Drawmer, but it's priced appropriately. I don't think
this comment is fair at all.
Cheers,
Stu.
shannon
> §c©©t§ <no...@kingway.org> wrote:
>
>>Fuck the US government-sham 'FCC' what a crooked bunch of
>>money grubbing politicoid fucks. As if they are any 'beacon of
>>truth and honesty' they're far more corrupt than any of the
>>organizations they get lobbied & paid to 'regulate'.
>
>
> So, what are you doing about it?
> --scott
Aaam gonna open me up a can of Ultra-whoop-ass-izer (TM), the cheap but
legal German designed Chinese manufactured fully functioning copy of the
real cheap but legal US copy of the real thing and raise a little
newsgroup hell, (a cheap but legal copy of the real thing)
Brian Running
> clue will you.
This is the post I was responding to:
"Old news. Already cleared up. No fine slapped."
It's not old news, it's not already cleared up, and there was a fine
slapped.
Maybe this was discussed to death in your little world, "Phildo," but
out in the real world, the matter continues on. Maybe you and George
ought to call the FCC and tell them that you internet illiterates have
it all figured out already, they don't need to continue.
Rob Duncan
"PapaNate" <nospama...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4413B483...@nc.rr.com...
This entire threads a load of bullshit. There is no lawsuit. They tried to
file one and it was tossed out. Theres no "Lawsuit." copy mixing boards.
Its all a load of shit.
Rob
George Gleason
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
news:44148702$1...@newspeer2.tds.net...
>> And it's now March. This was done to death on here weeks ago. Jeez, get a
>> clue will you.
>
> This is the post I was responding to:
>
> "Old news. Already cleared up. No fine slapped."
>
> It's not old news, it's not already cleared up, and there was a fine
> slapped.
OK How was it resolved and what fine was PAID
your so full of shit
The matter in been in the process of resolutiion for about 10 month
the PROPOSED fine has neither been levied or paid
the fine will amout to the equalivent of a parking ticket when it is final
resolution has been effected
>
> Maybe this was discussed to death in your little world, "Phildo," but out
> in the real world, the matter continues on. Maybe you and George ought to
> call the FCC and tell them that you internet illiterates have it all
> figured out already, they don't need to continue.
Already have the offical statment from the FCC and a confidential rebutal
from one of the two other affected parties
In case your not aware, They is another significant player who was
responsible for some of the paper work filing ans stickering of equipment
that did not happen
All behringers gear was and is compliant as far as engineering goes
it was certified to a higher standard than the fcc, just some administrative
functions were missed /unknown/assumed grandfathered in due to the other
certification which is the ROOT of this whole issue
once the lawyers are done(several months) and final resolution is reached
Behringer will either address this or choose not to address this publicly
according to what THEY see as in thier best interests
So Bucko you are fucking clueless
unfortunatly I have to respect the PRIVATE conversations I have had on
this issue with the parties involved.
you only have one bit of Public relation fluff your trying to set the world
on fire with
ain't gonna happen skippy
George
Phildo
>> some of us are not dependent on press releases to get industry
>> information
>> this has been known about for close to two years
>> You seem to be"out of the loop"
>
> Well, George, maybe you ought to start relying on press releases. This
> fine was levied less than a month ago, it is not "old news", and has not
> been "cleared up." Your loop seems to be out of the loop.
Such ignorance, so pitiful.
Phildo
Phildo
"Keith Adams" <keith...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ueEQf.23506$992....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Oh George. You're so in the know,so connected,so viril and
> distinguished. You're making my panties damp.
>
Oh dear, someone's jealous.
Just for the record, George does indeed have the ear of some people very
high up in Behringer. Several people here do.
Phildo
Phildo
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
news:44148702$1...@newspeer2.tds.net...
>> clue will you.
>
> This is the post I was responding to:
>
> "Old news. Already cleared up. No fine slapped."
>
> It's not old news, it's not already cleared up, and there was a fine
> slapped.
You are so far behind the times it is untrue.
> Maybe this was discussed to death in your little world, "Phildo," but out
> in the real world, the matter continues on. Maybe you and George ought to
> call the FCC and tell them that you internet illiterates have it all
> figured out already, they don't need to continue.
We don't need to call the FCC. We already know the full story but have been
asked not to post it until it is all settled. Suffice to say you are about a
month behind everybody else.
Phildo
Phildo
> It is widely known and never doubted that Behringer is an "about a
> year" company... Not all, but a high percentage of their stuff will
> work just fine for "about a year", then it will begin a steady
> decline...
Widely known in your head and nowhere else.
I have an ultrabass that is going strong after 6 years that I myself use
regularly, several compressors, other outboard, microphones etc that are in
installs getting used every night ranging between two and 6 years and yet
never a single failure. Go figure.
Do you shit out of your arse when you are not talking out of it?
Jeez, these Behringer-basher get dumber all the time............
Phildo
inc0gnit0
you. It should...
Regrettably, my experience has been to the contrary. I'm pleased with
other pieces, but distraught over the failure of several key pieces.
And again... What's with the presonal attack? It doesn't add to the
credibility of your argument at all...
Kloka-mo'
>
> And again... What's with the presonal attack? It doesn't add to the
> credibility of your argument at all...
Yea, isn't it AMAZING how personal these *guys* are taking this? My word!
They are either completely ignorant to the norms of adult conversation, or
they have/want $$ interest in the brand.
