Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

behringer what's going on???


superpowter77

Recommended Posts

All popular product categories become 'commodities' at some point. The electronics industry is full of products that decrease in price to the point of razor-thin margins. If there is infringement, let the courts decide--but the system isn't perfect here, either. After all, Amazon.com patented the 'one click' system. There are inventions worthy of a patent, but is that one of them?

 

BTW, I heard that in some Chinese factories, for however many products are made for their overseas contractor, one goes out the back door and is sold for cheap in the local or adjacent markets. Thus taking advantage of all the R&D done elsewhere. That's real 'theft'.

 

(The product category for which I heard this was not audio or MI equipment.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There seems to be some confusion here over quality and 'road worthy' reliability. The two are different; many consumer-grade products are fine for their application, but not designed to be thrown around. Conversely, there are some super-rugged products that, as a consequence of their ruggedness, actually have inferior performance but will withstand heavy use and abuse.

 

Expecting quality and reliability for cheap is mostly wishful thinking, but there is nothing wrong with manufacturing low-cost gear that has reasonable, if not very good performance, that doesn't necessarily withstand 24-7 use or being kicked around.

 

Of course, I'm speaking in general terms here. Maybe some have had bad experiences with Behringer either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These tools at different price points have their intended market.

 

Ultimately, one should purchase according to their a) application and b) budget.

 

If my teenager decides to give audio recording a shot and wants to learn how to use a compressor, would it make more sense for me to buy a $99 Behringer, $500 dbx or $1300 used Drawmer? :confused:

 

It doesn't make sense to pine for a Neumann mic in a basement studio making demos for family, friends, grins and giggles. ;)

 

IMO, the catch 22 with market saturation when it comes to MI is that while it enables folks who may have a passing interest an opportunity to get their fet wet; it has also a) increased cheaply produced music (decreased value) and b) sped up the reduction of music to wallpaper. :(

 

However, I believe those who take music seriously will continue to heavily invest and make sure it is done right. :thu::cool:

PD

 

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return."--E. Ahbez "Nature Boy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by ProfD:

If my teenager decides to give audio recording a shot and wants to learn how to use a compressor, would it make more sense for me to buy a $99 Behringer, $500 dbx or $1300 used Drawmer? :confused:

...or use a free plug-in...?

 

 

Originally posted by ProfD:

IMO, the catch 22 with market saturation when it comes to MI is that while it enables folks who may have a passing interest an opportunity to get their fet wet; it has also a) increased cheaply produced music (decreased value) and b) sped up the reduction of music to wallpaper. :(

Maybe so, but I think the real crippling of music production is online piracy. (Many of those doing DAW/home recording seem to be busy discussing what synth and what mastering plug-in to use rather than learning music...)

 

Originally posted by ProfD:

However, I believe those who take music seriously will continue to heavily invest and make sure it is done right. :thu::cool:

:thu:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have already, through a variety of judgements and out-of-court settlements, been proven to be intellectual property thieves. I have posted evidence to support this, on this thread. Your denial of that truth does not invalidate it.
So Behringer paid up, and the original companies get extra royalties that they wouldn't have received otherwise, due to the affordabilities of Behringer products - and please don't tell me that they would have made more profits minus Behringer. Like I said, I'd love a Soundcraft board but the only way that Soundcraft will see any of my money, at their price point, is if they get royalties from Behringer's "British EQ". Many companies actually benefit from other companies using their ideas, and can we blame them that see a 'time sensitive' product opportunity and move on it, knowing that wrangling in the courts beforehand will only limit both company's chances of meeting a market demand. That's not theft; it's savvy business practice.

 

And what about this:

http://news.com.com/Microsoft,+Apple+in+iPod+patent+tussle/2100-1047_3-5830435.html we all know that Apple invented the iPod, but Microsoft beat them to the patent. Should Apple pay Microsoft royalties or be considered 'thieves'?

 

To put this is perspective, if the tools of our trade were hammers and screwdrivers, would we even be having this conversation?

 

Lastly, all my MP3's were downloaded during the Napster court cases, since it was fully legal at that time, there were no IP infringements according to law. Should the artists have received money for my downloads? Absolutely. Would I have downloaded the files if I had to pay for them? Absolutely not - I've got my own mouths to feed. Are the artists pleased that me and millions of others have now experienced their work? ...I know I would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

I hope you enjoy your gear... for the rest of your life... maybe you can enlighten us on the company that makes such impossible claims. I'd sure like to be your repair tech, heheh.

