Behringer mixers
Mark Spilberg
Behringer boards are poor imitations of Mackie consoles, in particular the
24 x 8 x 2 . The original behringer 8 buss board was taken of the market,
as mackie pressed charges as to the similarity, too there board. Behringer
later released a board with a different meter bridge, system. The Behringer
mixers, are unreliable, and noisy!!!
Marko.
Danny Taddei
neither one has. As for noise, I had a mackie 24/4/2 and a 24/8/2 up against
mine in my studio and and nothing about the mackie made me want to make any
noise but the behringers made me make a load of happy noise.
Don't bash something if you really have not used it. Unreliable? Where do you
get that from?
Torsten Matthiessen
product....ever!
It seem that everytime you put audio through a Composer og the like it's
like putting a blanket over the music.
And as for reliability goes almost everything I have used had some thing
that did not work. It might work well if you touch the low-mid-freq pot on
channel 17 once every month, but when it comes to actual use the crappy
Behringer construction just can't handle it. All of the following products
falls in either of the categories descirbed above: 2 x MX8000, Ultracurve,
MX2004, MX602??, Virtualizer's, tons of Composers (both solidstate AND
light-bulb ones), DE102 and PX2000 patchbays.....how much do we have to try
before making up our minds?
--
regards
/torsten/
torsten matthiessen
studie barforama
tor...@barforama.dk
www.barforama.dk
"I'm a lot more like I used to be than I am"
Danny Taddei <cal...@cox.net> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:3EB917FA...@cox.net...
John Cafarella
news:3eb98276$0$50441$edfa...@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> I don't think I have used one single good-sounding non-broken Behringer
> product....ever!
As always, these differing experiences simply show YMMV. It's likely that
if you spend more money YMMV less.
I've had no problems with an autocom pro, 2004, ECM8000's and HA4600. My
son's v-amp has had no problems but we both much prefer the sounds produced
by the cheapest Digitech genesis machine.
--
John Cafarella
End Of the Road Studio
Melbourne, Australia
Mark Spilberg
mediocre gear. Invest in some HHB/tl-audio, or Mackie gear instead.
"Danny Taddei" <cal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3EB917FA...@cox.net...
Danny Taddei
Danny Taddei
Mark Spilberg wrote:
> I have seen many broken pieces of Behringer gear, and I feel it is very
> mediocre gear. Invest in some HHB/tl-audio, or Mackie gear instead.
Well - I've had just a bunch of fun with mackie products! I've never had a
behringer product go bad on my but I have had 2 mixers and a 24 track sdr go
belly up. I think I'll stick to saving my money and buying gear I have had a
good experience with. Their headphone amp is great, their virtualizer pro
sounds as good to me as my tc m-1. I don't like the sound of their compressors
but in a pinch it is nice to have 8 channels for just a bit more then $200. My
gig rig has a 16 channel board 2642 or something like that and it does a ton
of work for me and never gives up but both the mackie boards I have had did.
I'm not one to say that behringer is the end all but if you want a lot for you
money and aren't worried about clients pointing fingers at cheap gear then it
is good for many jobs. of all the cheap stuff it is the best deal going next
to the rnc.
Torsten Matthiessen
If I am to make a live production and all they have is Behringer composers.
I usually bring my own outboard...free of charge.
--
regards
/torsten/
torsten matthiessen
studie barforama
tor...@barforama.dk
www.barforama.dk
"I'm a lot more like I used to be than I am"
Danny Taddei <cal...@cox.net> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:3EB935B0...@cox.net...
George Perfect
> I have seen many broken pieces of Behringer gear, and I feel it is very
> mediocre gear. Invest in some HHB/tl-audio, or Mackie gear instead.
My several bits of Behringer gear have proven boringly reliable and
entirely useful for the purposes for which I bought them. Which is
surely all that we could want from any gear.
My teenage son has been abusing his V-Amp 2 for several months now in
the way that only teenagers can. Nothing has broken and the product
continues to sound and perform better than several of the other - more
expensive - competing products we auditioned.
The HHB/TL Audio products are in an entirely different market segment -
much pricier than Behringer.
That said, one of the two TLA mic preamps I bought last year arrived
dead, with a circuit board rattling around loose inside the case.
Using the standard of "evidence" used by Behringer bashers, these facts
allow me to say that Behringer equipment is 100% reliable while TLA
suffer a 50% failure rate.
Did I hear anyone cry nonsense?
Of course it is nonsense. The fact is that both these companies produce
good products that are reliable and fit for purpose. In both cases, some
proportion of their products fail due to design or manufacturing
defects. Both companies offer decent warranties to back up their
products. My dead TLA box was replaced immediately with an apology for
the inconvenience.
In the case of TLA I can only base those statements on my limited
personal experience of using about a dozen of their units and
discussions with retailers and other users. But I have seen Behringer's
quality statistics when I visited their headquarters in Germany. Other
manufacturers would do well to equal them. Most IMHO and IME don't even
come close.
--
George >{ňżó}<
Newcastle, England
(please remove leading 'x' from email address to reply, thanks)
Problems worthy of attack
Prove their worth, by hitting back - Piet Hein
George Gleason
>
>
> Mark Spilberg wrote:
>
> > I have seen many broken pieces of Behringer gear, and I feel it is very
> > mediocre gear. Invest in some HHB/tl-audio, or Mackie gear instead.
>
reliable than mackie
sound about the same but the behringer is 1/2 to 1/3 the price mackie gouges
you out of for their shitty crap
my application is LIVE sound
given the choice of Midas, mackie or behringer it would be Midas
Given the choice of Mackie or Behringer it is behringer all the way
George
Lee Liebner
in an earlier post.
Lee
"George Gleason" wrote <snippaway>
George Gleason
"Lee Liebner" <jaz...@oceanbridge.com> wrote in message
news:WrOdnUA2I9l...@comcast.com...
I own a "flock" of the 802's
and one each of the 3282 and the 3242
I used to own 6 of the 1402's and have extensivly used the 1604's
24x8(unsure of #) and one HORRIBLE sr40
george
>
>
>
dmi...@spamblock.demon.co.uk
<Snip>
> The Behringer mixers, are unreliable, and noisy!!!
But so is everything in this price range! You will not get Midas/Cadac
quality for £10/channel retail, multiply by 100 and you will be getting
into the (low) end of the good gear zone.
Note I do not say that the Behringers and Mackies have no application,
just that when you buy cheap gear you should understand that it is
CHEAP gear.
For a throwaway board there is imho nothing between the Mackie and the
Behringer, they are both cheap and fairly nasty, but for some jobs that
is all that is needed!
Regards, Dan.
--
** The email address *IS* valid, do NOT remove the spamblock
And on the evening of the first day the lord said...........
.... LX 1, GO!; and there was light.
Daniel
> They are unreliable! I fully expected my 2 to break down and in 3
> years neither one has. As for noise, I had a mackie 24/4/2 and a
> 24/8/2 up against mine in my studio and and nothing about the mackie
> made me want to make any noise but the behringers made me make a load
> of happy noise.
>
> Don't bash something if you really have not used it. Unreliable?
> Where do you get that from?
I agree. My small behringer mixer is VERY quiet. I can turn up the GAIN all
the way up for my sm57 and all I hear is what's in the room with very little
or no noise at all. (The headroom is huge!). The headphone amp is very
strong, enough to power my 600 ohm headphones (I only set it half way at
most!) and the preamps seem very transparent and solid. Many times I can
hear a lip smack or the slightest breath. All this for crazy cheap! I've had
2 or 3 different Behringer mixers and they worked fine out of the box. No
problems here. Many say that they don't like the Behr EQ. Well, I've heard
people say that they don't like the Mackie EQ. I'm also sure some Mackie
mixers have had some reliability problems. But you see, it all about saving
A LOT of money for really good, in my opinion, Behringer products. Having
tried both Mackie and Behr mixers (the lower end) I'd say they're pretty
similar.
Daniel
HKC
have used had some thing
that did not work. It might work well if you touch the low-mid-freq pot on
channel 17 once every month, but when it comes to actual use the crappy
Behringer construction just can't handle it.
But this goes for all the cheaply produced stuff and I believe this was a
discussion about Behringer opposed to Mackie and other similarly priced
mixers and in that context I don´t find that Behringer is built worse than
anything else. I mean if you compare a MX8000 to a SSL or Trident the
Behringer will obviously fall short.
Henrik Krogh
henri...@mail.dk
Daniel
If the example you provided was a "poor imitation" of a Mackie console then
why did the Mackie people "press charges" to take it off the market ? Why
did they feel threatened ? Perhaps consumers were getting the exact same
product for much less money ?? Weren't the Mackies made in the USA then ? I
think they were. The Behr's were made in China. <My theory follows>. My
guess is the Behr people opened up and looked into these Mackie consoles,
put together the neccessary parts and had them "made in China" for 1/20th
the wages of "made in the USA" products. I don't know the exact
circumstances or details of the whole thing but it seems weird calling
something a "poor imitation" and yet here is Mackie pressing charges against
a Behringer product. Hmm .. I also remember Mackie taking Behr to court over
the MX802A which looks too similar to the 1202 VLZ. Again, why do they feel
threatened by Behringer ? I've seen some Alesis mixers which look a bit like
the Mackies and yet no one is pressing charges. Perhaps Behringer stumbled
on to something that Mackie feels threatened by ? Don't you think that
Mackie's decission now to get their mixers made in China is a way for them
to level the field somewhat ? It's obvious that Mackie hates behringer and I
bet not only because their products look like theirs from the outside.
Behringer directly copied the Mackie designs, inside and out, and had it
produced inexpensively. That's the only way for them to compete. Perhaps
it's not "moral" but don't you think spending over $400 US on a 1202 VLZ
mixer is ?
Daniel
Lee Liebner
> Behringer directly copied the Mackie designs, inside and out, and had it
> produced inexpensively. That's the only way for them to compete. Perhaps
> it's not "moral"
Daniel, let's say you spent 5 years of your life writing the Great American
Novel. Then some literary agent in Hollywood reads it, changes nothing but
the names and the faces but has exactly all the same plot lines, and
produces a movie that's a huge success due to the unusual story line, and
pays you absolutely nothing. How "moral" would you consider that then?
Lee
George Gleason
thrown out of court as meritless, and the few that did have merit mackie
accepted a
cash settlement to allow the behringer to continue
Mackie says it is OK (by default in accepting the cash)
so where can you draw a line over this
Mackie is OK with it
the courts are ok with it
the buying public is being served better by this
where is the big "moral" problem?
Jny Vee
<L9Oua.146791$ja4.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "George
Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Lee Liebner" <jaz...@oceanbridge.com> wrote in message
> news:rDKdna4pqrg...@comcast.com...
> > "Daniel" <siv...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > Behringer directly copied the Mackie designs, inside and out, and had it
> > > produced inexpensively. That's the only way for them to compete. Perhaps
> > > it's not "moral"
> Lee, it is my understand that on the suits that mackie brought , many were
> thrown out of court as meritless, and the few that did have merit mackie
> accepted a
> cash settlement to allow the behringer to continue
> Mackie says it is OK (by default in accepting the cash)
> so where can you draw a line over this
> Mackie is OK with it
> the courts are ok with it
> the buying public is being served better by this
> where is the big "moral" problem?
Beheringer's history is where, as well as understanding how Euro courts
force thigns to look by way of gag rules.
(yeah this is old, and y'know,
I'm not TELLING anybody what they oughta do,
I'm just telling stories)
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.
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..
As I remember it being laid out in this case, 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). 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.
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. 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...
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...
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
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
This is tough, it's debillitating, it's expensive, it makes Bad PR with
customers... which is why One don;t do #1.
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. CLONING the innards (and outards in some cases)
however IS and Behringer built the foundation for their market position
on this model.
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...
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.
Mileages and all that
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
Mike Rivers
> If the example you provided was a "poor imitation" of a Mackie console then
> why did the Mackie people "press charges" to take it off the market ? Why
> did they feel threatened ?
Simple - because people were buying the Behringer mixers rather than
the Mackie. To the budget-conscious person starting out to assemble a
recording system, it doesn't matter which one was actually better,
anything sounds better than the old mono PA mixer that his band
abandoned years ago.
In the case of some Behringer products, the copy was so blatent that
manual pages were duplicated, as well as circuit board layouts.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Mike Rivers
> I agree. My small behringer mixer is VERY quiet. I can turn up the GAIN all
> the way up for my sm57 and all I hear is what's in the room with very little
> or no noise at all. (The headroom is huge!).
Please! This is NOT headroom. But it's good that you're happy with
your mixer. You're the kind of customer that they build them for, and
you justify the existence of an inexpensive mixer that fits the needs
of a non-critical user. You can get really good results on modest
projects with modest equipment.
Unfortunately, there are entirely too many should-be-non-critical
users who tend to be too critical of their equipment and not critical
enough about what's going into it or how they're using it.
Danny Taddei
know. Mackie has people all over the internet saying how great their product
is. All companies do it from gibson to cubase and I know 2 guys employed to do
it. Mackie would love you to think they had something on the competition but
they don't. I have had both mackie and behringer in my studio side by side and
can tell you that the only think I have ever had go bad was both mackie mixers
and an sdr24.
I am not saying that mackie shouldn't sue and recover money lost by their r&r
but the fact remains that my dollars are better spent on behringer products if
and when I need that kind of product.
Danny Taddei
Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>
> Unfortunately, there are entirely too many should-be-non-critical
> users who tend to be too critical of their equipment and not critical
> enough about what's going into it or how they're using it.
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
I think this statement best fits for 90% of everyone I have ever met that calls
themselves a musician!
David Morley
George Perfect <xgeo...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote:
> That said, one of the two TLA mic preamps I bought last year arrived
> dead, with a circuit board rattling around loose inside the case.
>
> Using the standard of "evidence" used by Behringer bashers, these facts
> allow me to say that Behringer equipment is 100% reliable while TLA
> suffer a 50% failure rate.
Plus, in a test of budget mic pre´s I read maybe 2 years ago (below $500
a pair I believe) the TLA came of worse than the Behringer....
You can´t win or lose this argument.
There are people who hate Behringer and people who accept it for what it
is. It is built in China because labor is cheap there and so is land to
build huge factories. Now, shhh and don´t tell anyone I said so, but
half of America is building their goods in China for these reasons.
I hate the sound of Lexicon reverbs personally and the only one I bought
(rather than used) broke down. Ok, it was a cheap one of theirs, but it
still didn´t reverb.....
Hence "they sound like shit and are 100% unreliable".
Behringer is cheap stuff that sounds good for the money. Better than
most for the same price but for more money you can get better gear.
Hurrah, that´s why the stuff sells by the bucket load....
And personally, I find the noise gates very good.
George Gleason
was able to prove thier case they could have forced Behringer to stop making
these product
instead they choose to allow behringer to use what you claim to be mackie
designs
Mackie gave thier permission and that in its self removes the aura of
mackie being stolen from
you can't rape the willing
george
Scott Dorsey
>but your still avoiding the issue that if all you said is true and Mackie
>was able to prove thier case they could have forced Behringer to stop making
>these product
They did.
>instead they choose to allow behringer to use what you claim to be mackie
>designs
>Mackie gave thier permission and that in its self removes the aura of
>mackie being stolen from
The current Behringer designs are MUCH less derivative than their earlier
designs, precisely because of that court case.
>you can't rape the willing
The point is that the management that did the copying is still there, and
many people do not feel good about supporting anyone who would engage in
that sort of activity.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
George Gleason
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:b9gr9f$k8f$1...@panix2.panix.com...
I respect there are diffrences of opinion on this
but iMO it is a battle already fought and for any number of reasons
behringer has been given a legal right to manufacture and sell this stuff
and one is not subverting anyones efforts in buying these products
I find it amazing that with mackies poor reliabilty that they can continue
to sell mixers
When I buy a disposable product I want to pay as little as I can
but I do not buy "stolen goods"
The behringer is not stolen goods
I would not pay the exorbinant prices mackie asks just to support thier ad
campaigns and thier harrasment of others who get in on thier market niche
But die on this hill if you must not really a issue with me as it has all
been looked at in detail by lawyers from both sides and both products are
still openly and legally available
one might argue it is immoral to sell cigarettes
I am a militant non-smoker yet I defend smokers rights
\I defend mackies right to sue and I defend behringer right to distribute
product that has been found to be in compliance with law
George
George
Scott Dorsey
>
>I respect there are diffrences of opinion on this
>but iMO it is a battle already fought and for any number of reasons
>behringer has been given a legal right to manufacture and sell this stuff
>and one is not subverting anyones efforts in buying these products
This is true.
>I find it amazing that with mackies poor reliabilty that they can continue
>to sell mixers
>When I buy a disposable product I want to pay as little as I can
>but I do not buy "stolen goods"
>The behringer is not stolen goods
No, it's not, but it's made by people who aren't above selling stolen goods
and who have a history of doing so. If that doesn't bother you, go ahead
and buy it.
But you know, there are a LOT of other players in the market. It's not just
Mackie and Behringer. There are plenty of other companies making disposable
consoles, many of which sound better and cost less.
>I would not pay the exorbinant prices mackie asks just to support thier ad
>campaigns and thier harrasment of others who get in on thier market niche
Pardon me?
George Perfect
>
[... snip ...]
> In the case of some Behringer products, the copy was so blatent that
> manual pages were duplicated, as well as circuit board layouts.
>
>
Mike - can you provide some specific examples of manuals Behringer
copied?
Michael
> But you know, there are a LOT of other players in the market. It's not just
> Mackie and Behringer. There are plenty of other companies making disposable
> consoles, many of which sound better and cost less.