Sure glad our n.g. is full of mature folks (lately).
Simply off the charts...
--
-rob Slidell, Lazyanna
O< "The *deep* south"
/(\)
^^
George Gleason
"Kloka-mo'" <RobZo...@XXXyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vz6Rf.1183$CZ2...@fe07.lga...
> "inc0gnit0" <inc0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4414bfb3....@news.adelphia.net...
>>
>> And again... What's with the presonal attack? It doesn't add to the
>> credibility of your argument at all...
>
>
> Yea, isn't it AMAZING how personal these *guys* are taking this? My word!
> They are either completely ignorant to the norms of adult conversation, or
> they have/want $$ interest in the brand.
>
> Sure glad our n.g. is full of mature folks (lately).
>
> Simply off the charts...
>
now fuck off wankers
you have no clue about what your posting about
Arny Krueger
> And again... What's with the presonal attack? It doesn't
> add to the credibility of your argument at all...
This guy is well known to have personal issues that frequently spill out
into his Usenet posts on several groups. Don't take it personally - it is
just how he is.
Brian Running
> from one of the two other affected parties
> In case your not aware, They is another significant player who was
> responsible for some of the paper work filing ans stickering of equipment
> that did not happen
Good morning, George --
I'd love to respond, but I can't make heads or tails of what you posted.
Maybe if you had your mom translate it into English, we could continue
our conversation.
Phildo
> I'm pleased for you. I'm glad all your stuff is working great for
> you. It should...
It does. Matches the experiences of most of the posters on AAPLS. Behringer
did indeed used to have QC problems and a high failure rate. That all got
solved a couple of years ago and they now back it up with some of the best
customer service in the business.
> Regrettably, my experience has been to the contrary. I'm pleased with
> other pieces, but distraught over the failure of several key pieces.
Your information is several years out of date. I can understand if you don't
want to risk Behringer again but IMO you'd be a fool not to.
> And again... What's with the presonal attack? It doesn't add to the
> credibility of your argument at all...
I have a very low tolerance for fools, especially when it comes to ones that
spread crap about Behringer or start preaching their god-myths on sound
newsgroups.
Phildo
Phildo
"Kloka-mo'" <RobZo...@XXXyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vz6Rf.1183$CZ2...@fe07.lga...
> news:4414bfb3....@news.adelphia.net...
>>
>> And again... What's with the presonal attack? It doesn't add to the
>> credibility of your argument at all...
>
>
> Yea, isn't it AMAZING how personal these *guys* are taking this? My word!
> They are either completely ignorant to the norms of adult conversation, or
> they have/want $$ interest in the brand.
We've seen it many times before on AAPLS and are sick to death of people
coming out with the same old crap. They believe the rumours put about and
come on usenet preaching them as facts when they are nothing of the sort.
The sooner the gullible idiots realise it is all crap and stop spouting
their anti-behringher shite the better.
Phildo
Brian Running
> asked not to post it until it is all settled. Suffice to say you are about a
> month behind everybody else.
A month? Okey dokey, "Phildo." So, the FCC issued the press release
announcing the fine *after* it had already decided not to levy the fine.
You and ol' George are so in the loop, so far ahead of everyone else,
that you've actually warped the time-space continuum. Maybe you two
spend too much time too close to the radiation emitting from all that
Behringer gear.
Brian Running
> They are either completely ignorant to the norms of adult conversation, or
> they have/want $$ interest in the brand.
>
> Sure glad our n.g. is full of mature folks (lately).
>
> Simply off the charts...
Happens every time something gets cross-posted into... well, into just
about any other newsgroup.
George Gleason
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:G0gRf.59631$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> We don't need to call the FCC. We already know the full story but have
>> been asked not to post it until it is all settled. Suffice to say you are
>> about a month behind everybody else.
or perhaps we are career professionals in audio and lunch, play golf, meet
at trade shows the people at the top of behringer, as well as other major
audio companys
they share thier lives and company concerns but ask that we keep it
confidential until the action reaches resolution
I was not aware this had been "in the works for about two years" until a few
months ago
but I do have statments from all parties on which I base my words
you have NO first hand info
you have only a press release from a government agency, kinda a like, We
need to go to war because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction , you don't
even know the third party involved
>
so I suggest you eaither get up to speed on this spanky or shut your stupid
ass, as your teeth are falling out
george
George Gleason
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
then why do you troll it around the net?
we didn't come looking for you fucking idiots
Brian Running
> now fuck off wankers
> you have no clue about what your posting about
No, see, Goerge, weere posting abuot you now -- the FCC and Behringer ar
old news --
and you're childish tantrums, you're inability to mak an articulate
argumnet,
and my specail favrit thing abuot yu, you're inability spel and use good
gramar
Your so in the loop
Thansk for the entertinmint
Brian Running
> you have NO first hand info
> you have only a press release from a government agency, kinda a like, We
> need to go to war because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction , you don't
> even know the third party involved
Hey, George, the government agency is one of the "all parties" to which
you supposedly have inside access -- what do the FCC people say when
you're out golfing with them?
Oh, wait -- you mean you're just basing your statements on what
Behringer alone says? And they're so much more credible than the FCC,
just because you golf with them? Well, I trust you, George. I'm sure
Behringer would disclose everything to you, their trusted
industry-insider confidant, without biasing the story at all -- and I'm
sure you would never lie to us. You're a man of unquestionable integrity.
