Would You Pay 15% More for Behringer Gear So They Could Cover a Licensing Fee?

[Anderton]

Seeing the Behringer-related thread over in the Keyboard Corner got me thinking. Universal Audio licenses the Massive Passive plugin from Manley Labs. In return, they get the cachet from Manley's name, can use Manley's expertise to verify the emulation's accuracy, and of course, because they're doing the right thing, Manley endorses their efforts.

 

Now, Manley didn't invent the passive equalizer. If someone wanted to reverse-engineer the hardware into a plugin and call it the Personley Passively Massive and not pay a licensing fee, they could. There would be nothing legally wrong with that.

 

And frankly, there's nothing legally wrong with creating a synth that's very much like a Minimoog. But...would you be willing to pay another 15% to cover a license that would provide the same benefits that Manley provides to Universal Audio?

 

In a way, that's what inMusic did by buying Moog. They could have just copied the designs, but it seems obvious (at least to me) they wanted the name's cachet and (I assume) a reality check from at least some of the engineers. And, no one can say they're ripping off Moog...for all practical purposes, they are Moog now.

 

Thoughts?

[bill5]

I wouldn't pay .0001% more. But I'm just a hobbyist, so YYMV and all 

[timwat]

I think the market (speaking generally across ALL products / services) is willing to pay a price premium of some amount for the "officially licensed" sticker. 

 

We see this in athletic endorsements, product collaborations, and simple branding agreements. There is not only a simple emotional motive, but when we start talking about technology (and specifically, music technology) I think many buyers would presume several layers of "good vibes" to a company willing to follow a business model that ostensibly honors the original creators of said tech. 

 

Anecdotally, this is something I feel good about with my Sequential / Oberheim OB-6 - knowing that Dave Smith honored and respected Tom Oberheim in that arrangement. 

 

And as I've suggested elsewhere, it seems clear to me that doesn't mean anything substantive to many other potential buyers out there.

[CHarrell]

7 minutes ago, timwat said:

I think the market (speaking generally across ALL products / services) is willing to pay a price premium of some amount for the "officially licensed" sticker. 

 

We see this in athletic endorsements, product collaborations, and simple branding agreements. There is not only a simple emotional motive, but when we start talking about technology (and specifically, music technology) I think many buyers would presume several layers of "good vibes" to a company willing to follow a business model that ostensibly honors the original creators of said tech. 

 

Anecdotally, this is something I feel good about with my Sequential / Oberheim OB-6 - knowing that Dave Smith honored and respected Tom Oberheim in that arrangement. 

 

And as I've suggested elsewhere, it seems clear to me that doesn't mean anything substantive to many other potential buyers out there.

 

To be honest, even after demoing Pianoteq extensively for months and discovering I still don't think its sound is there yet, I still feel tempted by all those official licenses they have: "Well if Steinway, Bechstein, etc. etc. endorsed this, maybe there's a quality here I'm not getting yet? Maybe I just need to find out what made them give this their official stamp?"

[KuruPrionz]

Moog has been known as a quality brand since inception. They've had their problems but they've stood by their gear in the long run and there is value in that. 

Universal Audio is another vendor that has integrity and a great reputation, so is Manley. 

 

I bought a Behringer mixer long ago. It was a piece of crap. I was glad to get rid of it, even though that meant just tossing it in the trash. It wasn't fully functional anyway, plus a noisy, flimsy piece of junk.

Maybe they've worked on their integrity and are now reliable and dependable but for me the damage has been done. I'll never buy anything from them again, ever. 

 

So the paradigm has a fatal flaw, I doubt I am the only one who avoids Behringer. 

[KenElevenShadows]

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

Seeing the Behringer-related thread over in the Keyboard Corner got me thinking. Universal Audio licenses the Massive Passive plugin from Manley Labs. In return, they get the cachet from Manley's name, can use Manley's expertise to verify the emulation's accuracy, and of course, because they're doing the right thing, Manley endorses their efforts.

 

Now, Manley didn't invent the passive equalizer. If someone wanted to reverse-engineer the hardware into a plugin and call it the Personley Passively Massive and not pay a licensing fee, they could. There would be nothing legally wrong with that.