Who might that be, if I may ask? Any of the ones I know of
cost a bit more, like Allen&Heath, Soundcraft, etc.
--
---Michael (of Gambit)...
[remove "BLEAH" to email]
Jny Vee
<7ZRua.147141$ja4.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "George
Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Man by this logic the Catholic Church has no moral responsibility for
their wrongs since every case that's 'settled' is tacit approval by the
kids for the ongoing abuse...
Jny Vee
> In this place, Mike Rivers was recorded as saying ...
> >
> [... snip ...]
> > In the case of some Behringer products, the copy was so blatent that
> > manual pages were duplicated, as well as circuit board layouts.
In article <MPG.19261d671...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
George Perfect <xgeo...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote:
> Mike - can you provide some specific examples of manuals Behringer
> copied?
not sure if this link still works:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=behringer&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=2&ic
=1&selm=7f5aop%24ukk%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
but this is the message to look for:
From: marvin...@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Behringer lies
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Date: 1999/04/15
It's the APHEX story in some detail.
also maybe this link:
http://wwwusers.imaginet.fr/~fernould/Dossier3/Aphexvo.html
(which I think reads odd as it's an english-to-french translation
publication then translated back to english for this excerpt)
Marvin CAESAR's interview
APHEX's CEO
Salon de la Musique, September 23rd 1994
Can you tell us about Mr Behringer, who copied your products without
licence
?
He was found guilty by the German Federal Court in 1992, he was copying
exactly the Type B Aural Exciter, Type D, and then Type F. He copied so
exactly those products, same face blade, used the same arguments in his
brochures, and so then we started pursuits in 1987. And he put
on so many arguments to the Court that it took until 1992 to find him
finally guilty. In the meantime, he kept on using and using our
technology. Then the next product he copied was the
612, a noise gate, and he copied everything so exactly, but from an
earlier version, that he even copied the mistakes we had made !
...he had copied our manual, page for page, illustration for
illustration. So we could show the Court exactly what he did, and were
able to bother him for the copyright. He's an unbelievable thief, and
then he says that he developed all this on his own, so people think
he's a good engineer, but all he is is a copist. Each product is a
copy.
Did he copy products from other manufacturers ?
Among others dbx, Bristow, Rockon, Mackie.
Danny Taddei
Scott Dorsey wrote:The point is that the management that did the copying is
still there, and
> many people do not feel good about supporting anyone who would engage in
> that sort of activity.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
I never thought of behringer as still ripping people off but if that is true I
would have a completely different view of them too. I actually like many of
their products but I won't use stolen software or listen to stolen music either
so I am feeling a little bad about supporting them with purchases.
Are all of their products ripped off design or is it that they come close? There
are lots of designs that are near impossible to go to far from. I do realize
that the patens long since ran out but things like light bulbs or a round tire
are obviously a one design thing, aren't most music products close to that
situation? - or is this just my guilt trying to rationalize??
Jny Vee
wrote:
> Are all of their products ripped off design or is it that they come close?
> There
> are lots of designs that are near impossible to go to far from. I do realize
> that the patens long since ran out but things like light bulbs or a round tire
> are obviously a one design thing, aren't most music products close to that
> situation? - or is this just my guilt trying to rationalize??
After the MACKIE thing blew up in their face so painfully, they've been
actually paying attention to being SMARTER about how they approach this
sort of thing. Before that Uri was having WAY too much fun producing
COPIES and then playing laughing-boy Euro-Court-Delay pinball to
stretch any case brought against him out to YEARS, well past the useful
market life of any particular box and WELL past the ability of the
medium-sized companies to pay for extended court battles.
It's a heritage they don;t mention in the ads...
Jny Vee
<moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote:
> > In this place, Mike Rivers was recorded as saying ...
> > >
> > [... snip ...]
> > > In the case of some Behringer products, the copy was so blatent that
> > > manual pages were duplicated, as well as circuit board layouts.
>
> In article <MPG.19261d671...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> George Perfect <xgeo...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote:
> > Mike - can you provide some specific examples of manuals Behringer
> > copied?
>
> not sure if this link still works:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=behringer&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=2&ic
> =1&selm=7f5aop%24ukk%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
>
> but this is the message to look for:
>
> From: marvin...@my-dejanews.com
> Subject: Behringer lies
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
> Date: 1999/04/15
>
> It's the APHEX story in some detail.
EXCERPT:
=======================
The truth is that Behringer copied the Aural Exciter Type B, right
down to the circuit board and the manual, and called it the Typ F. The
front panel was made to look very similar to our unit. The manual,
being so blatant a copy, caused people who bought the Behringer copy to
call our distributor in Germany for service. When it became clear to
us that Behringer was going to be more than a garage operation, we
first sent a legal letter to him demanding that he stop and then filed
a patent suit. To suggest that Behringer had a patent filing himself is
also a lie. He abused the legal system in Germany to delay justice. It
took six years to get the court to finally issue an judgment of patent
infringement and forced him to stop selling infringing products.
===========================
Daniel
Hi Lee,
I think you misunderstood. I said "Perhaps it's not moral" in my last post.
I KNOW it's not "moral" and I'll be the first one to say that on one side I
really hate the way Behringer company comes up with products BUT at the same
time I love the fact that I can have a good Mackie clone for many times less
$$ ! I then have left over for more gear - all for the price of just one
1202 VLZ. Again, how "moral" is charging people over 400 US dollars ($700
here in Canada) for a 1202 ??? Moral issues aside, thank God for Behringer!
Daniel
Daniel
charging whatever they wanted as a result of lack of much competition ? Most
musicians would have 2 choices: (1) Buy the expensive gear, that takes them
many months, or even years, to save up on or (2) Forget about being a
musician and take up sewing. Thank goodness for companies such as Behringer
to give us a 3rd choice - to actually have quality gear for very little
money. Just go to zzounds.com for example and see almost 300 users reviews
for the MX802A mixer. The average rating is 8.3/10 which tells me a hell of
a lot about the quality of the product and the need for such products at
those prices. At $79.99 it aint too bad ;-)
Daniel
Daniel
> In article <T9Lua.144995$ja.54...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
> siv...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> If the example you provided was a "poor imitation" of a Mackie
>> console then why did the Mackie people "press charges" to take it
>> off the market ? Why did they feel threatened ?
>
> Simple - because people were buying the Behringer mixers rather than
> the Mackie. To the budget-conscious person starting out to assemble a
> recording system, it doesn't matter which one was actually better,
> anything sounds better than the old mono PA mixer that his band
> abandoned years ago.
As someone who actually tried the 1202 VLZ PRO and similar behringer mixers
I would have to disagree with you.
Daniel
Jny Vee
<siv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think you misunderstood.
I think we didn't.
>I said "Perhaps it's not moral" in my last post.
yep, you did.
> I KNOW it's not "moral" ... BUT at the same
> time I love the fact that I can have a good Mackie clone for many times less
> $$ !
So your scruples come cheap. I'll remember that.
>..., how "moral" is charging people over 400 US dollars ($700
> here in Canada) for a 1202 ???
considering it's well worth that amount? not far off.
>Moral issues aside, thank God for Behringer!
> Daniel, Who happily names God as partner as he supports theft
so he can pay less than something is worth.
whata guy!
Daniel
> In article <T9Lua.144995$ja.54...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
> siv...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> If the example you provided was a "poor imitation" of a Mackie
>> console then why did the Mackie people "press charges" to take it
>> off the market ? Why did they feel threatened ?
>
> Simple - because people were buying the Behringer mixers rather than
> the Mackie. To the budget-conscious person starting out to assemble a
> recording system, it doesn't matter which one was actually better,
> anything sounds better than the old mono PA mixer that his band
> abandoned years ago.
Lets say I'll grant you that the Mackies are a bit better than the
Behringers .. Does this small difference, which I perceive anyway, warrants
spending MANY times more $$ for ? Me don't think so.
Daniel
George Gleason
"Daniel" <siv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S3Xua.136105$ya.42...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Folks this is NOT a moral question
there is nothing immoral been done by behringer or mackie
profit is not immoral even exoribant profit is not immoral
it is not immoral to produce similar gear even when it is reverse
engineered
immoral is what Saddam did to his people
immoral is what the uSA did to Iraq
this petty industrial spitting match is not a moral issue
George
Lee Liebner
<snip>
> I love the fact that I can have a good Mackie clone for many times less
> $$ ! I then have left over for more gear - all for the price of just one
> 1202 VLZ. Again, how "moral" is charging people over 400 US dollars ($700
> here in Canada) for a 1202 ??? Moral issues aside, thank God for
Behringer!
Let's say you came up with an album that started selling really well at $15
a pop. When that happens, would you mind if I make identical copies of your
album in China and sell them at $5 a pop? After all, how moral is it to
charge $15 for a 20-cent piece of plastic?? Moral issues aside, everybody
who buys my good CD clones for many times less $$ would have more left over
to for more albums. Thank God for me!
Danny Taddei
Jny Vee wrote:
>
> So your scruples come cheap. I'll remember that.
K-Mart has a sale on scruples until the end of the month:-)
Daniel
> In article <S3Xua.136105$ya.42...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>, "Daniel"
> <siv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you misunderstood.
>
> I think we didn't.
Speak for yourself please.
>
>> I said "Perhaps it's not moral" in my last post.
>
> yep, you did.
Ok then we agree on that point.
>
>> I KNOW it's not "moral" ... BUT at the same
>> time I love the fact that I can have a good Mackie clone for many
>> times less $$ !
>
> So your scruples come cheap. I'll remember that.
Yeah, and while you're at it, also please remember that YOU were the first
one to take to this personally and insult me and countless others who buy or
bought Behringer gear, many being on this board.
>
>> ..., how "moral" is charging people over 400 US dollars ($700
>> here in Canada) for a 1202 ???
>
> considering it's well worth that amount? not far off.
Sure, it may be worth that but it doesn't mean I can afford it. Again, thank
GOD for Behringer!
Daniel
>
>> Moral issues aside, thank God for Behringer!
>> Daniel, Who happily names God as partner as he supports theft
> so he can pay less than something is worth.
> whata guy!
>
Daniel
Yeah, it's a business and it's about which company (or person) "screws"
another. That's the way of the modern world. I wish it would not be so but
it is.
Daniel
Daniel
If you can afford that $15 then that's fine but on the other hand my family
will eat more as a result of me saving $10.
Daniel
Daniel
That's where taking the infringing company to court is justified, suing
their asses off and shutting their production down, especially if the
product is copyrighted or has patents. That's the company's right. That's
also your only answer as there will always be various Behringers out there.
As far as I know it is perfectly "legal" to buy Behringer products.
Daniel
George Perfect
>
> Beheringer's history is where, as well as understanding how Euro courts
> force thigns to look by way of gag rules.
>
It was coming across a similar rant you posted against Behringer,
shortly after I bought a couple of the company's products - and had been
using them quite happily - that first provoked me into looking into what
all the fuss over the company might be about.
To cut a (very!) long story short, I have probably spent more time
researching this matter than anyone else here - though I'm entirely open
to being proven wrong.
The truth of the matter as I discovered it is VERY different from the
fantasy that you (and a few others) keep parading over and over again.
At the risk of boring most good folks here (and maybe I should insert a
health warning at this point - others might want to stop reading now and
get on with something more interesting - like watching a tape rewind)
let's look at what you have to say this time round:
I am not aware that we have any special or unusual 'gagging rules' that
apply to commercial suits in European courts.
Aphex's claim against Behringer is fully in the public record here in
Europe and the case was widely reported in the specialised press -
you'll find it (for example) on-line in the Sound on Sound web archive
and the claim itself can be read (if you read German) in the archives of
several university law departments. There is no evidence that either
party to the case applied for any kind of "gag". Even less that one was
granted.
You may like to know that at the very same time that Mackie brought its
case against Behringer in the U.S. - it lodged THE VERY SAME CLAIM on
THE VERY SAME SUBJECT MATTER in the English courts. To say this is
unusual would be an understatement but - IMHO - says much about Mackie's
true motives and the tactics they employed - especially as neither
company sold the products that were the subject of the claim in the UK
at the time.
Mind you, had the claim been allowed to proceed, it would have hurt
Behringer's finances enormously (the company was a minnow compared to
Mackie at the time - oh how times have changed!) - our lawyers are every
bit as rapacious as yours.
Fact: Mackie's claim lodged here is in the public records.
Fact: Mackie's claim here was thrown out - on the legal technicality
that they had no design rights in Europe thanks to (a) the U.S.
Government's spat with the EC that had prevented reciprocal IP rights
from being automatically recognised on either side of the puddle and (b)
Mackie had never sold the product it complained of in the EC at the time
of the claim - therefore had never established any rights - another
reason for calling into question their motives for bringing a claim in
the UK - a market in which at the time, neither company sold enough
product to fund the purchase of a tin of baked beans, let alone
substantiate a claim for damages. Unlike Aphex, Mackie had no patents,
registered design rights or similar recognised rights. This alone says
more than needs to be said about the merits of Mackie's claim - if what
they had was so valuable and proprietary, why hadn't the usual
bureaucratic mechanisms been willing to recognise the fact beforehand?
Fact: The case and the reasons for its dismissal were reported and
discussed AT LENGTH in legal journals on this side of the pond. If you
search Google, you will see that I provided the substantive text of one
English legal journal article that discussed the issues involved (along
with all the FACTUAL EVIDENCE that supports what I say here).
So much for Behringer exploiting our underhand European legal system
then.
Fact: Behringer made no application to "gag" or suppress in any way
Mackie's claim against it.
Here's another fact: Aphex have been sued - successfully - ... for
stealing the design of one of the company's products ... from a former
employee. Personally, I find it far more reprehensible when a well-
funded company abuses an individual - someone who may not be in a
position to defend his rights.
It's a fact of life that large companies sue each other from time to
time - sometimes with reasonable grounds for complaint but just as often
as a tactic in the war that is called international business.
> (yeah this is old, and y'know,
> I'm not TELLING anybody what they oughta do,
> I'm just telling stories)
>
These aren't just stories - I'd call them fairy tales except that they
are delivered with so much spite and malice.
You don't even have the excuse of believing they are true - I tried to
discuss this with you (and you refused to respond) when you last made
similar statements over in alt.music.4-track.
> While BOTH parties were ORDERED to say NOTHING more than 'We're happy
> with the court's decision' ... one need look no further than at
> MACKIE's original filing documents (quickly removed from public
> disclosure by Behringer's use of the court rules) and then what
> actually HAPPENED.
> I hardly think 'cash settlement' covers it.
Really? Care to look at the facts? And the chronology?
Mackie made a claim - in part that Behringer had 'cloned' its 8-buss
mixer and stolen proprietary circuit designs for its mic preamps.
Whether this claim was reasonably based - or may have had some other
motive became clear as events unfolded.
Mackie's lawyer stood on the courtroom steps and brayed for all to hear
that this heinous bunch of foreign ne'er-do-wells had ripped off his
client big time and stolen their birth right etc., etc. ad nauseum.
Then he went into court.
A short time later (so I have been told by people who were there) he
slunk out again quietly with his tail firmly between his legs.
It seems the judge had taken the technically advanced step of actually
looking at the two mixers and observed that the control layouts were no
more similar than a dozen other products whose brochures he had
obtained. In fact, if you care to look, it's obvious that the circuit
boards are anything but clones - the control positions are entirely
different and the Behringer has an extra EQ control in each channel -
among dozens of differences.
As to Mackie's "proprietary circuit designs" it seems the judge was of
the opinion that neither product could reasonably claim much in the way
of proprietary design. Both use IC opamps extensively - and the basic
circuits used can be found in any op-amp cookbook - or the data sheets
given away FREE by the semiconductor manufacturers. Not something Mackie
has ever been keen to let the buying public know too much about, of
course.
The judge suggested Mackie might want to go away and reconsider its
position.
Mackie very quickly (I believe within hours) reached a commercial
settlement with Behringer - which says precisely NOTHING about the
merits of Mackie's claim.
It was *Mackie* that wanted the secrecy gag.
After all, it had issued its lawyer's courtroom steps statement as a
press release (that was widely reported in the U.S trade press) and by
insisting on privacy now, its own embarrassment (at effectively losing
its action) got swept under the carpet AND ... Behringer never got to
tell its side of the story.
So, people like you continue to peddle out that bought lawyer's sales
pitch as fact years afterwards.
As a businessman, I have to say to Mackie's PR department, very well
done.
As a moral human being, I find it objectionable that these falsehoods
are still wheeled out so long after the true events became public.
>
> Uri and the boys have a solid years-long reliable history of this sort
> of theft-hing as, to name 2, dbx and APHEX are well aware... APHEX
> being the only one before Mackie that knows how tenaciously devious B
> is, having fought them and won. MACKIE was the the biggest stunt like
> this they ever tried to pull..
Theft is a very serious matter. As is calling someone a thief.
I have never found any record of dbx ever suing or making a claim
against Behringer - in the U.S. or Europe.
Please don't stop at 2 - if you know of other companies subjected to the
"theft-thing" by Behringer let's hear about them.
At the time Aphex brought its claim against Behringer, business practise
- and the law - was very different from what prevails today. Aphex also
tried (and failed) to sue other companies who were producing 'exciter'
type products. Aphex's business at the time depended on RENTING its
exciter to big studios for mega-bucks per hour. The availability of a
box that could be bought for a few hundred dollars was bad news for
Aphex - potentially ruinous to its business.
Behringer's mistake was believing (on the basis of advice) that Aphex's
patents were invalid. This point has subsequently become moot (go read
the literature). The company (foolishly as it proved) did produce a
close copy of Aphex's product. Then sold it for pennies in comparison to
Aphex's prices. I wonder if Aphex would have been so upset had Behringer
demanded $20,000 per box? Or was it that the upstart had shown that the
emperor had no clothes?