I repair my own gear (rarely needed), or employ the local repair guys. Quality gear isn't in a constant state of disrepair. My Fenders, Gibsons, Arp, MXR, Kurzweil, and Ensoniq, for example, all still work and have maintained value.
I've had probably 40 jobs in my life.

Why would you want a thief making it 41?

You're not a musician I take it.
When it comes to ethics, I don't always like admitting to it these days.

 

Originally posted by ProfD:

If my teenager decides to give audio recording a shot and wants to learn how to use a compressor,

... buy a 2nd hand dBX 266. It can be sold for at or near the same price. A new B******er will be sold at a huge loss (if it still works).

 

Besides, a teenager should start by running sound for his local buddies' band (if that's done anymore). Wasn't everyone's first bands built with 2nd hand gear (quality gear at that)? It used to be.

 

Now with the Wal-mart mentality, people think everything has to be brand new, but at 2nd hand prices. That's what destroys an industry.

 

I didn't have a brand-new anything until I was playing for at least 3 years. Except for the Montgomery Wards bass amp (US made) I got for Christmas in the 9th grade. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I repair my own gear (rarely needed), or employ the local repair guys. Quality gear isn't in a constant state of disrepair. My Fenders, Gibsons, Arp, MXR, Kurzweil, and Ensoniq, for example, all still work and have maintained value.
I have a high quality Sony VCR that I plan on giving away, if it broke I'd throw it away. I think you're missing my point. We're on the bleeding edge of a wave of technological development. Much of our computer based gear becomes redundant before it wears out. So if it does the job, why pay more for the status decal. IMO 'brand loyalty' is for those that can afford it.

 

Why would you want a thief making it 41?
¿Que?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

we all know that Apple invented the iPod

What did Apple really "invent"? I was using Fraunhofer's DOS MP3 encoder back in something like 1996 or 1997, and the thought DID cross my mind right then that you could have an MP3 player. The first hard disk based player I remember was the empeg in-car player in the late 90's.

 

Apple used a pile of off the shelf parts to create the iPod. They even licensed their core software/platform from a company called PortalPlayer. Of course, the click-wheel is neat, and (rightly or wrongly) patented (I'm not quite sure whether it's covered by that article), and possibly some of the industrial design is clever (I don't know if it's unique), but that's about it.

 

Either way, though, it's not like nobody else was creating MP3 players. The iPod is a great landmark product, but it's really a good implementation of technology rather than super-innovative.

 

(Of course, maybe that's not what you meant by Apple 'inventing' the iPod...)

 

Lastly, all my MP3's were downloaded during the Napster court cases, since it was fully legal at that time, there were no IP infringements according to law. Should the artists have received money for my downloads? Absolutely. Would I have downloaded the files if I had to pay for them? Absolutely not - I've got my own mouths to feed. Are the artists pleased that me and millions of others have now experienced their work? ...I know I would be.
I believe the lawsuit was over whether *NAPSTER* per se was legal--since Napster itself did not distribute the files, only performed a centralised way of searching and accessing the files on user's computers. Downloading copyright material was never legal.

 

Forgetting the artists and the *rest of the music industry*, not all of whom are millionaires, are the customers of the music industry such as myself pleased with the way in which new music has conspciously decreased in quality since rampant online piracy started? Speaking for myself, no. It's an unfortunate artefact of having an 'open' Internet, and the modest file size of MP3s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Prague:

Besides, a teenager should start by running sound for his local buddies' band (if that's done anymore). Wasn't everyone's first bands built with 2nd hand gear (quality gear at that)? It used to be.

Today you have a DAW w/ plug-ins and soft-synths. (Apple) Garageband doesn't have that name for nothing. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple invented the iPod. Other companies make MP3 players. My point was that copyright and IP infringements are all part of doing business in the predatory world of capitalism.

 

Who cares about Napster. Now start working on those deplorable formatting skills...

:P:)

 

Edit: oh, you fixed it. Good man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

Apple invented the iPod. Other companies make MP3 players. My point was that copyright and IP infringements are all part of doing business in the predatory world of capitalism.

Yep... If you want to throw a few spanners in the works of your competitor then you try to enforce your patents. If you want an oligopoly and your competitor has a few patents that you infringe, you do a cross-licensing deal.

 

 

BTW, on the topic of the "British sound," look up Peter Baxandall.