 

And frankly, there's nothing legally wrong with creating a synth that's very much like a Minimoog. But...would you be willing to pay another 15% to cover a license that would provide the same benefits that Manley provides to Universal Audio?

 

In a way, that's what inMusic did by buying Moog. They could have just copied the designs, but it seems obvious (at least to me) they wanted the name's cachet and (I assume) a reality check from at least some of the engineers. And, no one can say they're ripping off Moog...for all practical purposes, they are Moog now.

 

Thoughts?

 

I would pay 15% for a company so they could pay the licensing fee.

 

I would not pay 15% for Behringer so they could pay the licensing fee. I'm not going to support scumbag companies who have been found guilty of patent infringement numerous times and appear to have used slave labor.

[David Emm]

I'd pay the 15% if the builds were at least 40% better and the company 90% less skeevy. Too bad that Moog-ette left the barn ages ago.

[David Emm]

4 hours ago, CHarrell said:

 

To be honest, even after demoing Pianoteq extensively for months and discovering I still don't think its sound is there yet, I still feel tempted by all those official licenses they have: "Well if Steinway, Bechstein, etc. etc. endorsed this, maybe there's a quality here I'm not getting yet? Maybe I just need to find out what made them give this their official stamp?"

 

I think I can answer that. I'm sold on Pianoteq, after fretting over the heftier options, like Ivory II. The central difference to my ear is a certain subtle organic fuzz that goes with the wood & metal flavor of multi-gigabyte samples. Its like the argument about "LPs vs. CDs," where the real answer is "Its about whatever approach sounds the best to your ear." I always leaned towards Yamaha acoustics for their inherent brightness, so the clean edge of physical modeling appeals to me. My casual opinion: the endorsing piano manufacturers clearly like the slightly more crisp algorithmic presentation of their sound. TBH, I enjoy tweaking pianos with EQ, compression and flangers. It can all be shaped to taste. Give it a shot.    

 

On top of that, Pianoteq is about 50 megabytes. Ivory's recommended space is 77 GIGAbytes. It was ultimately a pragmatic decision, based on M1 Macs being a bit stingy on the RAM. Its not much of a compromise, because the instrument speaks with plenty of authority for me.

[bill5]

5 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

I bought a Behringer mixer long ago. It was a piece of crap. I was glad to get rid of it, even though that meant just tossing it in the trash. It wasn't fully functional anyway, plus a noisy, flimsy piece of junk.

Maybe they've worked on their integrity and are now reliable and dependable

They really are. I get the once bitten/twice shy thing, just an FYI

[KenElevenShadows]

Oh yeah, their build quality is awful. On top of the ethical component, which I don't think bothers many people anyway.

[Anderton]

Given that I was an expert witness against Behringer, it's probably not surprising I don't have any of their gear. I don't know for sure about the slave labor thing. Last time I was in China, there was a huge variation in manufacturing facilities. I was taken aback by how good one place was. I mean, it wasn't an OSHA wet dream, but it was clean, well-lit, seemingly non-stressed workers, etc. I had a candid conversation with my hosts, and they said that there are indeed the sweatshop places with horrible working conditions, that's not a myth. The reason for the high level of the factory I visited was because they were making tech products (e.g., Mackie, ART, and a zillion others). China is big enough it kind of has its own migrant workers. They come from the west, work in the eastern cities for a while and send the money back to their families, and then they leave. To avoid having to re-train people constantly, employee retention was crucial. So, they paid people well, and provided good working conditions.

 

I was quite surprised that they let me walk around the factory grounds freely. At one point I went past an armed guard, and...he waved and smiled. 

 

Behringer did invite me to visit Behringer City in China a few years ago, but I declined. I didn't want to cover the expenses, and I wasn't going to ask a publisher or someone else to foot the bill. So, I don't know first-hand what their situation is.

 

 

[bill5]

1 hour ago, KenElevenShadows said:

Oh yeah, their build quality was awful.

FTFY   

 

They make good stuff now. 

[Nowarezman]

Just to admit - I don't know what to think about Behringer.  In fact, the entire issue that Behringer epitomizes here, I just haven't been able to parse.  That issue being - should we boycott companies based on our judgement of the company's ethical behavior?  