Behringer readily admitted its actions. The fact that the case went
through a full trial shows only that both parties believed they had a
case to argue - and the court agreed with them - courts not being known
for their willingness to hear frivolous claims - or defences. At the end
of the court action, Aphex won and Behringer paid the compensation
awarded by the court. Personally, I don't find Aphex's subsequent
bleating that the court didn't award it "sufficient" compensation makes
me feel warm and cuddly toward the company. Let's hope their stock
holders felt sorry for them though.
Behringer (and dozens of other companies) continue to make 'exciter'
type products.
If you believe Aphex's actions were motivated by nothing more than just
ire at having been unfairly wronged you live in a different (and
somewhat more naiive) world than the one I inhabit. And if you think
Behringer were alone in "reusing" a design you don't want to look too
closely at some of the most renowned and (nowadays) most highly prized
guitar amps, for example. And you needn't look too far way from home to
find some of the "perpetrators". Many's the (now highly respected
company) that got started by "improving" the work of another.
Remember, Aphex is the company that was sued by a former employee for
stealing his personal designs.
Fact: Mackie failed to prove its claim that Behringer stole anything
from them - or, in fact, ever did it any harm at all.
Apart from taking business away from it by delivering equivalent
products to market more cheaply than Mackie could or would or wanted to.
>
> As I remember it being laid out in this case,
Your memory is far from reliable
> Behringer was in bed
> with with their major USA distributor SAM ASH/SAMSON on this deal, with
> SA putting up much money to finance having a sample of the then-new
> Mackie 8-bus sent to Behringer's China contractor to back-engineer it
> and copy it for production. Pretty much the longstanding SOP for
> Bheringer taking another mfgr's box and dead-copying the
> circuits/design/parts and then putting Behringer paint on it (the APHEX
> case is almost laughable on this.. it's in the rap archives).
I'll ask you again - please provide references (to the rap archives or
anywhere else) that provides FACTUAL evidence to support these
statements. As its stands, this statement is simply not true.
> At the
> same time B wanted desperately to have somethign BIG to show at the
> upcoming Musik Messe trade show so they took a Mackie 8-bus and
> actually repainted the steel and stuck Behringer knobs on it as a dummy
> showpiece. The first B 8-busses off the line were remarkable clones of
> the Mackie and then were modified minimally to be 'different enough' to
> get through agressive lawyer wrangling.
See above - this is simply not true. Do you have any facts to support
this claim? And how do you know so much of Behringer's internal
discussions, marketing plans and company secrets?
> Mackie's investigation into this was throurough, down to B's bribing of
> Mackie OEM specialty-parts suppliers to slide them parts for the B
> boards so they'd work.
Can you name any "specialty-part" inside Mackie's 8-buss mixer?
Specifically, amy part that is unique to Mackie and would be required to
make a copy work? That box looks stuffed full of commodity components,
switchgear and so-so parts to me. If there's magic in there I've never
found it.
I'll do something similar for you if you like. I'll name a hundred
components both products share in common - with each other and just
about every other mixer of similar configuration and price point.
Bribery is a serious offence BTW, something any court would look on very
gravely - if it were shown to be true.
> Mackie filed suit and immediately pulled ALL
> Mackie product from SAM ASH... THAT was a chunck of lost change to ASH.
> The case vanished into B's usual agressive use of the Euro court's gag
> rules and then...
So ... Behringer lost Sam Ash as a distributor - not as a result of any
wrong-doing on its part but as a result of strong-arm tactics on the
part of Mackie bullying Sam Ash into doing its bidding.
Boy, I'd be really proud to support Mackie over that set of actions.
Can you provide a reference that shows Behringer making *any* use "of
the Euro court's gag rules"? FWIW, I am European and have no idea what
you are talking about - our legal system and practices are not a million
miles away from those in the U.S. and you will find American lawyers
practising law in London as commonly as you will find European lawyers
practising in Chicago.
>
> Court ruled and NOBODY was allowed to throw victory parties.
> Mackie's smile at the press announcement seemed a TAD more real than
> Uri's though...
Er ...
1. Mackie made a claim
2. Claim is thrown out by court
3. BUT only after Mackie had pulled all its damaging PR stunts AND
strong-armed the loss of Behringer's U.S. distribution channel
4. THEN Mackie engineers a settlement that saves its face and sweeps the
whole mess under the carpet without allowing Behringer any public right
of reply.
and you wonder why Greg was smiling more than Uli?
Let's see - his lawyers make a pretty good fist of bleeding all the
spare cash out of a competitor on a frivolous claim, he - at a stroke -
destroys the competitor's distribution network in his home market and he
gains himself several years to continue to enjoy a protected market,
during which period he continues to sell his goods at artificially high
prices - and prepares his company to use the very same 'unfair, cheap,
exploited labour' and 'shoddy manufacturing techniques' he so loudly
railed against.
Not to mention his PR department persuades much of the public that he's
the good guy in all this and his competitor is a bag of worms.
Sheesh!
Smile? I'm only surprised he was able to suppress a belly laugh.
> what happened:
>
> amongst other things the most visible repercussions were
>
> 1-Behringer immediately ABSOLUTELY cut all ties with their single major
> US distro and warranty service/repair agent: SAM ASH
>
No - as you have already explained, Mackied bullied Sam Ash into cutting
ties with Behringer. Get your facts straight - and the right way round
please.
> One Don;t Do This voluntarily in the middle of the stream as it were
>
>
> 2- they were forced to build their own distribution, sales and service
> network and facility from the ground up, apparently PROHIBITED from
> arranging ANY similar sort of arrangement with ANY other existing
> company
>
Er ... where does it say Behringer were prohibited from doing business
with any U.S. company? That would be a truly extraordinary ruling if it
were true (it's not) and something that wouldn't last five minutes in an
appeal court.
If there's any basis to this at all, it may be that Mackie used or
threatened similar commercial pressure elsewhere to achieve a similar
result to that it got at Sam Ash.
Apart from that possibilty, I do believe you are talking out of your
bottom.
Sorry to spoil your party line but Samson and Behringer continue to work
together on certain product designs and manufacturing. Ever looked at
both companies current range of headphone amps? Or compressors? For
example.
Not much evidence of legal prohibition there then.
> This is tough, it's debillitating, it's expensive, it makes Bad PR with
> customers... which is why One don;t do #1.
>
It's worked well enough for Mackie all these years.
Wouldn't you say?
>
> Copying a paint-scheme and a general ergonomic approach to putting
> parts in a box isn't -stealing- (witness Greg Mackie's TAPCO and then
> MACKIE's influence on budget mixer design on the industry in teh 70's
> and then the 80's... witness APPLE's similar influence with the iMac
> adn G3 case design). and that's why YAMAHA/SPIRIT/EVERYBODYelse who
> actually DESIGNED their own boxes to get in on the Mackie concept
> weren;t in court.
BUT ... part of Mackie's claim WAS that Behringer copied the design and
layout of its mixer.
And Mackie were unable to show the court that Behringer copied anything.
So their motivation was ... ?
> CLONING the innards (and outards in some cases)
> however IS and Behringer built the foundation for their market position
> on this model.
You have no (none, zero, nada, nichts, rien, SFA) evidence to support
the allegation that Behringer ever cloned any Mackie product.
If you seriously believe that Behringer's success is based on sales of
their 8000 mixer your really are living in a dream world. That mixer is
a pure vanity product - a "look-at-me-and-see-what-I-can-do" exercise
that probably cost the company money on every one that went out the
door.
Your apalling lack of knowledge of the company (and the man) you are so
willing to abuse is self evident. You need to look elsewhere entirely in
Behringer's product range to see where it made (and makes) its money.
And you'd do well to understand how the company really operates.
Fact: R&D cost amortised over production runs of the scale exercised by
Behringer contribute pennies to the unit cost of each box. The
suggestion you might "save" or gain competitive advantage by stealing
someone else's design is what's laughable.
Bluntly put, it's not worth a bean. It's a no-brainer. Not worth even
considering.
Fact: If the company's QA and product quality was even fractionally as
bad as some here have made out the company would have been dead in the
water long ago. To succeed with such a business model, your failure rate
has to be miniscule. If you know anything at all about high volume, high
tech manufacturing you may have come across terms such as "six sigma" -
something Motorola used to crow about for example. I happen to know that
Behringer works to similar principles - and enjoys impressive numbers
for product quality. This does not happen by accident. And it absolutely
could not happen for someone who knew no more than to steal other's
designs - there's far more involved in the
design/purchasing/manufacturing/distribution processes than could ever
be discovered by merely "back-engineering it and copying it for
production."
To the very best of my knowledge, Behringer has never copied any Mackie
product. All the *evidence* (not gossip, PR spin or malicious self-
serving rumour) in the public domain suggests the opposite.
It's worth repeating that MACKIE'S CLAIM WAS NOT PROVEN
If such evidence existed - sufficient to persuade a U.S. judge - do you
honestly think Mackie would have settled? Why on earth would it have
done so - especially after all its gung-ho statements and wringing of
hands about how wronged it had been.
Could it possibly be that Mackie had achieved its commercial objectives
and had nothing nore to gain (but plenty to lose) by pursuing the claim
further?
I wouldn't be surprised to find this case part of a course at Harvard
Business School titled 'Tactical use of commercial litigation'. It's a
bloody classic!
> Sure they have a bunch of stuff they actually paid someone to design
> for them, I'm sure many professional theives have their family cars and
> MOST of the stuff in their homes all properly paid for...
I find this remark just plain insulting.
Have you ever visited Behringer's web site? Have you seen just how many
different products that company produces?
Last time you made similar statements and remarks in group, I gave you a
list of about 40 products old and new taken at random from Behringer's
web site and asked you to state which ones were cloned from other
company's products.
I opened the question out to include *any* product the company has ever
made - and they list them all on the web site.
As I'm still waiting for your reply, I assume you have yet to find a
single product that Behringer has placed on the market that has been
cloned, copied or stolen from anyone else.
Ever heard the phrase 'put up or shut up'? Time to do one or the other
on this subject, perhaps?
FYI, I've been to Behringer's HQ in Germany and seen their R&D
department. It's impressive - in a large, separate, well equipped
building, well staffed with good, honest people - and stuffed full of
original product designs. All originating in-house.
> You can all do what you will, most folks don;t care and for them, it's
> fine. I just don't see me encouraging this sort of thing.
No-one here would encourage copying or theft of other people's hard
work.
Equally, I think most here take a view as dim as I do about someone who
regularly bad-mouths and repeatedly lays down malicious and unfounded
slurs against another member of our community.
>
> Mileages and all that
>
You are entitled to your opinions and to believe whatever you will.
But please don't parade them as facts unless you can support them with
hard evidence.
I'll make my usual statement - I have no connection whatever with
Behringer or Mackie or Aphex other than as a satisfied customer and user
of each company's products.
And if you too want to go visit Behringer's R&D department, give them a
call. They are a very friendly and open company whose people are
justifiably proud of their work and the products they design and make. I
have no doubt they'd be pleased to welcome you and to put your mind at
rest.
As for me, I'll continue to speak as I find. Comparing similar Mackie
and Behringer products, the biggest difference I find is the price. In
terms of performance, reliability, durability and fitness for purpose I
can't see or hear anything that would have me pay the substantial
premium demanded for a functionally equivalent Mackie.
And that is Mackie's problem.
Fact: Behringer is now a much more successful company than Mackie.
Fact: Mackie now makes product in China.
Mike Rivers
> Mike - can you provide some specific examples of manuals Behringer
> copied?
No. I take it you don't believe this and want proof, even if it's Internet
proof.
I believe this was brought out in Aphex's lawsuit. I didn't keep a
copy of what they had posted on their web site, nor am I one of the
lawyers in the case, and I suspect that's the only place you'd get
confirmation of this assertation. And they won't talk.
Guess you'll just have to go on doubting this. It's not important if
you don't care.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mri...@d-and-d.com)
George Perfect
> George Gleason <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >but your still avoiding the issue that if all you said is true and Mackie
> >was able to prove thier case they could have forced Behringer to stop making
> >these product
>
> They did.
They din't stop making it. As a face saving mechanism for Mackie,
Behringer withdrew its 8000 mixer from the U.S. market - but continued
to manufacturer it and sell it throughout the rest of the world.
>
> >instead they choose to allow behringer to use what you claim to be mackie
> >designs
> >Mackie gave thier permission and that in its self removes the aura of
> >mackie being stolen from
>
> The current Behringer designs are MUCH less derivative than their earlier
> designs, precisely because of that court case.
Nonsense. Mackie failed to prove its case. It had no case. The 8000 is a
different design to the Mackie 8-buss as even a quick look will
establish. As to Mackie's "proprietary circuit design" - phooey.
>
> >you can't rape the willing
>
> The point is that the management that did the copying is still there, and
> many people do not feel good about supporting anyone who would engage in
No - the point is that the allegation that Mackie made has stuck.
BUT it was never proven.
I keep asking but nobody ever tells me - what is it that Behringer is
supposed to have copied? The only answer anyone ever trots out is the
Mackie 8-buss - but that just ain't so.
And a court decided that. Not me.
ChuxGarage
>there is nothing immoral been done by behringer or mackie
>profit is not immoral even exoribant profit is not immoral
>it is not immoral to produce similar gear even when it is reverse
>engineered
I've only been involved in the music biz for about 35 years. Happilly, I'm
now semi-retired. I have never found ANYTHING moral about the business.
If you want to talk about morality, become a priest. If you want to make good
music, just do the best you can, and watch out for the money changers.
Chuck
George Gleason
I could never source or state the facts so well
Peace
George
George Gleason
"Lee Liebner" <jaz...@oceanbridge.com> wrote in message
news:d9WcnQ_L2sh...@comcast.com...
this is bullshit
George
David Morley
If the Behringer 8000 is a clone of the mackie 8 buss, why do some
people say it sounds much worse?
Surley shome mishtake?
David Morley
"Daniel" <siv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you can afford that $15 then that's fine but on the other hand my family
> will eat more as a result of me saving $10.
>
> Daniel
LOL
David Morley
Jny Vee <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote:
> EXCERPT:
> =======================
> The truth is that Behringer copied the Aural Exciter Type B, right
> down to the circuit board and the manual, and called it the Typ F. The
> front panel was made to look very similar to our unit. The manual,
> being so blatant a copy, caused people who bought the Behringer copy to
> call our distributor in Germany for service. When it became clear to
> us that Behringer was going to be more than a garage operation, we
> first sent a legal letter to him demanding that he stop and then filed
> a patent suit. To suggest that Behringer had a patent filing himself is
> also a lie. He abused the legal system in Germany to delay justice. It
> took six years to get the court to finally issue an judgment of patent
> infringement and forced him to stop selling infringing products.
> ===========================
Who wrote this?
Daniel
Some have a genuine dislike for Behringer, and yes, I can see why, but at
the same time I wonder if even half of the Behringer bashers even used one
of their products. Or there are those who received a defective unit, which
happens with all products, and jumped on the Behringer bashing band wagon.
My theory anyway ..
Daniel
George Perfect
That's OK - I knew about the Aphex suit. Your earlier post seemed to
suggest there may have been more.
George Perfect
> I never thought of behringer as still ripping people off but if that is true I
> would have a completely different view of them too. I actually like many of
> their products but I won't use stolen software or listen to stolen music either
> so I am feeling a little bad about supporting them with purchases.
>
> Are all of their products ripped off design or is it that they come close? There
> are lots of designs that are near impossible to go to far from. I do realize
> that the patens long since ran out but things like light bulbs or a round tire
> are obviously a one design thing, aren't most music products close to that
> situation? - or is this just my guilt trying to rationalize??
>
Sleep easy and free of guilt - well on this subject anyway :)
Nobody here will be able to tell you of any curent or even recent (ie
within the last 15 years) product of Behringer's that has been "ripped
off".
When you boil it down, with the sole exception of one successful claim
by Aphex in 1987 nobody has shown Behringer to have engaged in any
wrong-doing. I include Mackie and its loudly proclaimed suit in that
statement.
Anyone who knows anything about the birth and development of many music
and pro audio companies knows that other well respected companies have
been guilty of far more than Behringer has been accused of. Including
the only company to have successfully brought a claim against Behringer.
IMHO, Behringer does not deserve to be singled out for such vocal abuse
in this company.
I have an on-going challenge to anyone to say which of the products
listed on Behringer's web site has been "ripped off".
Strangely - no-one (noticeably none of the hot-heads who accuse
Behringer and its owner of theft and worse) has ever responded.
George Perfect
> EXCERPT:
> =======================
> The truth is that Behringer copied the Aural Exciter Type B, right
> down to the circuit board and the manual, and called it the Typ F. The
> front panel was made to look very similar to our unit. The manual,
> being so blatant a copy, caused people who bought the Behringer copy to
> call our distributor in Germany for service. When it became clear to
> us that Behringer was going to be more than a garage operation, we
> first sent a legal letter to him demanding that he stop and then filed
> a patent suit. To suggest that Behringer had a patent filing himself is
> also a lie. He abused the legal system in Germany to delay justice. It
> took six years to get the court to finally issue an judgment of patent
> infringement and forced him to stop selling infringing products.
> ===========================
>
Thanks - I've seen this before. I find it interesting that Aphex only
bothered to act against Behringer when they became "more than a garage
operation". We have to recogbise that we are reading this out of it
shistorical context - there's background and a different set of commonly
accepted practices that have changed dramatically in the intervening
years.