> so I suggest you eaither get up to speed on this spanky or shut your stupid
> ass, as your teeth are falling out
Except, you really ought to stop lapsing into this 13-year-old-boy
mentality, it does make it hard for us to keep defending your
unquestionable integrity.
drichard
There is no need for personal attack, it's true.
But the M8000 "lawsuit" board you mentioned is one that I owned several
years, and it doesn't even have the same control layout as the board
Mackie lawsuit claimed was copied. And the MX3282 was even less
similar. Even the most casual observer could see that right away. The
lawsuit was silly, and appropriately thrown out. And while the M8000
boards are discontinued now, they existed for several years after the
lawsuit.
Dean
George Gleason
"drichard" <DRic...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1142266772....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
then shoved in his face yet he insists on dragging his shit around as if it
were gold nuggets
he is a asshole and not quite as sharp as a bag of rock
this is why he is flamed
if he took a minute, learned what he was talking about
then apologized for his mistake the matter would have been dropped
but he is not man enough to do that
so he is getting what he deserves
Brian Running
> then apologized for his mistake the matter would have been dropped
> but he is not man enough to do that
> so he is getting what he deserves
Okay, now I get it. This is all a put-on, right, George? You're
sitting behind your computer, calling people childish names, saying
things that you'd never say to them face-to-face, expecting apologies
from people simply for stating their own opinions -- and then saying
that *others* aren't man enough. You are a master of irony, George -- I
didn't realize until now that you have been joking all along. Good one.
Ha! Insider with Behringer... hoo boy, fell for it hook, line and
sinker! All the misspellings and crude grammar are part of the act,
too, right?
The Bishop
Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company! "
Suit yourself. They sell well-made, high-quality equipment at a
fraction of the competitors' prices.
Which proves once and for all that these products were overpriced to
begin with.
Is your check from Sam Ash in the mail?
The Bishop
year" company... Not all, but a high percentage of their stuff will
work just fine for "about a year", then it will begin a steady
decline... "
Do you realize how much money and effort would have to be expended to
get gear to break down that reliably?
This guy sounds like a Mackie plant, or a "stealth marketer" for Boss.
People who have spent a lot of money on their gear are often jealous of
those who get the same value for less money. They tell stories just
like this one.
How did the jam band treat the board? Did they spill beer on it? Leave
it running overnight? You don't know.
You don't need to beware of Behringer. Their stuff is great.
inc0gnit0
Behringer, I would quickly disassociate with you. Whether you are
working to support their reputation or not, in the manner you are
doing it, you are a poor advocate for any cause...
>> But the M8000 "lawsuit" board you mentioned is one that I owned several
Yes... Thank you. I stand corrected on this.
I believe that I only stated that my board was greeted as such on
numerous occasions. The guy at GC who rang up the sale said this...
The sound man from Alien Productions who has done the last two
walk-ins for my band said this... It seems to be widely confused, but
not worth all the profanity...
It was easy to misunderstand this when Behringer's own sales rep told
me he couldn't accept an order for an MX3282a (even though he had them
in stock) due to a legal matter.
Aw... but that's right... I'm full of pure bullshit! Tell us Georgie:
>Incognitos claims are pure bullshit, itwas politly pointed out
I missed the polite part, George... You bolted ahead straight for
"asshole mode" and fore went all the niceties of polite, intelligent
conversation. (spelling and grammar too)
>then shoved in his face yet he insists on dragging his shit around as if it
I made such insistance, except to clarify and provide further details.
This wasn't done to try to prove anything except that I was typing
from my own experience. More so, it was to extend the discussion and
get down to the point.
>he is a asshole and not quite as sharp as a bag of rock
More personal attacks? Do you feel better now?
>then apologized for his mistake the matter would have been dropped
Apologize to you? Pfft... And for what? Sharing my personal
experience? Here's an apology: I'm sorry they don't pliers big
enough to pull that giant bug out of your ass!!!
>but he is not man enough to do that
I'm man enough to maintain my composure and communicate intelligably
with resonable spelling, grammar, and puncuation. Excusing my
previous comment about the bug, of course...
>so he is getting what he deserves
I deserve a new amplifier. That's all...
*sigh*
Wankers? Asshole? Fuck off? Oh... now I see. Gee, you've made such
a compelling argument, I'm sure you have turned everyone's opinion
around.
Again... In a nut shell: I own alot of it. Much I am pleased with,
mostly the utility pieces, like I mentioned. The pieces that have
failed have been pretty important pieces, and that's been quite
disappionting.
No, I haven't had the best experience with their customer support...
From Maine to Florida, I've interacted with many techs, sales people,
bands, and others who are in the sound business and more of them feel
the same way that I do, than not.
But I've only come across one George... Oh, and one Phildo, who seems
to be equally as elloquent of a linguist.
A couple guys responded and spoke about installs; that is one thing
I've heard in conversation on several occasions: installed, it
usually does just fine. But when you have to haul it on the road, it
tends not to hold up. Some of my things that I have failed, I wish I
never took out of my studio and on the road...
That's *my* experience... It can't be bullshit.
Another chapter in my experience is unfolding today while I am still
trying to settle my amp warranty matter:
Although I registered my warranty online at the Behringer website, my
proof of purchase has been deemed acceptable. I called zzounds.com to
request a copy of my sales receipt. The problem is in that their
receipt doesn't show a "sale date", rather only a "shipped date" which
zzounds said should suffice. So, back on the phone to Behringer...