 

It's easy at the extremes.  The tobacco companies, sure.  You boycott by quitting a bad habit, so it's win/win all around except for the tobacco companies.  The drug companies?  Well...your boycott might just kill you.  Walmart?  Well....they wiped out the local businesses in small towns, while lowering the cost of living in small towns.  Microsoft?  Bill Gates was a nasty, dirty player in the entrepreneurial game early on.  Guess it's too long ago to keep fussing over it?  I'm sure Bill thinks so. Behringer?  If the Minimoog was a hit record, Behringer would have lost in any court for copyright infringement, sure.  I know nothing about the rumors of slave labor - but there's somebody abused at the low end of most production chains I know of.  THAT'S NO EXCUSE! Right, I understand that.  I still don't know what my obligation is here - who made me judge, jury, and executioner for ethically dubious corporations??  

 

I'll jump on the bandwagon for the easy ones, admittedly.  I'm very conflicted in the grayer cases, which are the vast majority of cases, at least seems that way to me. 

 

We, as a society, have a decent understanding of individual human rights and responsibilities. Whether we respect them thoroughly or not is another issue.  But we do not have a good set of fundamental concepts as to corporate rights and responsibilities.  The Constitution, the Bill of Rights - totally about human individuals.  In our foundational law, there is no other mode for even thinking about rights and responsibilities.  We regulate companies based on the well-being of the individuals affected by corporate policies.  We don't regulate companies based on over-arching concepts of corporate responsibilities and rights.  I think such concepts need to be developed and added to the Constitution.  Rather than this going concept of corporations as "people".  Corporations, due to their immense power, should be held to a higher standard than the individual in the street.  They should all have and be held accountable for pursuing missions for the public good before they are allowed to exploit profit motives for the corporate owners.  Just be a true public benefactor, and then you're free to make all the money you can. 

 

To try and reform corporations through individual boycotting - it seems to me to be a very well-intentioned thing to do, but it's no real solution to policing, regulating, and reforming corporate behavior.  It takes an effective government and lucid legal principles to do that.

 

nat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KuruPrionz]

7 minutes ago, Nowarezman said:

Just to admit - I don't know what to think about Behringer.  In fact, the entire issue that Behringer epitomizes here, I just haven't been able to parse.  That issue being - should we boycott companies based on our judgement of the company's ethical behavior?  

 

It's easy at the extremes.  The tobacco companies, sure.  You boycott by quitting a bad habit, so it's win/win all around except for the tobacco companies.  The drug companies?  Well...your boycott might just kill you.  Walmart?  Well....they wiped out the local businesses in small towns, while lowering the cost of living in small towns.  Microsoft?  Bill Gates was a nasty, dirty player in the entrepreneurial game early on.  Guess it's too long ago to keep fussing over it?  I'm sure Bill thinks so. Behringer?  If the Minimoog was a hit record, Behringer would have lost in any court for copyright infringement, sure.  I know nothing about the rumors of slave labor - but there's somebody abused at the low end of most production chains I know of.  THAT'S NO EXCUSE! Right, I understand that.  I still don't know what my obligation is here - who made me judge, jury, and executioner for ethically dubious corporations??  

 

I'll jump on the bandwagon for the easy ones, admittedly.  I'm very conflicted in the grayer cases, which are the vast majority of cases, at least seems that way to me. 

 

We, as a society, have a decent understanding of individual human rights and responsibilities. Whether we respect them thoroughly or not is another issue.  But we do not have a good set of fundamental concepts as to corporate rights and responsibilities.  The Constitution, the Bill of Rights - totally about human individuals.  In our foundational law, there is no other mode for even thinking about rights and responsibilities.  We regulate companies based on the well-being of the individuals affected by corporate policies.  We don't regulate companies based on over-arching concepts of corporate responsibilities and rights.  I think such concepts need to be developed and added to the Constitution.  Rather than this going concept of corporations as "people".  Corporations, due to their immense power, should be held to a higher standard than the individual in the street.  They should all have and be held accountable for pursuing missions for the public good before they are allowed to exploit profit motives for the corporate owners.  Just be a true public benefactor, and then you're free to make all the money you can. 