 

From http://www.tfpro.com/lectures/thames_valley_nov_2003.php

 

"In 1958 (ish) a clever engineer at EMI developed a circuit that could give boost and cut at HF and LF using selective feedback. His name was Peter Baxandall. His circuit rapidly became the industry standard for all sorts of equalisers and tone controls. The circuit was simple and effective, and actually sounded good.

 

"In 1993, I wrote a piece about equalisation in Studio Sound magazine. In it I mentioned the name of Peter Baxandall as the originator of all decent modern equalisers. I was surprised a few days after publication when I got a phone-call from the man himself. He told me that since he developed and published the circuit in the 50s, almost no one had recognised him, and he had not earned a penny from it."

 

To be fair to Soundcraft, I don't know if there's any unique technology in their product. However, I can only suggest that analog filter techniques, and yes, equalization, are all well documented and standard engineering practice!

 

Originally posted by keyper:

Who cares about Napster. Now start working on those deplorable formatting skills...

:P:)

 

Edit: oh, you fixed it. Good man!

Yep. :) The edit window here is about the size of a postage stamp on my monitor so I always write the replies in a text editor... I messed up the copy-paste that time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

Would I have downloaded the files if I had to pay for them? Absolutely not - I've got my own mouths to feed. Are the artists pleased that me and millions of others have now experienced their work? ...I know I would be.

Why don't you come to my place and do your work for free? I want to "experience your work". You said you'd be pleased. Surely you don't think you should be paid, correct?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) heheh, just messin' wid ya...

 

Funnily enough, one of my early attempts at making money in the heady world of audio recording was with a 'demo' studio (what we now call home studios, heheh) named... Soundscape Studio. I couldn't licence the name however because it was too generic. Too bad I found that out after I had the business cards printed...

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

So Behringer paid up, and the original companies get extra royalties that they wouldn't have received otherwise, due to the affordabilities of Behringer products - and please don't tell me that they would have made more profits minus Behringer.

So how about all the Ebtechs of the world that Behringer now preys upon because they have not the financial resources to defend themselves from it?

 

There's just no way you can justify Behringer's carte blanche reverse-engineering-instead-of-R&D practices.

 

If you find nothing wrong with Behringer reverse-engineering someone else's product and copying it, then you should find nothing wrong with someone else pirating the music you worked your butt off creating. Can't have it both ways, bro.

 

Either IP is sacred, or it's worthless. You choose. There is no middle ground. Supporting Behringer is the same as supporting illegal filesharing. Only difference is, Behringer profits handsomely from their venture, while the shmuck handing out free mp3's and free software typically doesn't. Or, at least, certainly not on the same level...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you come to my place and do your work for free? I want to "experience your work". You said you'd be pleased. Surely you don't think you should be paid, correct?
I'd love to... but there again, you haven't heard my 'work' ;p
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Griffinator:

There's just no way you can justify Behringer's carte blanche reverse-engineering-instead-of-R&D practices.

What does 'reverse-engineering instead of R&D' mean?

 

There is remarkably little that's original in audio technology...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

Funnily enough, one of my early attempts at making money in the heady world of audio recording was with a 'demo' studio (what we now call home studios, heheh) named... Soundscape Studio. I couldn't licence the name however because it was too generic. Too bad I found that out after I had the business cards printed...

:)

LOL... well, I really lack imagination when it comes to screen names. ;)

 

There's also someone called "soundscape studios" (not me) who posts on this board!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by keyper:

So Behringer paid up, and the original companies get extra royalties that they wouldn't have received otherwise, due to the affordabilities of Behringer products - and please don't tell me that they would have made more profits minus Behringer.

 

So how about all the Ebtechs of the world that Behringer now preys upon because they have not the financial resources to defend themselves from it?

 

There's just no way you can justify Behringer's carte blanche reverse-engineering-instead-of-R&D practices.

 

If you find nothing wrong with Behringer reverse-engineering someone else's product and copying it, then you should find nothing wrong with someone else pirating the music you worked your butt off creating. Can't have it both ways, bro.

 

Either IP is sacred, or it's worthless. You choose. There is no middle ground. Supporting Behringer is the same as supporting illegal filesharing. Only difference is, Behringer profits handsomely from their venture, while the shmuck handing out free mp3's and free software typically doesn't. Or, at least, certainly not on the same level...

Sucks doesn't it? But that's our neo-capitalist world. Adapt or die.

