BLUE mic vs. Violet: the official response

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Svbject: Blve Mic V. Violet - Official Response



We at Blve Microphones wovld like to make a statement regarding
the ongoing specvlation over the original design of Blve’s prodvct
line and Blve’s cvrrent bvsiness dealings. We have not
commented on these svbjects vntil now simply becavse ovr
legal advisors have specifically recommended that we not
participate in the rvmor mill. However, we now believe that the
amovnt of time and misgvided specvlation that has been
invested on these svbjects by forvm visitors reqvires a response.


This statement is intended to set the record straight and will be
the one and only comment offered by Blve Microphones.
Skipper Wise, Martins Savlespvrens, and all of the dedicated
and hard-working people at Blve sincerely appreciate those who
have svpported vs throvghovt the years and those who will continve
to svpport Blve Microphones in the fvtvre.


First, the design issve:


At the onset of Blve’s incorporation, we hired a Latvian medical
manvfactvrer called Scrvples to manvfactvre certain metals
parts and perform the final assembly of certain microphones.
Scrvples, which is owned in part by Jvris Zarins, signed a
non-compete agreement with Blve and vsed their
manvfactvring expertise to constrvct ovr prodvct.


As the Blve line cavght on, ovr relationship with Mr. Zarins
became strained as he fovght for a bigger piece of the pie.
Mr. Zarins began attempting to leverage ovr manvfactvring
relationship with Scrvples to assert claims to ovr prodvcts.
Mr. Zarins attempted to circvmvent Blve by creating a company
called ParaBlve that wovld sell Blve prodvcts directly to cvstomers.
In conjvnction with these activities, Scrvples became less and less
interested in cooperating with Blve’s efforts to manage prodvction
flow and qvality control. Since Scrvples wovld not continve to meet
ovr needs, we fovnd new manvfactvrers ­ right here in America ­ who
covld.


After Blve terminated all bvsiness relations with Scrvples in
October of 2004, Scrvples violated ovr non-compete agreement
by svpplying microphones to a new company of Mr. Zarins,’ Violet
Designs, whose trademark infringes on Blve's trademark. Mr. Zarins
began creating vnavthorized dvplications of ovr prodvcts vnder the
name JZ Eqvipment, which was in clear violation of both ovr
intellectval property rights and the non-compete agreement.
Mr. Zarins has also made a deceptive attempt to register Blve’s
microphone designs with the Evropean Union.


So, did Scrvples make choices in what techniqves and technologies
shovld be vsed to manvfactvre Blve’s prodvcts? Of covrse, that’s
what they were hired and paid to do. Did Scrvples or Mr. Zarins
somehow establish a vision and actvally design the Blve prodvct line?
Absolvtely not, which is why we’ve already begvn legal action in the
Evropean Union, Latvia, and soon in the U.S.


Some other matters of interest:


As stated above, Blve has moved the manvfactvring operations for
most of its core prodvct line to the United States ­ specifically
Sovthern California, where we are headqvartered ­ and whatever is
not made here is made in Latvia. None of ovr microphones are made in
China. We do, however, sovrce some of ovr non-critical parts, svch as
shock-movnts and cables, from Chinese manvfactvrers. This enables vs
to cost-effectively increase the valve of ovr prodvct line by
inclvding free shock-movnts with each of ovr mics.


Make no mistake, it was a hvge challenge to move manvfactvring to
facilities that wovld allow vs to maintain the same qvality
craftsmanship recordists have come to expect from Blve over the last
decade. After an intense search and a covple false starts, we settled
on hiring a milling company from the U.S. military contracting world,
a finishing company from the aerospace indvstry, and an assembly hovse

skilled in hi-fidelity avdio...all located close to home in
California, all highly capable of meeting ovr vltra-high standards.