 

To try and reform corporations through individual boycotting - it seems to me to be a very well-intentioned thing to do, but it's no real solution to policing, regulating, and reforming corporate behavior.  It takes an effective government and lucid legal principles to do that.

 

nat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well written but you left out the entire reason I only bought one Behringer product. It was a mixer and the quality was unacceptably poor. Mackie and others were making affordable small mixers that ran quietly (the Behringer had noticeable hum at very moderate volumes) and were at least sturdy and reliable. My Behringer mixer was a flimsy piece of crap that I tossed in the trash with the only regret being that I bought it in the first place. 

 

Yes, that was early on in their tenure. I'm not inclined to give them a second chance, there are other options and I don't need to take any chances on getting another substandard product. Buh-Bye Behringer, won't miss ya!!!!

[KenElevenShadows]

1 hour ago, Nowarezman said:

I still don't know what my obligation is here - who made me judge, jury, and executioner for ethically dubious corporations??  

 

 

You either choose to give your dollars to a company or you don't. It's not quite as dramatic as judge, jury, and executioner. There is also no obligation. Do what is comfortable for you.

[Anderton]

It's the concept of voting with your dollars.

[Notes_Norton]

I've never bought any Behringer gear. The company doesn't have a stellar reputation for reliability and I am a "the show must go on" type of entertainer.

 

I usually stay away from both the lowest and the highest priced gear. Somewhere between the two, is the sweet spot for me, where spending more money brings less in return. Where that spot is, depends on the gear.

 

Back to the question at hand, again it depends on the gear. I am all for paying royalties for the people who make my music better and my life easier. But then, again, it depends on the gear.

 

Lamest example: I wouldn't pay Fender a royalty for a guitar that looks like a Strat except for the headstock.

 

Notes ♫

[Anderton]

Just the clarify - the concept of paying a licensing fee would be to collaborate with the company doing the licensing, to ensure a certain level of quality (as Manley does with Universal Audio, or SSL does with Waves), as well as an acknowledgement that the intellectual property being used has value. So...those who buy Behringer because it's all they can afford, and they're not concerned about road-worthiness, would have that "they're ripping people off" component removed.

[Bill H.]

Just FWIW the Behringer mixer I'm using for karaoke has held up well, and longer than the Mackie 1402 mixer it replaced. I don't know how Mackie quality is currently, but for awhile there it wasn't all that good. 

 

Sound is fine for its purpose, and it gets used several times a week in pretty brutal club environments.

 

I actually bought it because of the way it works with Behringer wireless mics. I don't need to fuss with a receiver - it's built into the mixer. 

 

Once again the mic sound quality is good for its purpose, but build quality isn't  - not for the rigors of karaoke anyway. There's still a few singers who think it's cool to do a mic drop after their turn. I haven't had to replace a mic since I moved the show to a room with carpeted floors though, and when I have the cost has been under $100. 

[KuruPrionz]

12 minutes ago, Anderton said:

Just the clarify - the concept of paying a licensing fee would be to collaborate with the company doing the licensing, to ensure a certain level of quality (as Manley does with Universal Audio, or SSL does with Waves), as well as an acknowledgement that the intellectual property being used has value. So...those who buy Behringer because it's all they can afford, and they're not concerned about road-worthiness, would have that "they're ripping people off" component removed.

At this point, I've simplified my hardware and made my selections. I'm still sorting out plugins, the Free Plugins thread offered up a UADx LA2A tube compressor plugin for free this morning - good till Oct 31. That's my kinda price, add 15% of zero to zero and you still have... nothing. 😇  The clubs I play (once in a while...) have good PA systems in place. All I bring in most places is my own microphone, stand and acoustic electric guitar. Load-out sure is nice!!!

[Nowarezman]

12 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

 

You either choose to give your dollars to a company or you don't. It's not quite as dramatic as judge, jury, and executioner. There is also no obligation. Do what is comfortable for you.

I think that's analogous to saying, "I just keep my own hands clean.  I have no hope that my choice will make any difference at all."  No obligation? Comfort? I thought this was a discussion about ethical behavior where obligation is what it's all about and comfort is of no account.  It just doesn't seem like a serious attitude towards a serious problem.