And while I would share Marvin Caesar's frustration over a six year
fight through the courts, I can't say I find that unusual. I just spent
three years trying to recover a substantial sum of money owed to my
company. That was just a relatively straightforward commercial dispute
entirely in the UK courts.
By that scale, six years to decide a multi-national intellectual
property dispute seem par for the legal course.
Daniel
> 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.
Obviously I've cut out most of what you said for space but I must say that
this was a great piece of writing. Very interesting to say the least. Thank
you for that.
Daniel
Mike Rivers
> Lets say I'll grant you that the Mackies are a bit better than the
> Behringers .. Does this small difference, which I perceive anyway, warrants
> spending MANY times more $$ for ? Me don't think so.
Look, Daniel. I don't give a rat's ass what kind of mixer you buy.
Your music will prove you right, wrong, or don't care. And I don't
think you have presented anything about your music here that would
interest me in what you do. So maybe it's better that you spent less
money on gear. You won't be taking my money any time soon.
Mike Rivers
In article <GkXua.295568$vs.22...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> siv...@yahoo.com writes:
> Can you imagine having only 1 or 2 companies manufacture pro-audio gear and
> charging whatever they wanted as a result of lack of much competition ? Most
> musicians would have 2 choices: (1) Buy the expensive gear, that takes them
> many months, or even years, to save up on or (2) Forget about being a
> musician and take up sewing.
How about (3) Forget about being a recording engineer, go to a studio,
and play their carefully crafted music. Let someone else spend the
money on gear and worry about what happens when it breaks.
ChuxGarage
>shistorical context - there's background and a different set of commonly
>accepted practices that have changed dramatically in the intervening
>years.
It might be fair to point out that when the Aphex Aural Exciter was first
released, you could not buy it. You had to lease it on a per use basis. I
remember trying to sell some of my live sound clients on using it, but I didn't
have much luck with that. The cost was a significant percentage of what they
were paying for the whole PA. It was not exactly cheap. There was also
something that rubbed people the wrong way about never owning the unit. Sound
engineers are very possessive. That's why we have closets full of odds and
ends.
When Aphex finally decided to sell their Aural exciter, it was very expensive.
I believe it was about $2500 dealer cost. It may have been more. Whatever the
exact price, at that time, it was a lot of money. Of course, it eventually
came down, but it doesn't take too much imagination to see how somebody might
think about reverse-engineering one.
I'm not defending anything, but the fact that there are currently several
products on the market that provide a similar effect seems to prove that it
could have been done at a very reasonable cost. Perhaps if the marketing plan
for Aphex had been a bit more user friendly, a lot of unpleasantness might have
been avoided.
Chuck
Ty Ford
"George Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Lee Liebner" <jaz...@oceanbridge.com> wrote in message
>> "Daniel" <siv...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > Behringer directly copied the Mackie designs, inside and out, and had it
>> > produced inexpensively. That's the only way for them to compete. Perhaps
>> > it's not "moral"
>>
>> Daniel, let's say you spent 5 years of your life writing the Great
>American
>> Novel. Then some literary agent in Hollywood reads it, changes nothing but
>> the names and the faces but has exactly all the same plot lines, and
>> produces a movie that's a huge success due to the unusual story line, and
>> pays you absolutely nothing. How "moral" would you consider that then?
>>
>thrown out of court as meritless, and the few that did have merit mackie
>accepted a
>cash settlement to allow the behringer to continue
>Mackie says it is OK (by default in accepting the cash)
>so where can you draw a line over this
>Mackie is OK with it
>the courts are ok with it
>the buying public is being served better by this
>where is the big "moral" problem?
I'm with Lee on this George. They reached a settlement. That's a business
thing. Settlements frequently compromise any purity of truth and "what's
right."
Somebody wants to buy a B, fine. I'll exercise my right not to bother
looking at them unless I'm forced into a settlement and there's nothing else
around.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Lee Liebner
> If you can afford that $15 then that's fine but on the other hand my
family
> will eat more as a result of me saving $10.
Danny, Danny, Danny, in fact you'll have a lot *less* food on the table
because the only people giving you $15 for your album instead of buying a
clone from me for $5 will be people to whom honesty and ethics matter.
Danny Taddei
Scott Dorsey
>I need to know.
>If the Behringer 8000 is a clone of the mackie 8 buss, why do some
>people say it sounds much worse?
It's not in any way a clone of the Mackie 8 buss.
And since I can't imagine anything could sound much worse than the Mackie 8
buss, I don't know if it is possible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
>
>That's OK - I knew about the Aphex suit. Your earlier post seemed to
>suggest there may have been more.
There have also been a couple of lawsuits from Mackie as well, which were
basically settled out of court with Behringer promising to stop cloning
Mackie products. Which they, to their credit, have done.
Scott Dorsey
What we would do is (4), bite the bullet and build custom consoles like
we used to before the whole prefab console thing started.
Rob Adelman
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> And since I can't imagine anything could sound much worse than the Mackie 8
> buss, I don't know if it is possible.
Kelsey, much worse!
Scott Dorsey
>> But you know, there are a LOT of other players in the market. It's not just
>> Mackie and Behringer. There are plenty of other companies making disposable
>> consoles, many of which sound better and cost less.
>
>Who might that be, if I may ask? Any of the ones I know of
>cost a bit more, like Allen&Heath, Soundcraft, etc.
The A&H MixWizard is a bit more than the Mackie 1604, but only a bit more,
and it's a much nicer console in every way.
Don't forget Yamaha in your list either. Some of the Yamaha cheapies aren't
bad. Also there are the Ramsa consoles, and even Peavey.
And in the REAL bargain basement there is stuff from guys like Inter-M and
Carvin. Not high quality stuff, but no worse than the Mackies and Behringers
and sometimes better.
Scott Dorsey
>
>Are all of their products ripped off design or is it that they come close? There
>are lots of designs that are near impossible to go to far from. I do realize
>that the patens long since ran out but things like light bulbs or a round tire
>are obviously a one design thing, aren't most music products close to that
>situation? - or is this just my guilt trying to rationalize??
None of their current products are stolen, no. The whole point is that
some people can't forget the way they originally did business. Others
can forget it easily. These two people can't stop fighting on Usenet.
George Perfect
Just trying to keep the record straight
George Perfect
The rent/lease requirement was one of the historical aspects I was
referring to. Aphex's business success at the time was reliant on
maintaining a monopoly. Its own chief exec is on record stating that it
didn't bother with Behringer until the company became a serious threat
(and the lawyers saw it had enough money to make a court win worthwhile)
Whatever the legal advice and business culture prevailing at the time
(and though the facts of just how closely Behringer copied or reverse
engineered the Aphex box are not quite as clear cut as is believed -
like all press releases, the ones Aphex put out at the time need to be
read very carefully) Behringer was wrong to do what it did and paid a
price.
The point is, the company was not alone in using reverse engineering.
Many, many companies - including Aphex - engaged in similar practices.
Several - including Aphex IMHO - did so in far less acceptable
circumstances.
For the life of me, I cannot see why Behringer is singled out for such a
vituperous hate campaign in some quarters - with both the company and
the man subjected to accusations that have absolutely no basis in truth.
If the self-proclaimed high-minded individuals who throw out accusations
of theft, lying and cheating and dodgy practices at Behringer are true
to their convictions, why aren't we hearing them proclaim they'd never
buy an Aphex product? or a Marshall amp? or ... ?
Part of the reason, I am sure, is Mackie's cynical and highly successful
attempt to exaggerate and exploit Behringer's past with the simple
motivation of unfairly knocking out a highly dangerous competitor.
I'm sure the owners of some of these other companies who started out by
"improving" the work of others look at the anti-Behringer campaign and
utter the words "There but for the grace of God, go I".
The whole Behringer thing is no more than an urban myth that is well
past its sell-by date.
It deserves to be put to rest and folks be content to measure the
company and its products by its performance and attributes today.
In other words, no more than they do with every other company in the
industry.
Daniel
I have to strongly agree with you here. Just today I visited my friendly
neighborhood music store and I've seen numerous Behringer mixer clones from
companies such as Alto, Alesis and a few others. (I mean they even matched
up the colors and size of knobs and everything). I thought I was looking at
a few Behringer mixers and then was told by a sales guy that it wasn't
Behringer! Now they're trying to copy Behringer!!! LOL!!! You're right that
Behringer should definitely not be singled out!!
Daniel
Daniel
I gotta tell you that I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Does "churning"
ring a bell ?
Daniel (not Danny)
Daniel
Man, some of you people take this stuff too damn personally! Why the
personal insults all of a sudden ? Can't I have an opinion ? Do I have to
have $100,000 worth of pro-audio equipment to have one ? Does it matter if I
record through a Neve or a tin can to have an opinion here and not be
personally attacked ? Ok, so you know, through some posts of mine, that I
record in a rather laughable way by todays standards, but does this make me
not appreciate quality ? Am I ear deaf because of this ? By the way of your
response I have no interest in taking you money. Keep it and don't spend it
all in one place ;-)
Daniel
Mike Rivers
> The A&H MixWizard is a bit more than the Mackie 1604, but only a bit more,
> and it's a much nicer console in every way.
If what you want is a 16x2 mixer, A&H has a good one. But the Mackie
1604 is more than a 16x2 mixer, and those busses can come in handy for
certain applications. A&H hasn't for years offered a mixer that has all
the inputs and outputs of a 1604. Deciding that they can make do with
a 2-bus mixer could be a wise choice for some, but not everybody.
> Don't forget Yamaha in your list either. Some of the Yamaha cheapies aren't
> bad. Also there are the Ramsa consoles, and even Peavey.
But here you're getting into the realm of used consoles. I don't think
there's anything "not bad" from Yamaha today that's suitable for
recording, same for Peavey, and Ramsa has been extinct for a while.
Mike Rivers
> The rent/lease requirement was one of the historical aspects I was
> referring to. Aphex's business success at the time was reliant on
> maintaining a monopoly.
Remember what things were like at the time. There were no recording
hobbyists, all the records we ever heard were made in major studios
with real budgets, and spending a few grand (the cost of using an
Audio Exciter was based on the number of finished minutes that were
released, not the number of days the studio had the unit) to add a new
sound to their mixes was well worth it. The record labels would have
liked to be a monopoly too.
> Its own chief exec is on record stating that it
> didn't bother with Behringer until the company became a serious threat
> (and the lawyers saw it had enough money to make a court win worthwhile)
This is the same with most intellectual property lawsuits. Few
copyright owners raid personal studios to see if anyone's sampling
their work. But when they find a deep enough pocket, they'll go after
them. This is certainly a double standard - only enforcing when it's
worth while - but it's been that way ever since we've had lawyers and
laws. How many drug users get off with a trip to the police station
for questioning when the cops think they can get a lead on a
distributor? How many people get away with copying CDs while the law
is going after the basement factories who sell pirated CDs to
retailers?
> For the life of me, I cannot see why Behringer is singled out for such a
> vituperous hate campaign in some quarters - with both the company and
> the man subjected to accusations that have absolutely no basis in truth.
Because they're an easy target, and they tangled with one of the
darlings of the industry at the time. The Aphex-Behringer lawsuit was
interesting news. The Mackie-Behringer lawsuit was great Internet
fodder.
> Part of the reason, I am sure, is Mackie's cynical and highly successful
> attempt to exaggerate and exploit Behringer's past with the simple
> motivation of unfairly knocking out a highly dangerous competitor.
Exactly - Mackie has always been good at marketing, and they can
market their business matters as well as their products if they thing
it will increase belief in the company. One of the things about Mackie
in the early days is that they had a lot of people rooting for them.
Like TASCAM and Alesis, they provided a way for a whole lot of people
to get into a room they never could otherwise afford. And at the time,
compared to the competition, they offered very acceptable performace
at a better than fair price.
Today others do the same. It's the way business goes. There really
wasn't a way for Mackie to either improve the quality of their product
or reduce the cost substantially and still stick to their "made in
America" principles (which still meant something 10 years ago) so the
best they could do was heavier marketing. Mackie is now changing their
approach. Will their new line of mixer be better than the current XLR
series in surface quality? Probably not (but probably not noticibly
worse either), but they'll be as cheap or cheaper than the
competition. Maybe it'll work for them, maybe we've reached bottom and
they'll discover that it doesn't work.
But it's a different world now. I agree that people should let bygones
be bygones and accept the equipment for what it is, not the
manufacturer for what it is, but this is where emotions take over.
> The whole Behringer thing is no more than an urban myth that is well
> past its sell-by date.
It's certainly not a myth, but it should be a dead issue. I doubt that
anyone has enough data to fairly argue quality or reliability
equivalence on a grand scale. Those of us with limited vision only see
individual data points.
Mike Rivers
> Man, some of you people take this stuff too damn personally! Why the
> personal insults all of a sudden ? Can't I have an opinion ?
About a mixer, sure. About me (you did single me out by quoting my
message), not necessarily without a rebuttal.
> Ok, so you know, through some posts of mine, that I
> record in a rather laughable way by todays standards, but does this make me
> not appreciate quality ? Am I ear deaf because of this ?
No, but it makes me curious about your output. Maybe you're really
getting great stuff with inexpensive equipment and off-the-wall
techniques. It happens. Or maybe you're just having fun.
George Perfect
>
> [... snip ...]
It sounds like we are singing off the same hymn sheet as I agree with
everything you wrote.
>
> It's certainly not a myth, but it should be a dead issue. I doubt that
> anyone has enough data to fairly argue quality or reliability
> equivalence on a grand scale. Those of us with limited vision only see
> individual data points.
I can't speak about Mackie (and just in case anyone leaps to a
conclusion that isn't here, have no reason to believe their figures are
much different to Behringer's) but I have seen Behringer's quality stats
and they are impressive - a very long way from the description some
people have applied to them. I have also seen at first hand the lengths
the company goes to to make sure that faulty products do not leave its
warehouses. I only wish more companies would show as much devotion.
Put very crudely (and quite unfairly), Behringer's business model is of
the "pile it high and sell it cheap" variety. A more polite way of
describing it is a 'thin margin' model. In other words it is at the very
opposite extreme to that once deployed by Aphex who tried for very high
profit margins on a very small volume of goods (and capital employed).
If a company is to stay around and succeed with such low margins, it
simply cannot afford to sell shoddy goods. I don't believe there's a way
to square the financial results and consistently high growth rate of
Behringer with any significant quality problems.
Les Cargill
>
> In this place, Mike Rivers was recorded as saying ...
> >
> > [... snip ...]
>
> It sounds like we are singing off the same hymn sheet as I agree with
> everything you wrote.
>
> >
> > It's certainly not a myth, but it should be a dead issue. I doubt that
> > anyone has enough data to fairly argue quality or reliability
> > equivalence on a grand scale. Those of us with limited vision only see
> > individual data points.
>
> I can't speak about Mackie (and just in case anyone leaps to a
> conclusion that isn't here, have no reason to believe their figures are
> much different to Behringer's) but I have seen Behringer's quality stats
> and they are impressive - a very long way from the description some
> people have applied to them. I have also seen at first hand the lengths
> the company goes to to make sure that faulty products do not leave its
> warehouses. I only wish more companies would show as much devotion.
>
I doubt it's devotion - returns are expensive and somewhat painful, so
this cost-justifies all the QC.
> Put very crudely (and quite unfairly), Behringer's business model is of
> the "pile it high and sell it cheap" variety. A more polite way of
> describing it is a 'thin margin' model. In other words it is at the very
> opposite extreme to that once deployed by Aphex who tried for very high
> profit margins on a very small volume of goods (and capital employed).
>
> If a company is to stay around and succeed with such low margins, it
> simply cannot afford to sell shoddy goods. I don't believe there's a way
> to square the financial results and consistently high growth rate of
> Behringer with any significant quality problems.
>
Just to provide an explanation, they manage to get a lot of shelf space
in the box stores. The competitors have a higher price, so it's the
usual "race to the bottom" marketing model.
In other words, the customer for them is the retail outlet, not
necessarily the end customer. There's an extra level of information
flow through the retailer.
> --
> George >{蚩髛<
>
> Newcastle, England
> (please remove leading 'x' from email address to reply, thanks)
>
> Problems worthy of attack
> Prove their worth, by hitting back - Piet Hein
--
Les Cargill
George Perfect
> >
> > I can't speak about Mackie (and just in case anyone leaps to a
> > conclusion that isn't here, have no reason to believe their figures are
> > much different to Behringer's) but I have seen Behringer's quality stats
> > and they are impressive - a very long way from the description some
> > people have applied to them. I have also seen at first hand the lengths
> > the company goes to to make sure that faulty products do not leave its
> > warehouses. I only wish more companies would show as much devotion.
> >
>
> I doubt it's devotion - returns are expensive and somewhat painful, so
> this cost-justifies all the QC.
Either way, the customer wins by getting a cheaper product that works.
>
>
> Just to provide an explanation, they manage to get a lot of shelf space
> in the box stores. The competitors have a higher price, so it's the
> usual "race to the bottom" marketing model.
I don't think that description applies here. It'd be a race to the
bottom when companies with equivalent products compete on price alone
and end up selling their goods at or below cost to maintain market
share. This does not appear to me to be what is happening at Behringer.
>
> In other words, the customer for them is the retail outlet, not
> necessarily the end customer. There's an extra level of information
> flow through the retailer.
>
That's the same with any consumer product surely. Do you think you'd get
far calling up Panasonic to talk to someone about the $100 CD player you
might buy from "Right-Price"? Surely all you expect is to see and play
with a shelf model in the store - these days maybe a look at the company
web site. If you're lucky the spotty youth might come out of the corner
and talk to you but that's about it.