In both calls to zzounds, the first call to request the reciept, the
second call to inquire about the "sale" and "ship" dates, two
different sales operators both said almost exactly the same thing:
"...almost a year old? That's about what you get..."
The second operator was also the second individual to advise me to
skip getting a new EP2500 and to argue for my money back so that I
could purchase another brand...
No bullshit... This is what I am experiencing... So how else am I to
feel? Ignore all my experience and run with Georgie-sewer-mouth?
I'll get this matter resolved and I'll just be careful about what I
purchase in the future. And when someone asks me, I'll share my
experience so that they might make sound decisions, themselves.
But please note: For all the asshole and bullshitter George keeps
claiming I am, I never said Behringer sucks and no one should buy
their worthless shit, but I did say that one should keep in mind what
it is they are buying...
Phildo said:
>>Behringer did indeed used to have QC problems and a high failure rate.
And obviously it is easier to cultivate a bad reputation than it is to
recover from one.
How's your reputation, George? From my point of view, it slips a
notch with every post I read...
I think it is brainless to disregard one's experience in any matter
just to heed the ramblings of the likes of George.
You have a good day, George!!! Keep putting others down and
eventually you'll feel wonderful about yourself, although no one else
will...
-Todd
(It's not my quote, but I did laugh out loud when I read one review
that said: Chinese junk is a boat, not my sound gear!)
Phildo
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
>> We don't need to call the FCC. We already know the full story but have
>> been asked not to post it until it is all settled. Suffice to say you are
>> about a month behind everybody else.
>
> A month? Okey dokey, "Phildo."
Do a google search for Behringer and FCC and see how long ago it was
discussed on AAPLS.
> So, the FCC issued the press release announcing the fine *after* it had
> already decided not to levy the fine.
No, that happened a couple of days after the press release. Is that too hard
a concept for you to grasp? Look up, there's a clue flying waaaaay over your
head. The whole matter is still in the process of being sorted out but it
was nothing more than a paperwork snafu. Sorry to burst your bubble and it
must be terribly disappointing for you to come on expecting to be worshipped
for bringing the big anti-behringer news and instead being derided but we're
about a month ahead of you. Some of us pros are lucky enough to have inside
information and don't just have to rely on what we read online fleshed out
by the usual anti-behringer rumour-mongers like yourself. We deal in facts
not rumour. Both George and myself know people at Behringer as do many other
people on AAPLS and RAP. We don't need your second-hand news and month-old
"exclusives". Next time before you post shit like this you may want to a)
check the authenticity of whatever it is you are posting and b) do a quick
search in google groups to make sure nobody else hasn't posted it weeks
before you happened upon it. May save you having to get all that egg off
your face in future.
> You and ol' George are so in the loop, so far ahead of everyone else,
> that you've actually warped the time-space continuum.
No, we just know things you don't. Your jealousy shines through but hey,
maybe one day you will find that bit of news that nobody has heard yet and
can have your much-longed-for moment of glory. Right now all you have you is
old news. If you want to know how old do the aforementioned google search
and weep. You will also find George and myself saying the exact same things
that we are saying now. Hardly "warping the space-time continuum" but then
that is probably just down to you watching too many old star trek episodes
and not being able to separate that world from reality. It's all in the
google record for your delectation and humiliation.
> Maybe you two spend too much time too close to the radiation emitting
> from all that Behringer gear.
Now now, jealousy doesn't become you. Maybe one day when you have a real
exclusive then people might respect you but until then you will just have to
deal with being a johnny-come-much-too-lately and being ridiculed for
posting old news thinking anyone would still be interested. Tough break
dickwad and all your posing, posturing and hissy fits isn't going to change
that.
Now then, have you quite finished your tantrum? Would you like me to call
your mommy so she can come change your diaper?
Phildo
Rod
"George Gleason" <tbmo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:PcgRf.3575$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
residence in my killfile as well.
Rod
"Rod" <ccr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tClRf.753$fy1....@news20.bellglobal.com...
Kloka-mo'
> Or your just a bunch of whiny idiots
> now fuck off wankers
> you have no clue about what your posting about
I know you are, but what am I? :-P
Brian Running
> was nothing more than a paperwork snafu.
Oh, "Phildo!" That's a quote from your little pat-yourself-on-the-back
catharsis. See that, up there? Where you finally say exactly what I've
been saying all along? "It's still in the process of being sorted out"?
That's a hell of a long way from "old news," "already cleared up," "no
fine slapped," etc., etc. Now, it wasn't really all resolved a month
ago, was it?
Couldn't just agree with me from the start, though. Had to establish
your turf, first. Good for you! Is it established now?
elephan...@yahoo.com
to unabashedly show off some detailed pics from the inside of an
Ultrabass head, thus satisfying anybody that they have a competent
design.
Let's see some pics.
Until then, I am doing my best to stay neutral.
George Gleason
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
news:44161...@newspeer2.tds.net...
>> The whole matter is still in the process of being sorted out but it was
>> nothing more than a paperwork snafu.
>
> Oh, "Phildo!" That's a quote from your little pat-yourself-on-the-back
> catharsis. See that, up there? Where you finally say exactly what I've
> been saying all along? "It's still in the process of being sorted out"?