 

Just to note, Ken, I always respect your point of view and give it consideration.  I'm being pretty blunt here, admittedly.  I'm not going to pound my pulpit on this and get all righteous about my views.  I'm still trying to find my feet in this issue.  At this time I can't reduce the issue as easily as you can.  

 

nat

 

[Anderton]

We have to be realistic and understand that different people are at different stages of evolution. Frankly, some people just don't care, and nothing anyone says will change their minds. Better to spend your efforts where they have a chance of making a difference, compared to wasting energy trying to convince the inconvincible.

 

The people who hang out here seem to be quite open-minded compared to some other forums. Some may not have known about how Behringer tries to intimidate reviewers. That kind of information may be enough to make them go "Hmm, I don't want to support a company that does that kind of thing."

 

So, a discussion can provide data points that may cause people to change their minds. But the discussion itself cannot change someone's mind. Only they can do it.

[Nowarezman]

9 minutes ago, Anderton said:

We have to be realistic and understand that different people are at different stages of evolution. Frankly, some people just don't care, and nothing anyone says will change their minds. Better to spend your efforts where they have a chance of making a difference, compared to wasting energy trying to convince the inconvincible.

 

The people who hang out here seem to be quite open-minded compared to some other forums. Some may not have known about how Behringer tries to intimidate reviewers. That kind of information may be enough to make them go "Hmm, I don't want to support a company that does that kind of thing."

 

So, a discussion can provide data points that may cause people to change their minds. But the discussion itself cannot change someone's mind. Only they can do it.

Right.  And not all people are particularly fond of lengthy discussions and analysis to begin with.  Clearly, I love discussions and analysis if it's not obvious to all already.  I know I induce exasperated eye-rolling at times, what with all my going on and on about something.  I've learned to dial it way down at parties over the decades.  I was insufferable in my 20s, except to only a very few close friends who also loved discussions and analysis.  

 

This forum has thoughtful people in attendance, and some elbow room for various personalities.  So I feel it's a safe place to hold forth in, within  reasonable limits and moderate frequency.  I've done all my holding forth on this for the time being.  I'm getting the feeling that my elaborated point of view is not resonating sympathetically this time round.  That's cool.....

 

Back to your regularly scheduled postings....

 

nat

 

[KuruPrionz]

2 hours ago, Nowarezman said:

I think that's analogous to saying, "I just keep my own hands clean.  I have no hope that my choice will make any difference at all."  No obligation? Comfort? I thought this was a discussion about ethical behavior where obligation is what it's all about and comfort is of no account.  It just doesn't seem like a serious attitude towards a serious problem.

 

Just to note, Ken, I always respect your point of view and give it consideration.  I'm being pretty blunt here, admittedly.  I'm not going to pound my pulpit on this and get all righteous about my views.  I'm still trying to find my feet in this issue.  At this time I can't reduce the issue as easily as you can.  

 

nat

 

I think what Ken is saying is similar in many ways to what I've said in this thread. I do what I do, I buy what I buy, I use what I use. I'm fine with others making different choices, trying to change their mind is not time spent productively. If somebody mentions why they like a particular piece of gear, I consider it to the extent that it might be something I don't already have or that is so much better than what's currently out there that I actually would like to own it someday.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                It's easy to go "out into the weeds" regarding brands, gear, etc. For me, if somebody sells me an item that is substandard crap, that's the end of the line right there. If all of their products are unoriginal attempts and making a less expensive copy of something useful, I'm happy to ignore them until they go away.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        In many cases, buying something "affordable" without considering the used market is a huge mistake. I've owned a few Shure SM58 mics in my time. One time a stand got knocked over and the mic slammed hard onto concrete floor. The ball screen was really dented. The microphone sounded fine. I recently sold an SM58 that was all beat up and ugly, and it sounded fine. I got $45 for it. Compared to a new $30 Behringer mic, that's a bargain. I'd be willing to bet I could use an SM58 to beat a dozen Behringer XM8500 mics ($29.95 at Sweetwater) into no longer working and the SM58 would still sound fine. Somebody else wants to buy them, that's part of their education...