There's a highly significant distinction when it comes to specialised or
niche manufacturers who - precisely because of their niche operation and
extremely low volumes - have to get close to their customers. They also
have to charge high prices in return. This place has quite a few
representatives of this ilk - mostly highly respected.
Behringer is a consumer goods company and acts accordingly.
Neither method of selling your wares is right or wrong - they're just
different. There's no more point in arguing that Manley's prices are too
high than arguing that Behringer should provide personal service.
A professional recording studio surely appreciates the kind of service
that has the manufacturer dropping what he's doing and rushing round
with a replacement for the essential bit of outboard that just failed
mid-session.
The savvy hard up musician cutting a demo in his back room turfs his 90
dollar compressor in the bin and trots down to the music store to buy
another one when it fails. Rather as you or I would do with a cheap CD
player.
As customers, we pays our money and we takes our choice! As long as we
get what we bargained for, where's the problem?
The problems arise when someone expects personal service on their
consumer item, methinks.
--
George >{ňżó}<
glen
"Rob Adelman" <rade...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3EBDA56C...@mn.rr.com...
Les Cargill
>
> In this place, Les Cargill was recorded as saying ...
> > >
> > > I can't speak about Mackie (and just in case anyone leaps to a
> > > conclusion that isn't here, have no reason to believe their figures are
> > > much different to Behringer's) but I have seen Behringer's quality stats
> > > and they are impressive - a very long way from the description some
> > > people have applied to them. I have also seen at first hand the lengths
> > > the company goes to to make sure that faulty products do not leave its
> > > warehouses. I only wish more companies would show as much devotion.
> > >
> >
> > I doubt it's devotion - returns are expensive and somewhat painful, so
> > this cost-justifies all the QC.
>
> Either way, the customer wins by getting a cheaper product that works.
>
Just for the record, I wasn't denigrating Behringer product. Not
that you said I was.
> >
> >
> > Just to provide an explanation, they manage to get a lot of shelf space
> > in the box stores. The competitors have a higher price, so it's the
> > usual "race to the bottom" marketing model.
>
> I don't think that description applies here. It'd be a race to the
> bottom when companies with equivalent products compete on price alone
> and end up selling their goods at or below cost to maintain market
> share. This does not appear to me to be what is happening at Behringer.
>
Cost models are always estimated. If there's no guard band on margin,
there is increased risk of failure, of infeasibility of the organization.
As somebody with the word "engineer" on business cards, I am always
wary of pure price competition because it leaves no room for
innovation, although the Mackie-style mixers are probably
an evolutionary dead end.
> >
> > In other words, the customer for them is the retail outlet, not
> > necessarily the end customer. There's an extra level of information
> > flow through the retailer.
> >
>
> That's the same with any consumer product surely. Do you think you'd get
> far calling up Panasonic to talk to someone about the $100 CD player you
> might buy from "Right-Price"? Surely all you expect is to see and play
> with a shelf model in the store - these days maybe a look at the company
> web site. If you're lucky the spotty youth might come out of the corner
> and talk to you but that's about it.
>
Oh, I agree, but this is a recent development in sound mixers.
> There's a highly significant distinction when it comes to specialised or
> niche manufacturers who - precisely because of their niche operation and
> extremely low volumes - have to get close to their customers. They also
> have to charge high prices in return. This place has quite a few
> representatives of this ilk - mostly highly respected.
>
Right. Although there are fewer than there used to be. The problem
is that if there is no high end to the market, there is no place
for people to design or market new units and make money. D&R
pulled out of America because of something like this, and
exchange rates are making the US market more hostile to European
companies ( which tend to be a bit more subsidized by the system
over there ) and the U.S. as a product development model is
almost done. There is almost no R&D that is not "strategic" now.
This means people lose money on ROI of development in the U.S.,
so only government contracts and Microsoft style companies can
afford it.
Behringer and Mackie both were dependent on the higher margin units
as targets to refine. If those go away, there's no further
improvement. Which may be the case, anyway.
I suspect the Manleys of the world are ultimately "lifestyle"
businesses, as are recording studios in general. So maybe it'll
be fine.
> Behringer is a consumer goods company and acts accordingly.
>
> Neither method of selling your wares is right or wrong - they're just
> different. There's no more point in arguing that Manley's prices are too
> high than arguing that Behringer should provide personal service.
>
> A professional recording studio surely appreciates the kind of service
> that has the manufacturer dropping what he's doing and rushing round
> with a replacement for the essential bit of outboard that just failed
> mid-session.
>
> The savvy hard up musician cutting a demo in his back room turfs his 90
> dollar compressor in the bin and trots down to the music store to buy
> another one when it fails. Rather as you or I would do with a cheap CD
> player.
>
Yes, but his 90 dollar compressor may damage what is arguably
archival versions of recorded music, where our CD player only
deafens us :) Archival? Ha! but still, it will happen.
> As customers, we pays our money and we takes our choice! As long as we
> get what we bargained for, where's the problem?
>
> The problems arise when someone expects personal service on their
> consumer item, methinks.
Or when the market gets saturated, and they have to slash cost to
maintain. It's happened, a lot.
>
> --
> George >{蚩髛<
>
> Newcastle, England
> (please remove leading 'x' from email address to reply, thanks)
>
> Problems worthy of attack
> Prove their worth, by hitting back - Piet Hein
--
Les Cargill
George Perfect
> there is increased risk of failure, of infeasibility of the organization.
Yup - and you have to hand it to someone who can get it consistently
right.
>
> As somebody with the word "engineer" on business cards, I am always
> wary of pure price competition because it leaves no room for
> innovation, although the Mackie-style mixers are probably
> an evolutionary dead end.
>
It's surely not a way to do business - at least not for the medium to
long term.
But every dead end is also an opportunity to change direction. Evolution
of digital mixers still has a long way to go - and the market for
control surfaces has barely begun. And that's just for boxes with slidey
things on! ;)
I suspect that over the next few years, all that lovely outboard gear
will find itself being replaced by similar kit with digital interfaces -
driven by new audio distribution methods (whether mLan or something
better).
And to short-circuit your proposition, many of these new products will
be introduced to market by the specialised niche players ... before
eventually filtering down to the high volume manufacturers.
Plenty of opportunity out there yet.
And money can be made by selling things at low prices - as long as you
can manufacture, market and distribute them at low cost. There is more
than one way to skin a cat.
>
> Right. Although there are fewer than there used to be. The problem
> is that if there is no high end to the market, there is no place
> for people to design or market new units and make money.
There's always a high end to any market. Look at a mature market place
like the automotive industry. Ferrari, Rolls Royce and Aston Martin
still find enough buyers to keep their coffers full.
> D&R
> pulled out of America because of something like this, and
> exchange rates are making the US market more hostile to European
> companies ( which tend to be a bit more subsidized by the system
> over there ) and the U.S. as a product development model is
> almost done. There is almost no R&D that is not "strategic" now.
I have to diagree with you there. As a European business owner I have to
tell you that with very few exceptions there are no subsidies here worth
even applying for. Like the U.S., we have a high standard of living with
associated high labour, property and tax costs. Because Europe is still
a fractured market, we also lack the single homogeneous market that U.S.
companies enjoy that allows volume to be ramped up very quickly - really
harming ROI.
The grass is not always greener on the other side of the pond ... :)
>
> This means people lose money on ROI of development in the U.S.,
> so only government contracts and Microsoft style companies can
> afford it.
>
Hmmm ... that used to be the thinking over here. Innovation and good
design have shown that even pure R&D is worthwhile investment.
> Behringer and Mackie both were dependent on the higher margin units
> as targets to refine. If those go away, there's no further
> improvement. Which may be the case, anyway.
>
I think companies like these are an essential part of the business
world. By taking technology as it matures and delivering it to a far
broader market they perform a valuable role. Tomorrow, they will look
for the next maturing technology to come forward.
If you choose for your business to be an innovator rather than a
follower, you have to constantly innovate - ie, come up with new ideas
for new products and new technologies.
Many companies fall in the process of moving from innovator to follower.
The software industry - like the music industry - is full of one-hit
wonders ... companies that mushroom on the back of one great idea but
then fail to follow it up with another - missing the first rule of
business - that every product has a finite life cycle.
To my eyes, Mackie seems to be somewhere on this road at the moment - it
was once an innovator but (though I'm sure they would disagree with
this) now largely follow technology and innovations from elsewhere.
And it is easy to dismiss the contribution of the followers. In order to
reach broader markets, they have to have skills in manufacturing,
packaging, marketing and distribution that are far less important to the
innovators - a great new product will always find customers and, while
profits are high, scraping a gram off a washer to save .01 cent makes no
sense.
But by the time you are making a million units a year and using twenty
washers per unit you are looking at the difference between heady success
and abject failure.
The skill comes in knowing where to scrape and what to leave alone. The
genius comes from innovative ideas that save a whole cent here and
there.
> I suspect the Manleys of the world are ultimately "lifestyle"
> businesses, as are recording studios in general. So maybe it'll
> be fine.
I don't know enough about Manley to comment (so I should have chosen
another name at random!) but certainly some of the smaller businesses
seem to be run for the love of the result as much as for the money. And
more power to the elbows of those who achieve such a happy balance in
life.
But they needn't be. In highly specialised fields, innovation doesn't
always have to come in earth shaking rushes. An incremental improvement
is enough. To use the car analogy, this year's Ferrari is only
fractionally faster than last year's model and (occasional new toy like
paddle shift gears apart) use the same technology that first saw light
of day over a century ago. Yet Ferraris still find queues of eager
buyers.
In the recording field, release of a new preamp or compressor or effects
box that gets even a tinier bit better sound or helps to get the talent
through my studio door rather than yours will equally find a market.
The main danger to small companies is the same in whatever field -
susceptibility to economic forces outside their control.
>
> Yes, but his 90 dollar compressor may damage what is arguably
> archival versions of recorded music, where our CD player only
> deafens us :) Archival? Ha! but still, it will happen.
I could argue that if the 90 dollar compressor wasn't available there
may have been no music to archive at all. If every musician still had to
wait for a record deal before he/she could pay for studio time what
would that mean for innovation in an age when the record companies churn
out chart fodder by numbers?
This may not at first sound like an attractive argument to those here
who run commercial studios. But again - at a time when record companies
will only spring for studio fees with proven talent, where does
tomorrow's customer come from if not from the back bedroom?
>
> Or when the market gets saturated, and they have to slash cost to
> maintain. It's happened, a lot.
>
That's one way. They could also look for the next bit of technology and
exploit that instead.
In any case, cut-throat price competition is always a temporary phase in
any market - a bit like a natural fire cutting out the dead wood. Sure,
some companies lose out and die - and if that happens to be your company
or the maker of your favourite piece of gear that's sad. But eventually,
the market sets itself back to rights and those that are left get back
to making money and helping the world go round.
Mike Rivers
> > I doubt it's devotion - returns are expensive and somewhat painful, so
> > this cost-justifies all the QC.
>
> Either way, the customer wins by getting a cheaper product that works.
This is fine for as long as it holds up. I would suspect that even
with their low cost, there are far fewer Behringer mixers sold than
their Mackie counterparts. You hear of fewer failures because there
are fewer samples in the pool. But when I've heard of Beheringer
failures, there's usually a horror story associated with it,
difficulty in contacting HQ to get a service authorization, limited
number of service stations (I think everything in the US is handled
through a single location) and lengthly repair time.
On the other hand, most repair stories about Mackie products have been
favorable - competent local service in major cities, quick turnaround
time when sent back to the factory, free repairs for gear that's out
of warranty that doesn't appear to have failed from abuse. Of course
there are some things (like your 40x8 console) that were such an
abortion from the getgo that they never get fixed. But then there were
Edsels too.
> That's the same with any consumer product surely. Do you think you'd get
> far calling up Panasonic to talk to someone about the $100 CD player you
> might buy from "Right-Price"?
I used to work for a boss who talked about "television set
reliability." He always said that we should be designing products that
worked as well as a TV set. The Zenith TV and the Mitsubishi stereo
receiver in my living room are more than 20 years old and have never
had even such as small hiccup as a blown fuse - no lightning
protection, no babying, no nuttin'. My Soundcraft console has had a
couple of problems in its 15 years, but they've all been simple
repairs that I have been able to do myself.
I haven't had my Mackie 1402VLZ-Pro long enough to know how long it
will hold up. I was always spraying contact cleaner at contacts and
connectors in my Ampex MM1100, but my Mackie MDR24/96 has been solid
as a rock and gets hauled around frequently. On the other hand, I have
an HDR24/96 here that has been back to the factory once for a problem
that we couldn't diagnose over the phone (it would hang consistently
on boot-up). I think they replaced the mother board. When I got it
back, there was something rattling in the case - a capacitor off a
board. So they sent me a replacement board. I'm currently awaiting
parts from Mackie (no charge of course) so I can replace the removable
disk drive bay and cable since it has stopped recognizing that there's
a drive plugged in there. And it still doesn't boot up maybe one time
in ten. It'll probably end up back at Mackie again before the year is
out.
So, yes, I think there's trouble in Slough City, but I wouldn't
discourage people from buying their products, just be prepared to
check them out throughly and keep banging on them until you have
confidence that they're really OK.
> A professional recording studio surely appreciates the kind of service
> that has the manufacturer dropping what he's doing and rushing round
> with a replacement for the essential bit of outboard that just failed
> mid-session.
The hobby studio often gets similar action from user groups and
forums. But more often than not, the answer is "Unless you know how to
troubleshoot, it's going to have to go back to the factory." When you
buy a $700,000 SSL console, you get a rep along with it to oversee the
installation, make sure all the latest updates are installed, give you
on-site training, and assure that everything's working OK before he
leaves. Buy a $70 mixer and you get a card to mail in saying you got
it (if you pay for the stamp).
Jny Vee
David Morley <52003199...@t-online.de> wrote:
> In article <090520031730093346%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com>,
> Jny Vee <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote:
>
> > EXCERPT:
> > =======================
> > The truth is that Behringer copied the Aural Exciter Type B, right
> > down to the circuit board and the manual, and called it the Typ F. The
> > front panel was made to look very similar to our unit. The manual,
> > being so blatant a copy, caused people who bought the Behringer copy to
> > call our distributor in Germany for service. When it became clear to
> > us that Behringer was going to be more than a garage operation, we
> > first sent a legal letter to him demanding that he stop and then filed
> > a patent suit. To suggest that Behringer had a patent filing himself is
> > also a lie. He abused the legal system in Germany to delay justice. It
> > took six years to get the court to finally issue an judgment of patent
> > infringement and forced him to stop selling infringing products.
> > ===========================
>
> Who wrote this?
Apologies...
Marvin Caesar, head of APHEX.
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
Jny Vee
<xgeo...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks - I've seen this before. I find it interesting that Aphex only
> bothered to act against Behringer when they became "more than a garage
> operation".
Intersting why? there's little point in spending much $$$ in attacking
a garage-business that might well vanish in a year on its own.
> We have to recogbise that we are reading this out of it
> shistorical context - there's background and a different set of commonly
> accepted practices that have changed dramatically in the intervening
> years.
and these are...?
I wasn;t aware that full-bore product-patent-infringement had been made
legal, or that it was somehow currently an 'accepted practice'...
> And while I would share Marvin Caesar's frustration over a six year
> fight through the courts, I can't say I find that unusual. I just spent
> three years trying to recover a substantial sum of money owed to my
> company. That was just a relatively straightforward commercial dispute
> entirely in the UK courts.
reading the entire post is revelatory in just HOW that case stretched
so long.
Jny Vee
David Morley <52003199...@t-online.de> wrote:
> I need to know.
> If the Behringer 8000 is a clone of the mackie 8 buss, why do some
> people say it sounds much worse?
> Surley shome mishtake?
If you give me a beautiful example of 18th century cabinet making and
tell me to copy it... I bet my copy is lots worse...
Jny Vee
and argument.
It's been a LONG weekend and finding this at midnight leave me more
tired than I knew. I am indeed no lawyer, undoubtedly nothing like a
match for you and can only mention tonight that the issues you folded
into others to miss answering and the ones you skipped entirely are as
interesting as the ones you cover so well and apparently thoroughly.
In article <MPG.192661c4...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, George Perfect
<xgeo...@oxtrackstudio.co.uk> wrote:
> I am not aware that we have any special or unusual 'gagging rules' that
> apply to commercial suits in European courts.
I used the term 'euro' in (admitedly) sloppy deference to my lack of
any certainty as to whether the issue is one of specifically German
courts or not.
Why were the MACKIE filing papers removed from public availability
almost immediately after filing?
> Fact: Mackie's claim lodged here is in the public records.
web-viewable?
> Fact: Mackie's claim here was thrown out - on the legal technicality
...
> Fact: The case and the reasons for its dismissal were reported and
> discussed AT LENGTH in legal journals on this side of the pond.
...
> So much for Behringer exploiting our underhand European legal system
> then.
I at NO time called ANY legal system 'underhanded' or any other
insulting derogatory name or insult. Claiming some sort of 'victory'
over my doing so doesn't wear well.
> Mackie made a claim - in part that Behringer had 'cloned' its 8-buss
> mixer and stolen proprietary circuit designs for its mic preamps.
> 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.
we ARE talking about the same period boards...?
there would be clones and then there would be the subsequent 'safe'
non-clones.
> 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.
fascinating...
> As a moral human being, I find it objectionable that these falsehoods
> are still wheeled out so long after the true events became public.
Without doing the first-hand research you claim to have done here, I
can;t see that there is any more than alternate spins on similar
minimal public information.
> > Uli and the boys have a solid years-long reliable history of this sort
> > of theft-thing 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.
And who said there would be one?