 

You obviously aren't aware that the iPod is not the original portable mp3 player. Numerous companies had been making them for years before Apple launched theirs.
Maybe so, but that doesn't change my point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big difference between using a group of standardized circuits, laid out by your own engineers and tested in your own prototype labs (which costs an enormous amount of time and money) and blatantly copying, board by board, circuit by circuit, a precise electronic layout that already exists.

 

In Mackie v Behringer, it came out in court that Behringer's clone was so exact to a specific Mackie board that it even contained the same flaw as the particular lot the board they copied came from. They didn't even bother to QC their layout before they put it inproduction - they just made it exactly as they saw it in the Mackie board they purchased and dismantled.

 

This is not the same as taking an existing circuit idea and creating your own implementation. Electrical behavior is not patentable. Circuit design and layout is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

Sucks doesn't it? But that's our neo-capitalist world. Adapt or die.

I see. Adopt the fatalist viewpoint because it benefits your wallet. How delightfully hypocritical of you.

 

Pray you never invent anything, brother. Your words will come back to haunt you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

There's also someone called "soundscape studios" (not me) who posts on this board!
I'll sue!!
Yeah, except that particular forum member has been running that particular studio, in all likelihood, since before you were born...

 

http://www.soundscape-studio.com/welcome.html

 

Most of their engineers have been there since 1993 or earlier...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Griffinator:

Big difference between using a group of standardized circuits, laid out by your own engineers and tested in your own prototype labs (which costs an enormous amount of time and money) and blatantly copying, board by board, circuit by circuit, a precise electronic layout that already exists.

Quite.

 

Originally posted by Griffinator:

In Mackie v Behringer, it came out in court that Behringer's clone was so exact to a specific Mackie board that it even contained the same flaw as the particular lot the board they copied came from. They didn't even bother to QC their layout before they put it inproduction - they just made it exactly as they saw it in the Mackie board they purchased and dismantled.

Do you have a reference for this? I don't remember this detail being in the previous article you posted a link to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Mackie v Behringer, it came out in court that Behringer's clone was so exact to a specific Mackie board that it even contained the same flaw as the particular lot the board they copied came from. They didn't even bother to QC their layout before they put it inproduction - they just made it exactly as they saw it in the Mackie board they purchased and dismantled.
I had one of those - they were great! I also have a Ibanez lawsuit LP - excellent guitar - and boy has it gone up in value since I bought it. ;) ("Adapt or...")
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the EU court documents on this case, which used to be available online (5 years ago, when the Ebtech debacle began) are not anymore. However, here is a brief from a legal company that explains precisely the nature of the suit: http://www.legal500.com/devs/uk/ip/ukip_040.htm

 

From said article...

 

The case of Mackie Designs Inc v Behringer Specialised Studio Equipment (UK) Ltd & others brought this sharply into focus for the American company Mackie last year. Mackie brought a case of copyright infringement in the English High Court against three defendants who had copied the circuit diagram of a mixer manufactured and sold by Mackie. (A mixer is a piece of electrical equipment used in sound recording/amplification.)

 

Mackie alleged that the second defendant, Mr Ulrich Behringer, had acquired a Mackie mixer and analysed the circuits in it, producing a 'net list' of its components and their interconnections. From that, a computer program was used to produce layouts for circuit boards to be manufactured by the German company Behringer Spezielle Studiotechnik GmbH, the third defendant. These were then sold in the UK by the first defendant, Behringer Specialised Studio Equipment (UK) Ltd. This, Mackie argued, indirectly infringed the copyright in the circuit diagram for the mixer which had itself been drawn by an American citizen in 1993.

Reverse-engineering, in its purest form.

 

However, the case triggered the UK to enact what is now known as the Unregistered Design Rights Act - which protects companies who have patent or copyright applied for from IP theft while those applications are in process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is an interesting case. I found a post on some forum that said that in the case of Aphex, the Behringer product even had the Aphex name on the circuit board--of course I have no idea if this is true. But I am wondering if they are reverse engineering or if their Far Eastern ODM/OEM suppliers were pinching circuit board designs off an Aphex line. Also whether Behringer actually designed their versions of the Mackie mixers, or a Far Eastern ODM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by keyper:

Sucks doesn't it? But that's our neo-capitalist world. Adapt or die.

 

I see. Adopt the fatalist viewpoint because it benefits your wallet. How delightfully hypocritical of you.

 

Pray you never invent anything, brother. Your words will come back to haunt you...

What, I should benefit your wallet? What are ya - a Pinko? Adapt or die. Quick, somebody help - Griffinator's dying...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...