> That's a hell of a long way from "old news,"
it is "old news" that doesn't preclude new developments but as news it is
OLD news
"already cleared up," "no
> fine slapped,"
What was the fine imposed on behringer Mr. Smart Ass?
or is the fine amount still pending the final resolution of this paperwork
snafu, spakny
etc., etc. Now, it wasn't really all resolved a month
> ago, was it?
as far as it can be resolved on a NG it was
done, over,finite nothing more to be said publicly at this time
done !
>
> Couldn't just agree with me from the start, though. Had to establish your
> turf, first. Good for you! Is it established now?
we have established your a dumb shit, that is solidly confirmed
so if you are so well informed name the THREE parties involved in this
action, who is also named with behringer as partly responsible
if there was a fine IMPOSED how much was it
Proposed and Imposed are not the same thing, spanky
lets have anything you have that was not in the fcc press release sent
public a month ago
Put up or shut up Spanky.
Phildo
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXtdsXX.net> wrote in message
news:44161...@newspeer2.tds.net...
>> nothing more than a paperwork snafu.
>
> Oh, "Phildo!" That's a quote from your little pat-yourself-on-the-back
> catharsis. See that, up there? Where you finally say exactly what I've
> been saying all along? "It's still in the process of being sorted out"?
> That's a hell of a long way from "old news," "already cleared up," "no
> fine slapped," etc., etc. Now, it wasn't really all resolved a month ago,
> was it?
Let me make this simple so that even an inbred like yourself can understand
it. Go to google.groups (you do have the intelligence to be able to do
that?) and do a search for the two words "Behringer" and "FCC" (I think even
a dumbass like yourself can manage that - if not then maybe you can ask your
teacher to help you). Then see that this topic was indeed discussed to death
a month ago on AAPLS, that several of us found out the truth but have been
asked not to post it until the matter has been rubberstamped. For the vast
majority of intelligent posters on AAPLS that was enough in that they know
some of us know people in Behringer and our assurances that this was nothing
more than a storm in a teacup were enough to put the matter to bed. As far
as we were concerned it was discussed to death and put to bed until
johnny-come-much-too-latelys like yourself were dumb enough to crosspost it
to our newsgroup. I've removed the crosspost in the follow-ups so you can
talk about it to your heart's content if it makes you feel any better
without bothering the good folks of AAPLS and RAP. We're about a month ahead
of you though so have no interest in the topic.
> Couldn't just agree with me from the start, though. Had to establish your
> turf, first. Good for you! Is it established now?
I couldn't agree with you because you were totally wrong. What part of that
fuckwit mind of yours finds that so difficult to comprehend? You just can't
stand the fact that someone knows more than you do. Sorry to bruise your ego
but that's tough shit so get over it already.
Phildo
Todd Bradley
>>year" company... Not all, but a high percentage of their stuff will
>>work just fine for "about a year", then it will begin a steady
>>decline...
>
I'd have to agree with that. I've owned lots of Behringer gear over the
past decade and have NEVER had a reliability problem with any of it.
Other stuff, well it occasionally freaks out or a pot goes bad or a knob
falls off or an LED burns out. But all my Behringer gear works as well
as the day I unwrapped it. In my experience, their build quality and
reliability are top notch.
Todd.
Jim Savery
>> >The board that mackie tried to sue Behringer over was the MX8000
>>>board, with the 8 subgroups and the meterboard. Not the MX3282A.
>>
>> Yes... That's what someone said in another post. But what I was told
>> by Behringer was specifically in regard to the MX3282A... I'm not sure
>> what's up with that information, but I was still denied the
>> opportunity to have my dealer of choice order an MX3282A, also 8
>> subgroups, due to a legal matter said to involve Mackie.
>>
>> The Behringer rep who told me that mentioned other dealers in my area
>> who normally carried the MX3282A, so that they might have it in stock.
>> If they were out, they were not going to be able to order it either.
>>
>> Guitar Center had two left out of some twenty that sold lickety split
>> upon word of them being discontinued. I took the second to the last
>> one.
>>
>> I called Behringer. They told me to take the amp to Wheaton, Maryland
>> for repair... Over two hours from my home. I told them I didn't like
>> that option and they told me to take it to my nearest dealer to be
>> assessed for exchange or repair.
>>
>> My nearest dealer now has the amp and has requested a new one on my
>> behalf, but Behringer gives them conflicting information. One call
>> back said "we're familiar with that malfunction" and they would
>> replace it. My dealer started to execute the order of a new amp and
>> then Behringer tells them to take it to Wheaton- the nearest repair
>> facility.
>>
>> Then they offer a third situation - that malfuction isn't covered -
>> and that leaves me high and dry. My dealer is still working on it.
>>
>> They have a "one for one" warranty exchange policy... They should just
>> replace the amp and be done with it. It's a straight product failure,
>> cut and dry...
>>
>> I am hoping the matter will be resolved this week and I'll have my new
>> amp very soon.
>>
>> -Todd
>>
>>
>>>
>>>The MX8000 was replaced by the MX9000 which is still available.
>>>
>>>Also, if you are having trouble with getting your in warranty amp
>>>replaced through your dealer. Go over his head and deal directly with
>>>Behringer. call em -425-672-0816
>>
>
Hi Todd. I was travelling over the weekend, so I am just seeing your
thread. Let me focus on the two product issues you raised. First, the
MX3282A:
The MX3282A was one of two 8-bus analog mixers in our lineup for the last
several years. The MX9000 is still in production, but the MX3282A is no
longer manufactured. I know some dealers still have them in stock, and the
US office still has a few B-Stock units, but new sales of MX3282A direct
from BEHRINGER USA or Canada have ended as a simple matter of product
lifecycle. There is no lawsuit or complaint of any kind involved.