> At the time Aphex brought its claim against Behringer, business practise
> - and the law - was very different from what prevails today.
How so?
> 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.
they wouldn't have HAD a commercial product to copy if it hadn;t been
on the market. The 'RENT The MAGIC BOX' phase had already been put into
decline, though THAT box was still doing the rounds and the commercial
version was somewhat different and affordable.
>The availability of a
> box that could be bought for a few hundred dollars was bad news for
> Aphex - potentially ruinous to its business.
When APHEX -started- that business? They knew they couldn;t keep the
Secret Magic Box thing going much longer. They also knew there was a
market to BUY an affordable version thereof.
> 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?
Let's see, from the above, it's OK to infringe but not ok to FIGHT it
unless it's at some price-point? It's ok to infringe as long as teh
originator doesn;t have a specifically valid patent? Legally sure, but
we're talking buisness practise issues here.
You wrap much APHEX-abusive prose around the simple admisson that
Behringer indeed DID stupidly and ineptly go the infringement/theft
route, the tenor leaving the impression that APHEX was somehow the
agressor and Behringer the abused innocent. Nicely done throughout.
> Behringer readily admitted its actions.
it did? Before APHEX filed charges? I'm amuised at how one 'readily'
does somethign only when forced into it.
> 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.
I didn't know that normal award-displeasure statements were required to
meet your personal pleasure-mandates. You are exceptional at slathering
misleading emotional content to temper and reverse the appearance of
facts. My congratulations.
> 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.
'improving'...
"Stealing from your betters" and
"standing on the shoulders of giants"
are very different concepts.
> Remember, Aphex is the company that was sued by a former employee for
> stealing his personal designs.
... and how this relates to teh realities of all of these issues can
only be understood by knowing just whatthat case was about.
> > As I remember it being laid out in this case,
>
> Your memory is far from reliable
or complete. I thought I chose the words fairly.
> > 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.
And I seem to remember you agreed that APHEX indeed WAS found wronged
and Bheringer guilty-as-charged for ripping APHEX's unit foolishly and
incompetantly. Perhaps 'simply not true as a matter of public record'
would be more accurate... unless you can point to reliable references
that show that Behringer indeed did NOT do what they were accused of
above by Mackie?
> > 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?
Again, I'd LOVE to see where it was finally shown that Behringer did
NOT do as accused by Mackie here.
> > 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?
as i understand, the faders
> 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.
Who mentioned 'magic' here?
> 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.
THAT is FASCINATING... how does that fit with the chronology? Or with
Sam Ash/SAMSON's not inconsiderable moxie in selling MANY lines?
As I recall, Mackie pulled their product from SA immediately, and then
restored it at some point duuring the trial proceedings, but
BEHRINGER's problems there did not surface at all until AFTER the
trial. 'STRONG ARM' tactics? or settlement fallout?
> 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.
A wonderful mixed bag of mixed-metaphor and purposely-mis-quoted
concepts and statements. Especially the alternate-spin on unknown
facts.
CHINA manufacturing is not NECCESSARILY shoddy/unfair/cheap.
comparing the low-end $60 chinamic condensors with Manley's use of good
China QC and value is instructive there.
AT THE TIME, Mackie's ragging on Behringer's use of available lo-end
manufacturing with cheap Chinese work to slash production costs while
Mackie was proud to be Doing It All Here, isn;t directly comparable
with the many-years-later Mackie that had become overdiversified,
debt-loaded and well into the process of tranferring away from the
older management as driver and becoming a much more fragile, top-heavy
company in need of severe salvage work and so looking to off-shore
manufacturing with a reputation to (hopefully) maintain as that's all
they HAVE over their cheaper competition and thus go with some serious
QC at hopefully a better price point in production.
> 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.
An Behirnger wasn't?
what company WOULDN:T.
> > 1-Behringer immediately ABSOLUTELY cut all ties with their single major
> > US distro and warranty service/repair agent: SAM ASH
> > >
> > One Don;t Do This voluntarily in the middle of the stream as it were
>
> 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.
Show how this makes sense... As I remember the timing, it doesn;t.
> > 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?
I don;t believe I said any such thing. I said they were required to set
up their own distro and maintainance from the ground up. This makes
sense to do voluntarily how?
> 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.
You credit MACKIE with a HELL of a lot of industry moxie under the
table...
> Apart from that possibilty, I do believe you are talking out of your
> bottom.
Bad Dates.
> 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.
we're how far down the time line from the year post-court decision?
These appeared when?
> > 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.
immediately
> And Mackie were unable to show the court that Behringer copied anything.
they weren't? You've seen the settlement papers?
> > 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.
And you KNOW that I didn't SAY THAT. YOU restricted that to MACKIE, not
me. You yourself have admited the contrary; that BEHRINGER has copied
internal and external design, manuals, all of it in their climb to
their current position. I said that, and that's what I said.
>
> If you seriously believe that Behringer's success is based on sales of
> their 8000 mixer your really are living in a dream world.
And If I'd said any such thing you;d be making SOME sort of sense
taking me to task. -I- didn't say it.... who are you talking to?
> 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.
obviously
> Your apalling lack of knowledge of the company (and the man) you are so
> willing to abuse is self evident.
You're claiming here that they have NOT stolen and copied and
shamelessly extended court procedings to get away with it?
>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.
Indeed I would.
>
> 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.
COnsidering what it cost them to try it, obviously. Not exactly a great
choice.
>
> 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.
Not sure why you;re addressing this to me, I've never used a Behringer
product that failed. Nor had any real problem with them. If -I- were
the measure of Behringer QC, then I couldn't say much against them
there.
>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 not much connection between stealing designs and adhereing to
competant production standards.
> To the very best of my knowledge, Behringer has never copied any Mackie
> product.
and your direct knowledge there consists of...?
> All the *evidence* (not gossip, PR spin or malicious self-
> serving rumour) in the public domain suggests the opposite.
Mackies evidence as presented in their filings indeed does NOT suggest
the oppposite. It paints a pretty bleak picture. Proven or not, it WAs
presented as evidence.
> It's worth repeating that MACKIE'S CLAIM WAS NOT PROVEN
publicly,
> 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.
SO many options and things to know to make THAT call... whay does
ANYBODY ever settle... I could as easily say "If Behringer had been
innocent, would THEYT have setteled?!?" and be on equally safe ground.
> 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!
IS it that much different from many others?
> > 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.
to whom? it was written SOLEY as n analogy to point out the flaw in the
all-too-common rationalisation of any presumed Behringer theft by
saying "it's ok if they copied some stuff because most of their stuff
they designed themselves" and claiming that somehow sets the record
straight.
> Have you ever visited Behringer's web site? Have you seen just how many
> different products that company produces?
more every year.
>
> 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.
Not a helpful exercise in any degree.
>
> 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?
I have never claimed more than the ones mentioned. Merely LOOKING at
how similar they are to existing pieces isn't proof of theft. 'Not
Finding any Others' doesn;t help the ones that are.
>
> 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.
that's grand. That's how it's supposed to be.
>
> > 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.
But they WILL go out of their way to excuse it, condone it, explain it
away and dress it up making them look like voctims for it.
> 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.
I reitterate information. Until I'm given countering information I see
no problem there. You've presented much here worth considering, though
most of it is alternate spin on the face of it, no hard evidence to
counter it. ADn I must say a REMARKABLE ability to evangelise and make
a problem sound like a feature. I do congratulate you there. It's not a
talent and skill easily come by.
George Gleason
"Jny Vee" <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote in message
news:120520030008482034%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com...
> In article <520031991064-0001-6...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> David Morley <52003199...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > I need to know.
> > If the Behringer 8000 is a clone of the mackie 8 buss, why do some
> > people say it sounds much worse?
> > Surley shome mishtake?
>
> If you give me a beautiful example of 18th century cabinet making and
> tell me to copy it... I bet my copy is lots worse...
>
>
George
George Gleason
facts nor how to extract facts from press releases, I have to go on my gut
feeling for what "seems " most likely
IMOone side has presented a believable case , the other i is trading on
hearsay and rumor
my points are to follow
> > Mackie made a claim - in part that Behringer had 'cloned' its 8-buss
> > mixer and stolen proprietary circuit designs for its mic preamps.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> we ARE talking about the same period boards...?
> there would be clones and then there would be the subsequent 'safe'
> non-clones.
and who decides this? the defendent? the planetive, or a judge
ias I understand the correct answer would be a judge
and anyone can lay claim to being ripped off , even with no shred of merit
to thier case
Let the judge decide they say
had already been put into
> decline, though THAT box was still doing the rounds and the commercial
> version was somewhat different and affordable.
>
>
Before APHEX filed charges? I'm amuised at how one 'readily'
> does somethign only when forced into it.
It appears there was nothing to admit to , when the argument is based on the
assumption(even if incorrect) that there was no valid patent to infringe
upon
when the fact were borne out(that there was indeed a valid patnet)(by the
account i have read hear) behringer made no effort to hide
but before that point there was nothing to admit to
>
> > 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 - >
>
> > 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.
>
> 'improving'...
> "Stealing from your betters" and
> "standing on the shoulders of giants"
> are very different concepts.
Indeed they are and most companies engage in all 3
though wrongs do get righted and companys do not last making junk rip-off
or even great rip off
for the junk will sink them and the great will bring the hoards of lawyers
knocking
you just can not be a sucessful iso9002 international company by stealing
from others
can't do it if your microsoft, can't do it if your behringer, cant do it if
your JBL
>
>
> > Remember, Aphex is the company that was sued by a former employee for
> > stealing his personal designs.
>
.
>
> And I seem to remember you agreed that APHEX indeed WAS found wronged
> and Bheringer guilty-as-charged for ripping APHEX's unit foolishly and
> incompetantly.
one action , once settled should be able to let lay after 15 years
how long do you need to pick at this scab?
everybody makes mistakes in judgement, everybody has been dishonest
but we even let murders out of jail in 15 years
to print this on your hair shirt and wear it out daily says more about you
than Behringer
Perhaps 'simply not true as a matter of public record'
> would be more accurate.
.. unless you can point to reliable references
> that show that Behringer indeed did NOT do what they were accused of
> above by Mackie?
I do not believe this is how the courts work
as I understand it anyone can accuse anyone of anything but on the accuser
lies the burden of proof
>
>
> Again, I'd LOVE to see where it was finally shown that Behringer did
> NOT do as accused by Mackie here.
I do not believe this is how the courts work
as I understand it anyone can accuse anyone of anything but on the accuser
lies the burden of proof
>
>
>
> > THAT is FASCINATING... how does that fit with the chronology? Or with
> Sam Ash/SAMSON's not inconsiderable moxie in selling MANY lines?
you must have never worked in retail electronics
this stuff happens all the time
why do you think 99% of all resturants have to choose Coke or Pepsi
if you have one the other will not sell to you
mackie was clearly the industry leader at the time all this went down and it
is clear(to me) that mackie would no longer sell through sam ash if SA was
selling another prodct who was thier direct compitition
>
>>
>
> > 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.
>
> An Behirnger wasn't?
> what company WOULDN:T.
>
>
> > > 1-Behringer immediately ABSOLUTELY cut all ties with their single
major
> > > US distro and warranty service/repair agent: SAM ASH
> > > >
> > > One Don;t Do This voluntarily in the middle of the stream as it were
> >
> > 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.
I see no conflict with the facts as stated
>
> > > 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
what I believe(for no reason at all except it is how it played to me as it
happend) was that Behringer had achieved enough market presence Mackie got
pissy with SA and said either them or us
Sa was the sole importer of behringer SA and behringer parted ways
Behringer had to establish a new model for distribution for in one fall they
lost all market presense
all service and all dealers
This was a huge challenge for them but history shows behringer was up for
the challenge and is now one of the most widely sought after lines for the
MI retailers
> > >
> I don;t believe I said any such thing. I said they were required to set
> up their own distro and maintainance from the ground up. This makes
> sense to do voluntarily how?
they we forced to do this when SA choose mackie over behringer in a turf
battle
(this is solely MY opinion as I would not even know where to gather facts
nor how to extract facts from press releases, I have to go on my gut feeling
for what "seems " most likely
>
>
> > 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.
>
> You credit MACKIE with a HELL of a lot of industry moxie under the
> table...
>
>
Rest of agrument clipped/rebuttal withheld as this is getting pointless and
really boring
George
George Gleason
> In article <520031991064-0001-8...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> David Morley <52003199...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > In article <090520031730093346%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com>,
> > Jny Vee <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote:
> >
> > > EXCERPT:
> > > =======================
> > > The truth is that Behringer copied the Aural Exciter Type B, right
> > > down to the circuit board and the manual, and called it the Typ F. The
> > > front panel was made to look very similar to our unit. The manual,
> > > being so blatant a copy, caused people who bought the Behringer copy
to
> > > call our distributor in Germany for service. When it became clear to
> > > us that Behringer was going to be more than a garage operation, we
> > > first sent a legal letter to him demanding that he stop and then filed
> > > a patent suit. To suggest that Behringer had a patent filing himself
is
> > > also a lie. He abused the legal system in Germany to delay justice. It
> > > took six years to get the court to finally issue an judgment of patent
> > > infringement and forced him to stop selling infringing products.
> > > ===========================
> >
> > Who wrote this?
>
> Apologies...
> Marvin Caesar, head of APHEX.
>
>
I expected better than this from you
George
George Perfect
Especially as you seem to be turning the discussion into a personal
attack. Never mind, I can give as good as I get if you want to travel
that road.
I'll answer your points one by one below but here's the nub of why I
took time to write 522 lines of counter-argument to you:
You accused Uli Behringer of being a thief, a liar and a cheat and
repeatedly claimed that his company has stolen and cloned designs from a
number of (unspecified and unnamed) companies.
Yet whenever you are asked to name names, specify dates, state which
products - indeed say anything that backs up your accusations and could
be checked and verified by others you go very quiet or - as here -
attempt to deflect the argument into another course.
State your opinions all you want. Don't buy Behringer or any other
product if it suits you. We all have our likes and dislikes - often
irrational - and there's (usually) no harm in that.
But if you want to come into a public space and accuse individuals and
corporations of serious crimes, it is YOUR duty to have the FACTS to
back up your assertions.
As you will read below, a lot of what I have to say to you can be summed
up in these words:
Put up - or shut up.
In this place, Jny Vee was recorded as saying ...
> Magnificent post worthy of someone well trained in the art of debate
> and argument.
> It's been a LONG weekend and finding this at midnight leave me more
> tired than I knew. I am indeed no lawyer, undoubtedly nothing like a
> match for you and can only mention tonight that the issues you folded
> into others to miss answering and the ones you skipped entirely are as
> interesting as the ones you cover so well and apparently thoroughly.
If you can give some specifics on what I missed and skipped and the ones
I "cover[ed] so well" I'll try to fill in the gaps for you. I don't
think I missed anything.
> > I am not aware that we have any special or unusual 'gagging rules' that
> > apply to commercial suits in European courts.
>
> I used the term 'euro' in (admitedly) sloppy deference to my lack of
> any certainty as to whether the issue is one of specifically German
> courts or not.
It's not an issue of any European court that I'm aware of.
More than that, there was no attempt by Behringer to use European courts
- or American courts - to "gag" this case or bury the papers.
This whole allegation is pure fabrication - presented from an
unappealing parochial viewpoint that seeks to lay blame elsewhere
>
> Why were the MACKIE filing papers removed from public availability
> almost immediately after filing?
My understanding is that it is standard practice in commercial disputes
- normally at the discretion of the judge who exercises it in the
interest of both parties
>
> > Fact: Mackie's claim lodged here is in the public records.
>
> web-viewable?
Sadly no - you will have to visit the Royal Law Courts, Strand, London
to take a peek at them.
But I have previously provided an independent summary of the claim and
how it was dealt with which you will find in Google at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?
q=perfect+behringer+mackie+english+group:alt.music.4-
track&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=u5msomqb5vkl1e%
40corp.supernews.com&rnum=1
It makes highly interesting reading. Here are a few of my observations
on what it contains:
1. It shows that Mackie had no patents or indeed any recognised rights
to any of its claimed "proprietary" circuits. You can poo-poo my
comments in my original message here all you want but I'm hapy to stick
with establsihed facts.
2. Mackie did NOT claim Behringer "cloned" its product - it (wait for
it, because it's a real gem of a lawyer's argument) claimed that
Behringer took one of its 8-buss mixers apart and produced a "net list"
of the components it contained and the interconnections between those
components then Behringer is supposed to have used a "computer program"
to DESIGN ITS OWN BOARDS and make its own mixer. As I have already said,
these are op-amp based mixers - the "interconnections" come straight out
of a semiconductor manufacturer's free application sheet. As for the
"net list" of components - if you conduct an exercise on any two mixers
of roughly similar layout and price point I'd only be surprised if you
COULDN'T find 90% plus similar components being used.
For Mackie's argument to succeed, it would have had to show - beyond
reasonable doubt - that Behringer had chosen those components by
painstakingly working its way through every tiny little component on
Mackie's board, writing them all down then figuring out how on earth
they all connected up.
This is such a thin and tenuous argument - and such a momentously stupid
thing to do when a competent 15 year old with a $10 IC opamp cookbook
could write down either of these mixer circuits more quickly and cheaply
- that it is no surprise at all to this observer that Mackie's case was
seen for what it was the first time it went before a judge.
The difference between the teenage circuit design (or one taken from an
application data sheet) and a product that can be manufactured and sold
at reasonable cost and reliability is in the layout of the boards - that
and the other hundred or so specialised skills in case design,
purchasing etc., etc.
Kindly note that Mackie's own claim admits that Behringer designed and
laid out its own boards - again visible to anyone who looks at the
outside of the products.