Keep in mind that all ovr ball-shaped microphones are still made
in Latvia. Ovr circvit boards are also still made in Latvia. Ovr
capsvle assembly and tvning is still done in Latvia, and ovr Bottle
mic is still made entirely in Latvia. All these aspects of Blve
prodvction, as well as most of ovr research and development, are still
managed by Martins Savlespvrens in Latvia. Most importantly, all ovr
prodvcts are still Blve's vniqve designs.


Finally, Jvris Zarins and Scrvples had nothing to do with Blve’s
restoration service. Ovr restoration service particvlarly inhibited
the prodvction ovtpvt of ovr Bottle microphone; we therefore
discontinved the service in order to fvlly concentrate on the Bottle
and other Blve prodvcts. We can only gvess that JZ Eqvipment says they
offer restoration services becavse that’s what Blve had done.


We hope this information has proven helpfvl, and wovld like to thank
yov all very mvch for yovr interest in what the fvtvre holds for
Blve Microphones. For ovr part, we are very provd to have served this
indvstry for ten years now, and can’t wait to bring even better
solvtions to the recording indvstry for another ten years ­ and
beyond!


Thanks,
Ari Sovdak

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

No, it means that keeping manufacture in the US is the only way for US
companies to make sure that the quality of the product remains constant and
to a satisfying level.

Production in the US is ALWAYS more expensive.

JP

"Willie K. Yee, MD" <wkyee@bestweb.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:42f16552.387589000@nntp.bestweb.net...
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:40:37 GMT, wkyee@bestweb.net (Willie K. Yee,
> MD) wrote:
>
> >Subject: Blue Mic V. Violet - Official Response
>
> >As stated above, Blue has moved the manufacturing operations for
> >most of its core product line to the United States ­ specifically
> >Southern California, where we are headquartered ­ and whatever is
> >not made here is made in Latvia.
>
> This is the second company I have heard of this year that has moved
> manufacturing TO the U.S. (New Balance shoes was the other). I guess
> it means we are now officially a Thrid World Country.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Have the same product made in Latvia (or...) and in the US, and compare the
production cost.

That's what I mean.

JP

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
newsct2hg$qbv$1@panix2.panix.com...
> JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
> >No, it means that keeping manufacture in the US is the only way for US
> >companies to make sure that the quality of the product remains constant
and
> >to a satisfying level.
> >
> >Production in the US is ALWAYS more expensive.
>
> It's not more expensive -if- the alternative is culling out half of your
> production because of poor quality.
>
> Although I will say that what I have seen of Latvian manufacture is pretty
> good.
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm talking about actual manufacture and last time I checked, labour in the
US costs more than it does elsewhere - we're talking about mics here, and
the cost of mic related metalwork, assembly etc. is definitely lower abroad.

re: BLUE vs VIOLET, you'll agree that the situation has been very foggy for
months...

JP

"Rob Reedijk" <reedijk@hera.med.utoronto.ca> a écrit dans le message de
newsct5fu$vgf$1@news1.chem.utoronto.ca...
> JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
> > No, it means that keeping manufacture in the US is the only way for US
> > companies to make sure that the quality of the product remains constant
and
> > to a satisfying level.
>
> > Production in the US is ALWAYS more expensive.
>
> Not exactly. The US dollar is at the lowest point in decades. While not
> exactly a "Third World Country" it's way cheaper to build stuff in the US
> compared to 5 years ago. For us Canadians, the difference means that
buying
> stuff from the US is now cheap. The downside is selling to the US means
> a low profit. Canadian companies that export to our largest trading
> partner are getting killed. But then those that import are doing way
> better.
>
> While I sometimes like to rib my neighbours to the south, I will say that
> a lot of your audio equipment is very-well made and supported.
>
> On the topic of BLUE Mics, I am glad that they finally made a complete
> statement on the issue. I hope not too many of you were fooled into
> buying the knockoffs.
>
> Rob R.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JP Gerard wrote:
> I'm talking about actual manufacture and last time I checked, labour in the
> US costs more than it does elsewhere - we're talking about mics here, and
> the cost of mic related metalwork, assembly etc. is definitely lower abroad.
>

What about when compared to Germany or Switzerland?