[KenElevenShadows]

2 hours ago, Nowarezman said:

I think that's analogous to saying, "I just keep my own hands clean.  I have no hope that my choice will make any difference at all."  No obligation? Comfort? I thought this was a discussion about ethical behavior where obligation is what it's all about and comfort is of no account.  It just doesn't seem like a serious attitude towards a serious problem.

 

Just to note, Ken, I always respect your point of view and give it consideration.  I'm being pretty blunt here, admittedly.  I'm not going to pound my pulpit on this and get all righteous about my views.  I'm still trying to find my feet in this issue.  At this time I can't reduce the issue as easily as you can.  

 

nat

 

It is a serious problem. I agree with you. But I was responding to someone who was asking, "How can I be judge, jury, and executioner." In that sense, you are letting your dollars do the talking for you. There's no further obligation than that, is there? 

 

I don't like Monster Cable or Behringer. I think they operate unethically. One of the company reps for Behringer literally turned and walked away from me, refusing to answer the question when I asked, "There are rumors that your company uses slave labor in China. Is this true?" I talk about why I don't like them. I don't purchase their products.

 

Do I have a further obligation than that? 

 

I don't have much hope that my choice or my words will make much of a difference at all. Look how many people just in this thread have purchased Behringer products. I think most of them know how Behringer operates, yet that didn't stop them because most people just want to get something that is inexpensive. I'm not going to publicly shame each one of them because they've made their decision. I'm not sure what else I should do. If someone feels comfortable supporting a company that they know is a scumbag company, then what else should I do?

[ProfD]

Nope.  I would spend my money with a company making original products.

 

For example, Modal Electronics might be going belly up any day now but I applaud them for their effort in producing synths. 

 

Whether it is music or products, I have hard time with those who copy versus being original and/or creative. 😎

 

[Anderton]

47 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Whether it is music or products, I have hard time with those who copy versus being original and/or creative. 😎

 

Got it, but circle back to the Universal Audio/Manley collaboration. UA's happy because they have a cool product. Manley is happy because they're not going to make plugins anyway, and most people can't afford the hardware. So, they've expanded their reach and audience considerably, while collecting licensing fees to keep the company going. People who could never afford a hardware Massive Passive can afford an approved, licensed version for thousands less. There don't seem to be any losers in this equation. even though UA is directly copying - as closely as humanly possible - the Massive Passive's sound and even the UI.

 

[BluMunk]

Without wading into the specific Behringer question, and just considering the brand licensing question in general... as a consumer, it all just feels like marketing. 

Like, today I was googling Space Echo -type effects. There are a million (exact numbers may vary) pedals and probably an equal number of plug-ins or software solutions. Sure, there are some differences in features, and in some subjective measures of quality, but beyond that? It's marketing, style, feel, and a whole lot of subjectivity. Paint color.

Would I pay 15% more for a "Moog approved" synth, or a "Real Manly Inside" plugin from UA, all other things being equal? Maybe, but only if the color scheme really drew me in.

When the only added value to me the consumer is the feel-good vibes of supporting a for-profit endeavor (a.k.a. brand loyalty), I get a little resentful at the implication (not made by anyone in this thread) that there's a moral goodness in paying extra for the 'original', decades after it stopped being original.



 

[ProfD]

7 minutes ago, Anderton said:

UA's happy because they have a cool product. Manley is happy because they're not going to make plugins anyway, and most people can't afford the hardware.   There don't seem to be any losers in this equation.

I would consider this case because it is company providing a software alternative to hardware with respect to the originator. it's almost like the software division of Manley.😁

 

The B company just hosed it up out of the gate.  They ripped and cloned their way manufacturing cheap products that were clearly knockoffs like a fake Gucci purse.  The sad thing is that they did not have to do it. 

 

The B company could used their knowledge and expertise to make original products. Although the DeepMind synth was inspired by a Roland Juno, there was still enough under the hood for it to stand on its own.  The X32 digital mixer is brilliant.😎

[RABid]

I definitely would. There is a bit of guilt when I use my Behringer synths. I've not had any build issues with my Behringer purchases but they do seem to need more warm up time for oscillators to stabilize. You know, both Ibanez and Roland guitar pedals get copied a lot. I'm guessing no one is paying them.