The second issue you mentioned was with an EP-series power amp - I think it
was the EP1500. If I recall correctly, you said that one clip LED stayed
lit all of the time. I also read somewhere in your post here that you had
been told it was a known issue, not covered under warranty. You were also
referred to one of our authorized repair centers, but no warranty RA# was
issued (presumably due to the convenience factor you mentioned), so you took
it to a dealer for the New for Old exchange. Wow, that was a lot if work,
and I do apologize that it is still not resolved for you.
Here is what I THINK is happening with your amp:
- The Clip indication occurs when the unit is in the BRIDGED/MONO mode, and
- The indication occurs even without audio signal applied to the inputs, and
- All other aspects of the connection and resultant audio is 'normal'.
Does that match what you are seeing? If not, please contact me first thing
tomorrow so we can get the problem resolved immediately. If this is what
you are experiencing, this LED indication is a switching phenomenon and has
no influence or effect on the audio output. If the product is functioning
normally in all respects with the exception of this LED indication, this is
a safe and known indication in BRIDGED/MONO mode for this product.
Each of the clip LED's on the EP2500 is driven by a comparator ciruit, which
takes it's "cue" from a DC voltage derived from the audio signal level
present at the respective channel input, referenced against electrical
ground. Due to the layout of the switching matrix, a temporary DC voltage
is present at the trigger for the comparator in CH-1. Incidentally, this
"matrix" is controlled by the end user via the DIP switches on the back
panel of the amplifier. If these dip switches are set for the BRIDGED/MONO
configuration, it is likely that this DC voltage will have no means to decay
or "discharge" through the comparator ciruit and the LED will remain lit
until an audio signal is actually present at the channel audio input stage.
Once an audio signal is applied to the amplifier input, however, this
comparator circuit becomes "conductive" again (i.e. this cicuit's typical
condition) - and the residual DC voltage will decay as expected. At this
point, the clip LED should then be extinguished and go out. To clarify,
the LED essentially becomes an input signal indicator in BRIDGED/MONO
operation. You can extinguish this LED indication in BRIDGED/MONO mode by
simply applying audio signal to the amplifier input.
It is important to note that none of these indications or the actions of
this circuit have any effect on the audio signal. We can swap it or send it
in for warranty repair, but you will still have the same issue afterward.
I did research our returns and tech support systems today, but I was unable
to find anything matching the name "Todd" or your email address and the
model "EP1500" anywhere on the eastern seaboard. I would be happy to give
this situation my personal attention, and I think I can help you with a
B-Stock MX3282A purchase via your dealer, if you are so inclined. Just drop
me a line at the office (see signature below) and I'll work to get things
back on track for you.
Best Regards,
Jim Savery
Global Customer Service & Support Manager
BEHRINGER Group
Tel: +01-425-672-0816 x 111
Direct Dial: +01-425-939-3216
Fax: +01-425-673-7647
IP Phone Ext: 5024
mailto:serv...@behringer.com
http://www.behringer.com
This email is intended exclusively for the addressee(s) named above and may
contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not among the
intended recipients, you may not copy, utilize or distribute any of the
information contained herein. If you have received this email in error,
please notify us immediately via return email and delete the original from
your mailbox. Thank you.
inc0gnit0
Finally...
Jim, thanks for writing...
I am short on time to type this morning, but to be brief:
You misunderstand slightly. Although I have seen the condition you
mentioned when running the amp in bridged mono and wondered (thanks
for that explanation) I am running the amp in stereo parallel mode in
order to send a mono sub-bass signal to both channels, and through to
another amp.
The clip light on channel A doesn't stay on. I hits periodically and
then fades slowly, while no other channels show clip. Even when I
reverse the feed through the second amp, only channel A on the one amp
ever shows clip.
It is also an EP2500, not the EP1500. With the two amps running in
the same mode, handling the exact same signal, the amp I concerned
about run enromously hot in comparison to the other.
Does that information help define what the problem might be?
I believe you are not finding my listing in your data base because my
purchase is not under my personal name. Also, I don't believe we've
gotten a firm course of action from Behringer yet. First, they said
service, then offered to exchange, and then a call back said, no it
will have to be serviced.
Hence why I am frustrated...
We made headway yesterday by providing firm proof of purchase date and
I believe a replacement is in the works.
As for the MX3282A board, I already purchased one before they went out
of stock locally. Thanks for your offer to assist.
I'm keeping your number and you can bet I'll call upon you if I get in
a tangle like this again. I have much Behringer gear and I wish it
work well for me for a long time to come.
Thanks,
-Todd
Lane Baldwin
"Kloka-mo'" <RobZo...@XXXyahoo.com> wrote in message
> "George Gleason" <tbmo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:OOdRf.3518$sL2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Or your just a bunch of whiny idiots
>> now fuck off wankers
>> you have no clue about what your posting about
>
>
> I know you are, but what am I? :-P
>
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
That about sums up the thread at this point, doesn't it?
Keep Thumpin',
Lane
Ask not what bass can do for you...Ask what YOU can do for bass.
Special Projects Coordinator & Forum Moderator
Eden Electronics www.eden-electronics.com
Lord Valve
Phildo wrote:
> "Jim Anable" <j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote in message
> news:121572l...@corp.supernews.com...