I believe this comprehensively knocks on the head once and for all your
repeated claim that Behringer "cloned" Mackie's mixer.
Even Mackie had the sense not to try to claim that. At least not in
court - their marketing and press statements were free to put whatever
spin on the matter they chose, of course.
3. Please note that, had Mackie sold its product in the EU before making
its claim here, it could have qualified for additional "design rights" -
an added protection for manufacturers that exists in Europe but not in
the U.S. As the article points out, however, even this would not have
helped Mackie as Behringer's mixer obviously did not infringe those
rights even had they been granted.
4. Note that the judge found that Mackie's circuit design qualified for
copyright protection but that did not provide protection for goods
subsequently "rendered in 3D form". This is the same throughout the
world as copyright protection is enshrined in international treaty.
So, here was a second judge telling Mackie that for both legal and
practical reasons it had no case.
> > Fact: Mackie's claim here was thrown out - on the legal technicality
> ...
> > Fact: The case and the reasons for its dismissal were reported and
> > discussed AT LENGTH in legal journals on this side of the pond.
> ...
> > So much for Behringer exploiting our underhand European legal system
> > then.
>
> I at NO time called ANY legal system 'underhanded' or any other
> insulting derogatory name or insult. Claiming some sort of 'victory'
> over my doing so doesn't wear well.
A quote from your first mesage in this thread:
"Beheringer's history is where, as well as understanding how Euro courts
force thigns to look by way of gag rules."
That reads to me as if you are saying that European courts act
differently - and to your mind unfairly - in allowing proceedings to be
gagged.
As I have already said, they don't. And Behringer didn't.
Your statements are wrong.
> > Mackie made a claim - in part that Behringer had 'cloned' its 8-buss
> > mixer and stolen proprietary circuit designs for its mic preamps.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> we ARE talking about the same period boards...?
> there would be clones and then there would be the subsequent 'safe'
> non-clones.
*IF* such things exist, it is for you to show them. Where are these
clones? Where is a picture or a brochure of one of these clones?
The ONLY "evidence" you have to support these statements is that court
room steps statement by Mackie's lawyer - WHO WAS SETTING OUT HIS
CLIENT'S ACCUSATIONS. They were thrown out at the preliminary hearing
stage by a judge who - like me and everyone else with eyes and a brain -
could see little resemblance other than shape and colour between the two
mixers.
Mackie got to choose the evidence it put before the judge - not
Behringer and not me.
Mackie made no such claim of "cloning" to the court and produced no
evidence that Behringer had ever produced a clone of its product. That
was a description that appeared only in the press hype.
When I referred to the "urban myth" aspect of this matter, this is one
of the things I had in mind. Nobody (including Mackie) has ever produced
any pictures or evidence of any kind to remotely suggest that any
version of Behringer's 8000 mixer was ever a clone of the Mackie 8-buss.
> > 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.
>
> fascinating...
Fascinating - and true.
> > As a moral human being, I find it objectionable that these falsehoods
> > are still wheeled out so long after the true events became public.
>
> Without doing the first-hand research you claim to have done here, I
> can;t see that there is any more than alternate spins on similar
> minimal public information.
I'm not the one accusing people of theft and false practices. You are.
I'm not the one spinning fantasy out of press releases. I'm the one who
has researched the matter, taken it upon myself to speak with
individuals concerned and can quote sources that can be independently
verified that suppport my opinions.
> > > Uli and the boys have a solid years-long reliable history of this sort
> > > of theft-thing 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.
>
> And who said there would be one?
You just did - do you actually think before writing this stuff? In the
passage quoted above (that you copied into your reply) you name dbx as
another victim of Behringer's "theft-thing".
Theft is a matter decided by courts. Not by someone standing up and
making accusations.
>
>
> > At the time Aphex brought its claim against Behringer, business practise
> > - and the law - was very different from what prevails today.
>
> How so?
Read my other posts - in this thread and via a Google search.
In brief - and as the legal summary quoted above shows - protection for
intellectual protection relating to manufactured high-tech goods was far
less certain and valuable back in the 1980s. It has moved on
considerably since. For one thing, I believe that U.S. companies now
automatically qualify for EU design rights (not that that would have
helped Mackie).
Case law on "reverse engineering" in both manufacturing and software was
in a right old mess. See the background on companies who "emulated" the
IBM PC BIOS code in order to produce "clones" of the original IBM PC for
just one can of worms on the subject - and one that shows there can be
valid public interest issues in PERMITTING "fair use" of information and
some aspects of a design.
It is in the nature of companies to work within the law. It is not in
their nature to write new law that constrains their activities.
At the time of this case, HAD Behringer "cloned" Mackie's product (it
didn't, let's not forget, as established by two judges) it would have
been legally entitled to do so.
I believe that this legal position has subsequently changed.
Many, many other companies DID "clone" or issue copies of products,
sometimes with subtle "improvements". How many guitar amps share a
common birthright in Fender's design offices?
So are you going to accuse Marshall and Mesa their owners and directors
of theft and proclaim that you will refuse to record anyone who walks
into your studio carrying one of their current-day products?
No?
Thought not.
> > 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.
>
>
> they wouldn't have HAD a commercial product to copy if it hadn;t been
> on the market. The 'RENT The MAGIC BOX' phase had already been put into
> decline, though THAT box was still doing the rounds and the commercial
> version was somewhat different and affordable.
>
>
> >The availability of a
> > box that could be bought for a few hundred dollars was bad news for
> > Aphex - potentially ruinous to its business.
>
> When APHEX -started- that business? They knew they couldn;t keep the
> Secret Magic Box thing going much longer. They also knew there was a
> market to BUY an affordable version thereof.
The short version of this is that Aphex was still trying to protect its
monopoly - how they exploited that monopoly (eg, by renting or by
selling at high prices) is immaterial.
> > 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?
>
> Let's see, from the above, it's OK to infringe but not ok to FIGHT it
> unless it's at some price-point? It's ok to infringe as long as teh
> originator doesn;t have a specifically valid patent? Legally sure, but
> we're talking buisness practise issues here.
You are misconstruing my words and doing what you accuse me of.
If you read what I wrote again (and read my other posts in this thread)
you will see that is not what I am saying at all.
It is not OK to infringe a patent. Behringer paid a price when a court
found (in part only - again, do your homework rather than read press
releases) that it had infringed Aphex's patent.
YOU have put SPIN on this action that suggests Behringer deliberately
and crudely "cloned" the Aphex box.
Read the press statement real carefully now and you will not see such a
claim from Aphex. As to the cloning of manuals - it has been written on
Usenet that Behringer merely photocopied the manual so wantonly that
they left the phone number of Aphex's service department.
This is not true. Aphex claimed that (unnamed, unquantified) owners of
the Behringer product had called its service department.
You should know that Aphex's patent was subsequently disputed. Several
companies (including Behringer, BTW) now produce exciter type products -
the technology varies slightly and the trade names are individually
protected and Aphex can do nothing about it.
With the information that has subsequently become public, I doubt very
strongly that Aphex's case against Behringer would have had a hope in
hell of succeeding.
Business life is not as simple as circling the wagons or fencing your
property and calling the cops when somebody breaks in. Companies are
well able to use the legal process to frustrate competition, to bully
weaker opponents and protect their profit streams - whether they are
morally entitled to or not. We'll return to this point below.
One other thing that has changed in the past 20 years is that on both
sides of the puddle, society's (and therefore the law's) view of
monopolistic practices has shifted enormously - witness the IBM PC BIOS
wrangling as just one example.
IMHO Aphex deserves little credit for its actions at the time. If it
were to try something similar today, the result would be very, very
different.
Other companies that Aphex tried to sue did their homework a little
better and saw Aphex off.
It is, therefore, IMHO, entirely unfair to base your view of Behringer
on this case - that in any event took place 20 years ago. Different
time, different rules, different outcome.
> You wrap much APHEX-abusive prose around the simple admisson that
> Behringer indeed DID stupidly and ineptly go the infringement/theft
> route, the tenor leaving the impression that APHEX was somehow the
> agressor and Behringer the abused innocent. Nicely done throughout.
Thank you. I'm glad you got the gist of what I had to say. Now I've
spelled it out, I hope it's even clearer.
> > Behringer readily admitted its actions.
>
> it did? Before APHEX filed charges? I'm amuised at how one 'readily'
> does somethign only when forced into it.
I didn't say before Aphex brought its claim. How or why could it have
done so? But it did not deny that its product used similar circuitry to
Aphex's product - Behringer believed it was in the right in doing so and
it was prepared to argue its case fully in court.
Time has proven Behringer's position to be correct.
>
> > 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.
>
> I didn't know that normal award-displeasure statements were required to
> meet your personal pleasure-mandates. You are exceptional at slathering
> misleading emotional content to temper and reverse the appearance of
> facts. My congratulations.
This isn't worth a reply.
> > 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.
>
> 'improving'...
> "Stealing from your betters" and
> "standing on the shoulders of giants"
> are very different concepts.
Your point being?
My point being that you demonstrate blatant hypocrisy in singling
Behringer out from the crowd of companies - many of whom engaged in far
worse practices in their day - none of whom you choose to accuse of
theft, bribery, lying and cheating.
> > Remember, Aphex is the company that was sued by a former employee for
> > stealing his personal designs.
>
> ... and how this relates to teh realities of all of these issues can
> only be understood by knowing just whatthat case was about.
If you know, spill the beans. From the records, it's quite simple. Aphex
was successfully sued by a former employee who showed that the company
used his designs in its products without his permission and without
payment to him.
Aphex tried to drag that action out in order to make it as costly and as
difficult as possible for the individual concerned to get justice.
A case of double standards?
> > > As I remember it being laid out in this case,
> >
> > Your memory is far from reliable
>
> or complete. I thought I chose the words fairly.
The point here is that you are throwing out very serious and damaging
allegations against individuals and companies. If your memory is not up
to the task, you have no business in slinging the mud.
> > > 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.
>
> And I seem to remember you agreed that APHEX indeed WAS found wronged
> and Bheringer guilty-as-charged for ripping APHEX's unit foolishly and
> incompetantly. Perhaps 'simply not true as a matter of public record'
> would be more accurate... unless you can point to reliable references
> that show that Behringer indeed did NOT do what they were accused of
> above by Mackie?
You have accused me of missing or skipping your points - something I do
not agree I have done.
But let's just go back and read the paragraphs above again shall we and
see how well you do at answering simple questions. I'll make it easy:
1. You make several serious allegations, to whit:
a) Behringer colluded with Sam Ash
b) Both companies sent a Mackie board to China so it could be cloned
c) This practice was the norm for Behringer
d) Evidence is in the rap archives
2. I ask you to cite references that provide factual, verifiable
evidence to substantiate these allegations
3. Not for the first time, you cannot do so - but you make an attempt to
deflect the questions by turning my words and my questions back round on
me.
I'll say again, as the accuser it is for YOU to prove your allegations.
Can you answer my questions and support your allegations?
It really is as simple as that.
> > > 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?
>
> Again, I'd LOVE to see where it was finally shown that Behringer did
> NOT do as accused by Mackie here.
Sheesh - I hope you never get jury service or I pity whoever comes
before your 'string em up and ask questions later' mentality.
It was for MACKIE to prove its case against Behringer.
As I have already shown (backed up by independent, factual, verifiable
evidence) Mackie in fact made no claim similar to yours. Secondly, the
claim Mackie did make was so preposterously thing as to be laughable.
Read between their honours' words and you will see that two judges in
two courts in two countries basically laughed Mackie out of court.
If you want to use such claims to make serious allegations against
Behringer it is for YOU to provide the evidence to support your
statements - or be seen for the malicious slur that it otherwise is.
I see that once again, you cannot answer a simple, reasonable question.
> > > 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?
>
> as i understand, the faders
Faders? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many companies make
faders? Are you trying to tell us all here that Mackie uses some special
type of fader whose properties are so unique that its mixer circuit will
not work without it?
This is all news to me. News of the kind that proves we've all been
wrong this past 500 years and the earth is flat after all.
Has it not occurred to you that even if Behringer wanted to obtain some
unique fader, it would be quicker, easier and perfectly legal to simply
phone Mackie's service department and order one.
You accused the company of bribery for heaven's sake!
Sheesh!
> > 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.
>
> Who mentioned 'magic' here?
What else do you call it when a mixer needs a fader so special that it
won't work without it?
> > 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.
>
> THAT is FASCINATING... how does that fit with the chronology? Or with
> Sam Ash/SAMSON's not inconsiderable moxie in selling MANY lines?
You tell me. Here's what you wrote (above):
"Mackie filed suit and immediately pulled ALL Mackie product from SAM
ASH... THAT was a chunck of lost change to ASH."
At the time, Mackie outsold Behringer in the U.S. by a very large ratio.
Given a commercial choice, lose Mackie or lose Behringer, it's not hard
to see which way Ash would go.
And whenever it happened, it is Mackie bullying Sam Ash into doing its
bidding - an act designed to deliberately cause maximum harm to a
serious competitor - one capable of causing Mackie serious financial
loss if left to do no more than play on a level field.
>
> As I recall, Mackie pulled their product from SA immediately, and then
> restored it at some point duuring the trial proceedings, but
> BEHRINGER's problems there did not surface at all until AFTER the
> trial. 'STRONG ARM' tactics? or settlement fallout?
I'm bloody certain they would have restored product to Sam Ash before
heading into court. What you have described comes under the heading of
unfair business practice and no judge would look favourably on a
litigant who was seen to have prejudged the matter before him/her and
already taken action to implement a presumed ruling.
In any case, however and whenever Mackie agreed to resume shipments to
Ash, their point was made - fail to toe our line and we harm your
business.
The question is, did Ash resume distribution of Behringer equipment
after Mackie's stunt?
And the answer is no.
Mackie achieved its purely commercial objective.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> A wonderful mixed bag of mixed-metaphor and purposely-mis-quoted
> concepts and statements. Especially the alternate-spin on unknown
> facts.
What have I mis-quoted - whether purposely or otherwise?
What "unknown facts" am I basing my statements upon?
Enlighten me please.
>
> CHINA manufacturing is not NECCESSARILY shoddy/unfair/cheap.
> comparing the low-end $60 chinamic condensors with Manley's use of good
> China QC and value is instructive there.
And - FACTUALLY - Behringer's quality statistics are up there with the
best in the business.
>
> AT THE TIME, Mackie's ragging on Behringer's use of available lo-end
> manufacturing with cheap Chinese work to slash production costs while
> Mackie was proud to be Doing It All Here, isn;t directly comparable
> with the many-years-later Mackie that had become overdiversified,
> debt-loaded and well into the process of tranferring away from the
> older management as driver and becoming a much more fragile, top-heavy
> company in need of severe salvage work and so looking to off-shore
> manufacturing with a reputation to (hopefully) maintain as that's all
> they HAVE over their cheaper competition and thus go with some serious
> QC at hopefully a better price point in production.
Er ... who is making apologies and rewriting history?
Just as you have done, it was Mackie that accused Behringer of
exploiting poor, underpaid Chinese workers and acting in some
unspecified but - by implication - unfair manner in bringing
functionally equivalent, fit for purpose, reliable, good value products
to its home market.
And as to the management of the two companies, Behringer has gone from
strenth to strength. Mackie appears to be in deep doo-doo.
One has stayed true to its principles of delivering high quality, useful
and attractive products at affordable prices while the other has
floundered about trying to mould the world to its wishes in the same way
that Canute stood on the shore and ordered the sea to retreat.
Says enough to me.
> > 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.
>
> An Behirnger wasn't?
> what company WOULDN:T.
A decent company wouldn't have brought an unfounded law suit to start
with.
> > > 1-Behringer immediately ABSOLUTELY cut all ties with their single major
> > > US distro and warranty service/repair agent: SAM ASH
> > > >
> > > One Don;t Do This voluntarily in the middle of the stream as it were
> >
> > 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.
>
> Show how this makes sense... As I remember the timing, it doesn;t.
See above.
> > > 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?
>
> I don;t believe I said any such thing. I said they were required to set
> up their own distro and maintainance from the ground up. This makes
> sense to do voluntarily how?
You just said it. You stated that Behringer were "PROHIBITED from
arranging ANY similar sort of arrangement with ANY other existing
company".
As to Behringer choosing to set up its own distribution, first I didn't
say they made such a choice - according to you and the record the
decision (or at least its timing) was forced upon them.
But it's a common practice. Companies wishing to enter a foreign market
often first make use of a distributor until sales volumes are
established at a sufficient level to warrant establishment of a wholly
owned subsidiary or joint venture operation.
Behringer now works this way world-wide. Last time I looked, the company
had over a dozen trading subsidiaries in territories around the world.
> > 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.
>
> You credit MACKIE with a HELL of a lot of industry moxie under the
> table...
And they used to possess such "moxie" (by which I take you to mean
'leverage' as I'm not familiar with the word). See above.
> > Apart from that possibilty, I do believe you are talking out of your
> > bottom.
>
> Bad Dates.
Not at all. See above. I believe it was a well orchestrated campaign on
Mackie's part. That's why I (only half jokingly) suggested this case
should be required reading at Harvard Business School.
> > 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.
>
> we're how far down the time line from the year post-court decision?
> These appeared when?
The current ones appeared about 18 months ago. I'll leave you to look
through back catalogues to establish whether the two companies ever
stopped working with each other as you claimed.
As to how much time has passed, good question.
So remind me. Why do you still keep bring up your malicious accusations
against Behringer after all this time? I think we've comprehensively
established by now that you have absolutely no basis for them.
> > > 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.
>
> immediately
Pardon? I have no idea what you mean.