> > How blatant can they get? The same company that tried to rip off
> > Boss/Roland. Go figger. I'll never buy from this company!
>
> Your loss.
>
> They didn't rip off anybody.
>
> Get a clue.
Handing Anable his ass is trivially easy.
I've been doing it for years. Shame on you,
Phildo - shooting fish in a barrel... ;-)
Here's an e-mail I got today:
From: "SALE Supp USA (Sales Support : SONKER Jason ext 120)"
<sales...@behringer.com>
To:
Subject: Message from BEHRINGER
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:04:04 -0800
To all BEHRINGER Dealers:
As many of you will know, on February the
16th, the FCC proposed a forfeiture against
BEHRINGER under the Communications Act of
1934 and Section 2.803 (a) of the FCC rules,
in connection with the sale of non-compliant
products, which is NOT a safety issue.
We are aware that some of our competitors have,
through their sales teams, sought to take
advantage of this situation including calls
that were represented as coming from our offices
directly. We would like to set the record
straight and at the same time express our
distaste for underhanded sales tactics aimed
at creating confusion amongst our dealers.
Our attorneys in the USA are preparing a
response to the FCC. This response will
include our assertion that taking into
consideration the fact that the Act calls
for self-test and declaration through the
filing of form 740 that:
* Some of the products cited as being non-
compliant have met more stringent testing
measures in Europe.
* Some are "family" products with the same
technical footprint as products that have
tested and passed and our self verification
compliance is perfectly valid.
Notwithstanding our response, as an additional
measure and for the sake of prudence, during
the last 2 weeks, we have undertaken an urgent
FCC testing process using accredited third
party laboratories. Our products have passed.
Of the 66 products listed by the FCC, at the
time of sending this email the bulk have passed
and been submitted to the FCC through 2005/2006.
Only 2 tests are outstanding, the SRC2000 (which
is a discontinued item) and the BCA2000. A third
product, the BLM420, has never been imported to
the USA.
Our products that have passed FCC testing, have
the appropriate forms filed with Customs and are
appropriately labeled as saleable in the USA.
It is inappropriate for anyone to be creating
uncertainty or seeking commercial gain through
misrepresentation, without fully understanding
the process of certification or without knowing
any specific details about our situation.
We apologize for not being able to provide a more
complete response to you, but we are duty bound
to prepare our response to the FCC first. In the
meantime please be assured that BEHRINGER is
committed to continuing to provide quality products
to the USA market and will do everything in our
power to support our dealer base and continue to
introduce quality products at affordable prices.
Best regards,
Stephen Fraser
Chief Operating Officer
BEHRINGER Group
Tel: 65 6845 1800
Fax:65 6214 0275
Brian Running
> fuckwit mind of yours finds that so difficult to comprehend?
Good morning, "Phildo"!
Let's go through this. Here's how it went:
1. Someone posted a link to a news release. February 16, 2006, FCC
proposed a $1,000,000 forfeiture against Behringer.
2. Someone else jumped right in and said, "Old news. Already cleared up.
No fine slapped."
3. I said, "You must be thinking of something else, this latest action
was announced on February 16 of this year." That was only about three
weeks prior.
4. Then, a few extremely insecure individuals, afraid that an
opportunity to let the world know that they play golf with the highest
people at Behringer would pass unnoticed, chimed in and proclaimed that
they were "in the loop," that the rest of us were not in the loop, that
they had special knowledge that could not be revealed because they are
so in the loop, and then began calling everyone juvenile names. And,
claiming that the matter had been resolved a long time ago -- one even
claiming that the forfeiture had been resolved before the FCC made its
announcement that the forfeiture had been proposed.
5. After a lot of childish chest-beating, posturing and name-calling,
one of the insecure individuals finally admits, "The whole matter is
still in the process of being sorted out." Strangely, it is the same
individual that claimed that the matter had been resolved before the FCC
had even announced the forfeiture.
6. When this obvious contradiction is pointed out to the individual, he
then escalates the childish name-calling, and claims that it is the
person who points out the contradiction who has the comprehension problem.
7. Throughout all of this, those claiming special inside knowledge
cannot once refute that the matter still is very much in the process of
resolution, and that the matter has not been cleared up a long time ago.
8. And one individual, in spite of having the social maturity of a
thirteen-year-old boy and calling himself "Phildo," claims that others
are envious of him.
That's pretty much how it went, "Phildo." Got any name-calling that can
change those facts?
George Gleason
"Lord Valve" <detr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4416D99E...@ix.netcom.com...
but asked not to post
my information though somewhat less formal is much more detailed and
complete
george
Brian Running
> Here's an e-mail I got today:
Thank you, LV, for bringing some facts to the table.
I am stunned to learn that the Mr. Fraser, Chief Operating Officer of
Behringer Group, is out of the loop, and doesn't know what Phildo and
George know. Phildo could save Behringer a lot of attorney fees by
calling them and telling them that this matter has already been cleared
up a long time ago. I think he owes them that much.
George Gleason
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
you are a complete idiot
In "all cleared up" that was a refrence to the discussion in the newsgroup
as all information had been exchanged weeks before you trolled by
if you were to actually read the threads on this you would find constant
refrences to the facy that there was no more info that could be shared, but
behringer the fcc and a still un-named third pary were dotting the "I'S"
crossing the "T's" and completeing final paper work filing
shame on you for you decietful underhanded approach to this
George
Phildo
>> I know some dealers still have them in stock, and the
>>US office still has a few B-Stock units, but new sales of MX3282A direct
>>from BEHRINGER USA or Canada have ended as a simple matter of product
>>lifecycle. There is no lawsuit or complaint of any kind involved.