> > And Mackie were unable to show the court that Behringer copied anything.
>
> they weren't? You've seen the settlement papers?
Read the summary of Mackie's claim and the English judge's decision for
a fair description of what transpired on both sides of the puddle. If
you want the report of the U.S. judge's decision, do a Google search to
find the post to am4t where I provided a transcript sent to me
independently.
It is a FACT that Mackie were unable to prove to a court that Behringer
had copied anything. Read their claim with an open mind and it is
apparent that the company never had any case worth a bean. "Net lists of
components", "computer programs" used to design Behringer's own circuit
boards, no visible similarities between the products.
Bah humbug.
I can only say to you again that if you want to throw around the kind of
accusations you make so free with it is for YOU to prove your case and
not for me or anyone else to disprove your slurs.
Though overall, I don't think I've done too bad a job so far of doing
precisely that.
> > > 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.
>
> And you KNOW that I didn't SAY THAT. YOU restricted that to MACKIE, not
> me. You yourself have admited the contrary; that BEHRINGER has copied
> internal and external design, manuals, all of it in their climb to
> their current position. I said that, and that's what I said.
I have admitted no such thing. Nor have I restricted my various
questions and challenges to you to Mackie.
Apart from the Aphex case (in which it was not shown that Behringer had
copied designs and manuals but had used circuits that Aphex had managed
to patent - the rest of what you recite is mythical nonsense) you have
not been able to show a single other case where Behringer has done any
wrong to any other company.
And now - to avoid the question - you suggest that I have accepted the
opposite and again imply that this is common practice within the company
"in their climb to their current position".
Sorry - the record of my thoughts on the matter is clear and in public
view and you are not able to misrepresent me in such a thick-headed
manner.
On the other hand, you have consistently refused to answer any of my
questions - for the simple reason that you have no facts to back up your
prejudices.
And your record on the matter is equally clear and public. You most
certainly HAVE said (and repeatedly) that Behringer "cloned" Mackie's 8-
buss mixer (several times in this post alone) and have repeatedly
accused Behringer (man and company) of theft, bribery, lying, cheating
and unfair business practices.
And you have consistently failed to provide one shred of proof to back
up those statements when asked.
Do not make the mistake of trying to twist my words and misrepresent my
thoughts and opinions.
You have foolishly swallowed hook line and sinker carefully crafted
press releases issued by companies with only their own selfish interest
at heart.
> > If you seriously believe that Behringer's success is based on sales of
> > their 8000 mixer your really are living in a dream world.
>
> And If I'd said any such thing you;d be making SOME sort of sense
> taking me to task. -I- didn't say it.... who are you talking to?
I'm honestly getting bored with quoting your words back to you and this
is already far too long. Just go back and read what you wrote. It
doesn't leave much room for misinterpretation.
> > 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.
>
> obviously
Your point being?
> > Your apalling lack of knowledge of the company (and the man) you are so
> > willing to abuse is self evident.
>
> You're claiming here that they have NOT stolen and copied and
> shamelessly extended court procedings to get away with it?
Yes, I am claiming precisely that.
More, I have presented facts to support my view.
You cannot do the same.
> >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.
>
> Indeed I would.
At last - we agree on something.
> > 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.
>
> COnsidering what it cost them to try it, obviously. Not exactly a great
> choice.
In the Aphex case, I'd agree. The Mackie case is an entirely different
barrel of fish.
And despite several requests, you have yet to provide any other cases to
support your allegations that Behringer regularly "rip off" other
companies.
> > 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.
>
> Not sure why you;re addressing this to me, I've never used a Behringer
> product that failed. Nor had any real problem with them. If -I- were
> the measure of Behringer QC, then I couldn't say much against them
> there.
So what possible business do you have bad-mouthing them and describing
the company's products as unreliable?
> >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 not much connection between stealing designs and adhereing to
> competant production standards.
This is becoming repetitive, I know, but you have yet to show that
Behreinger steals designs.
> > To the very best of my knowledge, Behringer has never copied any Mackie
> > product.
>
> and your direct knowledge there consists of...?
Oh, nothing really. Just doing hundreds of hours of research trying to
find any evidence for your (and a few other individual's) allegations
and accusations. Carefully reading every document I can find on the
matter. Asking anyone and everyone to support their claims and
allegations. Speaking to people directly involved in the court case.
Getting on a plane and taking the time to visit Behringer and see for
myself if they even had a design department and, if so, what work it
performed. Speaking to a a fair old proportion of Behringer employees
across the company. Using my thirty years business experience - twenty
running my own companies and acting as a consultant operating at board
level within multi-national companies.
Apart from that, as what I write shows, I have nothing to say on the
matter.
But ... wait a minute. I'm not the one who has to disprove anything
here. Any more than Behringer has to disprove such ridiculous and
general allegations.
If YOU want to throw mud, YOU have to provide the proof.
You don't. You can't.
That's it.
> > All the *evidence* (not gossip, PR spin or malicious self-
> > serving rumour) in the public domain suggests the opposite.
>
> Mackies evidence as presented in their filings indeed does NOT suggest
> the oppposite. It paints a pretty bleak picture. Proven or not, it WAs
> presented as evidence.
>
>
> > It's worth repeating that MACKIE'S CLAIM WAS NOT PROVEN
>
> publicly,
You really are a work of art, arntcha?
The fact that two judges independently threw Mackie out of town
(establishing once and for all the value of the company's "evidence"
that you rely on so heavily) is not good enough for you?
The fact that you can't come up with a single example of Behringer
copying any Mackie product - and the only claim you have made concerning
Mackie's 8-buss has been shown to the satisfaction of anyone's common
sense satisfaction to have been comprehensively disporoven and wrong-
headed from start to finsih. That's not good enough for you?
The fact that no other company has made a claim against Behringer.
That's not good enough for you?
Your prejudice makes you blind to the obvious truth that has been
staring you in the face and hitting you about the ears all this time.
> > 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.
>
> SO many options and things to know to make THAT call... whay does
> ANYBODY ever settle... I could as easily say "If Behringer had been
> innocent, would THEYT have setteled?!?" and be on equally safe ground.
Oh grow up.
Legal disputes are extremely costly. This fact is used by wealthy
companies to grind down and unfairly abuse smaller competition every
day. At the time, Behringer's presence in the U.S. market was tiny
compared to Mackie and the company was only a fraction of Mackie's size
and wealth. By merely threatening to pursue its claim, Mackie exerted
enormous pressure on Behringer to settle - the alternative (and this
happens every day of the week in courts all over the world) could well
be that Behringer's cash reserves are completely exhausted and the
company falls into bankruptcy before the case ever reached trial -
something that would have suited Mackie very well.
In the circumstances, it is no surprise to anyone with experience in
business that both parties decided to settle.
The clear point though, is that if Mackie had actually had a case, its
purposes would have been best served to prosecute its claim to the
maximum - thereby inflicting maximum damage to Behringer and avoiding
the risk of public humiliation.
I'm sure its lawyers told it in clear and simple terms that if they took
the case back into court after the preliminary judge's remarks, public
humiliation would be the least of their worries.
I repeat that in the circumstances, Mackie obtained a spectacularly
favourable result that in no way reflects the true lack of merit their
case represented.
> > 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!
>
> IS it that much different from many others?
Yes - in terms of the scale of the result for Mackie measured as
achievement of its business objectives at the time and - even more
valuably - that the company persuaded people like you to swallow a load
of fantastical hogwash and still be using it to blackball Behringer so
many years after it all happened.
You are still doing Mackie's dirty work for it and perpetuating the
injustice it inflicted on Behringer at the time.
You might want to reflect that other engineers of far greater experience
than me have confirmed in this group that the Behringer 8000 is in no
way a clone of the Mackie 8-buss. You are the only one still clinging to
that PR lie that it is.
> > > 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.
>
> to whom? it was written SOLEY as n analogy to point out the flaw in the
> all-too-common rationalisation of any presumed Behringer theft by
> saying "it's ok if they copied some stuff because most of their stuff
> they designed themselves" and claiming that somehow sets the record
> straight.
It is highly insulting to the people at Behringer.
The rest of your statement is deliberate misrepresentation.
>
>
> > Have you ever visited Behringer's web site? Have you seen just how many
> > different products that company produces?
>
> more every year.
So ...
> > 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.
>
> Not a helpful exercise in any degree.
I disagree. You have repeatedly accused Behringer of regularly stealing
designs from other companies. Asking you to state which of the company's
products has been copied from elsewhere is, therefore, entirely
appropriate, valid and helpful to the discussion.
That you (again) refuse to name even one product that you say Behringer
stole shows that you cannot.
You cannot because the company did not.
When you say that they did, you are lying. And you know that you are
lying.
> > 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?
>
>
> I have never claimed more than the ones mentioned. Merely LOOKING at
> how similar they are to existing pieces isn't proof of theft. 'Not
> Finding any Others' doesn;t help the ones that are.
Oh yes you have - as anyone reading even these couple of posts by you
can readily see. Your messages are peppered with accusations and
implications that Behringer regularly, repeatedly and continually steals
its designs from other companies. You have explicitly called Uli
Behringer a thief a cheat and a liar.
Here's just one of your remarks:
"Uri and the boys have a solid years-long reliable history of this sort
of theft-hing "
That quote comes directly from yor first diatribe in this thread.
Again here you refer to "the ones that are" - ie, have been stolen.
Again, the challenge I put to you is to state which "ones" (plural) have
been stolen.
I'm waiting with baited breath.
> > 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.
>
> that's grand. That's how it's supposed to be.
And, that's how it is. A million miles from the picture you would paint
of the company.
> > > 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.
>
> But they WILL go out of their way to excuse it, condone it, explain it
> away and dress it up making them look like voctims for it.
By "they" I assume you mean me.
No such luck my friend. You will not find me excusing or condoning IP
theft - it most certainly would not be in my personal interests to do
so.
As to "victims" - if you took you head out of your arse for a moment you
might see that in corporate litigation, things are rarely as black and
white as you would like them to see (and I've given enough explanation
of the specific cases that trouble you to establish that fact).
How would you feel if the owner of another studio in your town appeared
here in rap and accused you of stealing production ideas from him. He
might also claim that you regularly use cracked software and have a
large hidden sample library that you ripped off and never pay royalties
on. And as for that chart success you claimed production and enginering
rights on last year, the real work was performed by others elsewhere and
you shouldn't be alowed to get away with it. On top of that he says you
are guilty of unfair business practices by deliberatley undercharging
for your services by using cheap foreign made equipment and media that
he can't compete with having to pay the maintenance on his U.S. built 24
track and his proud insistence on only buying tape made in the U.S.A.
You can reply and deny as much as you want but if he persists - and
continues to repeat his ALLEGATIONS often enough over time, folks will
start to question whether there's any truth and some will even start to
believe that there is. Many will stay away from your studio, just in
case.
Now, your aggrieved competitor gets so worked up that he takes out a
court summons forcing you to answer his allegations - and you do.
Successfully. Judge throws him out - but still he says he won't give in
and he's gonna pursue the matter. Meanwhile, your lawyer is holding his
hand out and taking all the profit and more that your business can make
- anyway, you're never there any more because all your time is spent in
lawyer's offices making lengthy statements and trawling through old
documents to prove your innocence.
So you settle - give him an old mixer to make the bugger disappear.
Wouldn't you like to think that's the end of the matter?
Or would you be pleased to see that one or two of the individuals
(potential clients of yours at one time) pop up on Usenet time after
time after time, year after year after year, recycling the same old,
unproven allegations as fact and warning other potential clients not to
go near your studio with a barge pole because - they state with absolute
conviction - you are a thief and a cheat.
Now - THAT is an analogy. And one that should strike home to you and
(hopefully) make you stop in your tracks and reconsider precisely what
you have been doing these past several years.
> > 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.
>
> I reitterate information.
With respect, that's a poor description of what you do.
You recycle misleading press releases and half-baked truths, adding your
own special mix of fantasy and present the whole mish-mash as gospel
truth.
> Until I'm given countering information I see
> no problem there. You've presented much here worth considering, though
> most of it is alternate spin on the face of it, no hard evidence to
> counter it. ADn I must say a REMARKABLE ability to evangelise and make
> a problem sound like a feature. I do congratulate you there. It's not a
> talent and skill easily come by.
What is remarkable (but only to you, I suspect) is that my views and
statements on the matter are well researched and I have (in the past as
today) been able to back up everything I say with facts obtained from
independent and/or verifiable sources.
You, on the other hand, have provided not one single piece of credible
evidence to support the lies and accusations you repeatedly trot out.
And I have yet to see you provide a clear and straightforward answer to
a simple and relevant question.
That says nothing about my debating skills but quite a lot about you.
--
George >{ňżó}<
Scott Dorsey
>In article <b9k90n$a7m$1...@panix2.panix.com> klu...@panix.com writes:
>
>> The A&H MixWizard is a bit more than the Mackie 1604, but only a bit more,
>> and it's a much nicer console in every way.
>
>If what you want is a 16x2 mixer, A&H has a good one. But the Mackie
>1604 is more than a 16x2 mixer, and those busses can come in handy for
>certain applications. A&H hasn't for years offered a mixer that has all
>the inputs and outputs of a 1604. Deciding that they can make do with
>a 2-bus mixer could be a wise choice for some, but not everybody.
I find all that extra routing stuff on the 1604 really irritating. It
affects the sound and you can't bypass it, and it seems like they decided
to add every possible routing gadget on the busses that they could think
of, to make it useable for everyone. The end result is something that
doesn't sound as good as it could and confuses the hell out of novices.
The lack of wacky routing options seems to be a big advantage for the A&H
in my mind.
>> Don't forget Yamaha in your list either. Some of the Yamaha cheapies aren't
>> bad. Also there are the Ramsa consoles, and even Peavey.
>
>But here you're getting into the realm of used consoles. I don't think
>there's anything "not bad" from Yamaha today that's suitable for
>recording, same for Peavey, and Ramsa has been extinct for a while.
Ramsa is extinct?
Yamaha is still making a couple decent cheapies, although I am sad to see
Tascam getting totally out of the market.
Jny Vee
Dorsey) wrote:
> In article <znr1052661718k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >In article <b9k90n$a7m$1...@panix2.panix.com> klu...@panix.com writes:
> >
> >> The A&H MixWizard is a bit more than the Mackie 1604, but only a bit more,
> >> and it's a much nicer console in every way.
CONCUR...
but Big Caveat.... comparing teh 1604 and other similar mixers is GOOD,
but CRITCALLY DENIGRATING teh 1604 as 'inferior' ignores an IMPORTANT
couple of things:
when Mackie released the 1604 NOTHING was in it's class of
functionality/price.
Within 2 years EVERYBODY was making either ergonomic copies or
from-ground-up similar approach units.
THEN over a few years there came th every real IMPROVED ideas on that
approach (like the WIZARD and the Crest) that catually BETTERED the
mackie design approach.
Why didin;t MACKIE do this? they did ONCE... form teh ORIGINAL 1604,
which while incorporating marvelous versatility adn features DID have
some VERY frusttrating and backwards design elements and missing
elements. Theye DID 'stop the presses' ... an expensive proposition and
retoooled with teh changes from comments on teh original and then had a
layout and esign that worked very well. Aside from easily-incorprated
(no real pruduction-assembly line retooling required) they dedicated
themselves to THIS in order to optimise thier ROI on this unit.
Furstrating but not a bad choice. It meant they could not compete with
the few really IMPROVED designs that built on the 1604's original
groundbreaking approach. They let CREST and others have it... and so
now there are 'better mixers for close to the price' which is only
natural once The Way was shown. Yes it makes more sense to buy them now
than the 1604, but it's hardly a bad comment on the 1604 itself which
is still well worth what's charged for it. TH MIX WIZRD is probably teh
BEST close-priced alternative that;s better in many ways, teh CREST is
my personal favortie but IS a chunk more change, though in my opinion
absolutely worth it.
> >> Don't forget Yamaha in your list either. Some of the Yamaha cheapies
> >> aren't
> >> bad. Also there are the Ramsa consoles, and even Peavey.
> >
> >But here you're getting into the realm of used consoles. I don't think
> >there's anything "not bad" from Yamaha today that's suitable for
> >recording, same for Peavey, and Ramsa has been extinct for a while.
>
> Ramsa is extinct?
in a way.
Matsushita/PANASONIC decided to shut down the music-store-distro end of
RAMSA since it was their intent that it be a MERCEDES line (and it is)
rather than CHEVY (what the musicstore market thrives on as a
price-point-profit percentage). RAMSA stuff -COST- the store more, with
less possible markup, so stores didn't push it over similar-function
stuff with a higer markup possibility. It's now apparently available
only as a higher-selling-point issue with jobbers and installers and
they're happy with that.
Jny Vee
<pTIva.150863$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "George
Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
funny??
quoting an orignal source (and how -could- they be unbiased or
disintereted... and quoted AFTER the fact rather than DURING) instead
of hearsay whining enbdusers... this is a big problem how:
it was not presented as gospel
it was presented with all knowldege of who and why they might write it.
It was presented to allow some Primary Information Source to chime in,
rather than know-nothing 'gimmecheapgearnow' folks, into the
information flow. You have Other Side Info from similar primary sources
bring it on and we'll find the Truth somewhere in the middle. Yelling
at me for getting a little closer to it in what way I can just looks
petty... which is REALLY strange coming from you Mr Gleason, you've got
more of a reality-sense than most. I read your comments on an issue for
some real ballance.
Jny Vee
<ihIva.150835$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "George
Gleason" <g.p.g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
the point was to assume (correctly) that -I- (i WAS using myself as the
example here...) am not anything of the sort...
> George