>
> of stock locally. Thanks for your offer to assist.
So how about admitting you were wrong and apologising to those you dismissed
when they tried to correct you?
Phildo
George Gleason
"Phildo" <Ph...@phildo.net> wrote in message
news:47o6flF...@individual.net...
>
> "inc0gnit0" <inc0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44189bcd....@news.adelphia.net...
>>> I know some dealers still have them in stock, and the
>>>US office still has a few B-Stock units, but new sales of MX3282A direct
>>>from BEHRINGER USA or Canada have ended as a simple matter of product
>>>lifecycle. There is no lawsuit or complaint of any kind involved.
>>
>> As for the MX3282A board, I already purchased one before they went out
>> of stock locally. Thanks for your offer to assist.
>
executive contacted you unsolicited with resolution to your over blown
issues
even though you completely pissed all over thier company
you OWE behringer both a public retraction and public apology
but I know your not man enough to do that.
george
Brian Running
That may be, George -- but obviously, I'm smarter than you are.
> In "all cleared up" that was a refrence to the discussion in the newsgroup
> as all information had been exchanged weeks before you trolled by
> if you were to actually read the threads on this you would find constant
> refrences to the facy that there was no more info that could be shared, but
> behringer the fcc and a still un-named third pary were dotting the "I'S"
> crossing the "T's" and completeing final paper work filing
> shame on you for you decietful underhanded approach to this
Oh, sure thing, George -- I'm being deceitful and underhanded by
pointing out the obvious, which is now acknowledged by the Chief
Operating Officer of Behringer himself. In your world, facts are
deceitful and underhanded -- probably only when they disagree with your
little world view.
On your next golf date with the Behringer brass, please tell them that
this matter is all cleared up already. Their high-priced New York
lawyers are running up legal bills needlessly.
Phildo
"Brian Running" <brun...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:x4BRf.59813$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Here's an e-mail I got today:
>
> Thank you, LV, for bringing some facts to the table.
>
> I am stunned to learn that the Mr. Fraser, Chief Operating Officer of
> Behringer Group, is out of the loop, and doesn't know what Phildo and
> George know.
He knew full well but, like us, was not allowed to make anything public
until it was all settled. Now they have made it public we are free to talk
about it.
> Phildo could save Behringer a lot of attorney fees by calling them and
> telling them that this matter has already been cleared up a long time ago.
> I think he owes them that much.
Are your parents closely related by any chance? Maybe your mother did lots
of drugs while she was carrying you?
The "cleared up long ago" part was in reference to the discussion on AAPLS
where indeed, it was all sorted out a month ago. You have been told that
several times but that most simple of concepts has repeatedly failed to
penetrate your extremely thick skull. Now either you are terminally stupid
or simply trolling. Either way you are making yourself look extremely
stupid.
Now go back to your musos newsgroup which seems to be about a month behind
the rest of us. Follow-ups snipped so we no longer have to suffer your
drivel.
Phildo
George Gleason
It appears as you have no ability to comprehend meanings that
english isn't your native language.
The meaning of "all cleared up" has been explained several times, yet you
are pulling a "arny'
is your life really this empty you need to try to argue when you have been
proven wrong , over and over again
you a sad little bitter boy.
George
Brian Running
> executive contacted you unsolicited with resolution to your over blown
> issues
Hi, George! In alt.guitar.bass, we regularly have direct participation
by Lane Baldwin at Eden, Jimmy Eppard at Spector, Roger Sadowsky at
Sadowsky, as well as Jim Savery at Behringer -- and in the non-music
category, Glenn Dowdy at Hewlett-Packard -- and I'm sure I'm missing
some. All of these guys are well-respected in a.g.b., and have taken
time to help us with technical and customer-support issues, and have
made personal, unsolicited contact to do so. Jim Savery is a good guy
and has stood behind his company and its products for a long time. Gee
whiz, George, you're out of the loop, this is old news.
> even though you completely pissed all over thier company
> you OWE behringer both a public retraction and public apology
No, he didn't "piss all over" Behringer, he expressed his opinion based
upon his own experience. You and your friends from whatever newsgroup
you infest immediately began "pissing" all over anyone who didn't agree
with you.
> but I know your not man enough to do that.
He's obviously not the kind of man you are, George. He is the kind of
man that doesn't have to resort to crude language to express his opinions.
Brian Running
> where indeed, it was all sorted out a month ago.
That's what I'm saying, "Phildo." For the love of humanity, please tell
Behringer and the FCC that you guys over at AAPLS have sorted this all
out. Obviously, the COO of Behringer doesn't know this, and is paying
high-priced lawyers to respond to the FCC's allegations. Can't you do
something? Please?
Brian Running
> english isn't your native language.
This sentence has to set a new world record for self-contained irony.
> The meaning of "all cleared up" has been explained several times, yet you
> are pulling a "arny'
> is your life really this empty you need to try to argue when you have been
> proven wrong , over and over again
I must have missed that part. The COO of Behringer and I seem to share
the same wrong belief. How 'bout that?
> you a sad little bitter boy.
I is? Am you, too?