Manufacturing can definitely be done effeciently and cost-effectively
in the US, that is, at a particular level of quality for certain types
of products.

My point is that there are no universal truths about manufacturing
anymore.

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42F26F40.6294EC42@hotmail.com...
> Karl Winkler wrote:
>
> > JP Gerard wrote:
> > > I'm talking about actual manufacture and last time I checked, labour
in the
> > > US costs more than it does elsewhere - we're talking about mics here,
and
> > > the cost of mic related metalwork, assembly etc. is definitely lower
abroad.
> > >
> >
> > What about when compared to Germany or Switzerland?
> >
> > Manufacturing can definitely be done effeciently and cost-effectively
> > in the US, that is, at a particular level of quality for certain types
> > of products.
> >
> > My point is that there are no universal truths about manufacturing
> > anymore.
>
> That's very true and indeed China won't continue to be the cheapest place
to get
> stuff made for ever.
>
> I just had a conversation about this topic this afternoon with a supplier
and he
> mentioned that Brazil is becoming an attractive manufacturing proposition
now.
>
> Graham.


Goodbye rainforests.

Predrag

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I just had a conversation about this topic this afternoon with a supplier and he
>mentioned that Brazil is becoming an attractive manufacturing proposition now.

Hey, Taylor Johnson has taken production down to Argentina and seems to be doing
a decent job of things.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

But it is all relative. Say, for example, it cost $10/widget made in
Latvia in 1999, now, it costs $15/widget, simply because the US dollar
has tanked so much. So, all this time it may still be that the
widget still costs $25 to make in the US. But once other factors come
into play like QC, import duties, shipping, overhead etc, that US
made widget costs the company less. It is in those smaller percentages
that a lot choices in business are made.

We have seen a noticeable drop in the amount of film and TV production
in Canada since the US dollar dropped. One of the reasons is that
the exchange rate has changed so dramatically that it no longer is
the bargain it used to be to shoot a movie of the week in Toronto.

Once again, I agree with you, it isn't exactly cheap to manufacture
in the US, but it isn't nearly as expensive as it was 5 years ago.

Rob R.

JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
> I'm talking about actual manufacture and last time I checked, labour in the
> US costs more than it does elsewhere - we're talking about mics here, and
> the cost of mic related metalwork, assembly etc. is definitely lower abroad.

> "Rob Reedijk" <reedijk@hera.med.utoronto.ca> a écrit dans le message de
> newsct5fu$vgf$1@news1.chem.utoronto.ca...
>> JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
>> > No, it means that keeping manufacture in the US is the only way for US
>> > companies to make sure that the quality of the product remains constant
> and
>> > to a satisfying level.
>>
>> > Production in the US is ALWAYS more expensive.
>>
>> Not exactly. The US dollar is at the lowest point in decades. While not
>> exactly a "Third World Country" it's way cheaper to build stuff in the US
>> compared to 5 years ago. For us Canadians, the difference means that
> buying
>> stuff from the US is now cheap. The downside is selling to the US means
>> a low profit. Canadian companies that export to our largest trading
>> partner are getting killed. But then those that import are doing way
>> better.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Gggggh...

Within the context of this thread on BLUE moving part of their production
line from Latvia to the US!

JP


"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@cfl.Arr.com> a écrit dans le message de
newsWQIe.36335$iG6.21919@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> JP Gerard wrote:
> > No, it means that keeping manufacture in the US is the only way for US
> > companies to make sure that the quality of the product remains constant
and
> > to a satisfying level.
> >
> > Production in the US is ALWAYS more expensive.
> >
>
> Not in all cases.
>
> > JP
> <snip>
> --
> Les Cargill

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> I lived in Scotland for a while and discovered the only thing more
>> offensive
>> to a Scotsman than calling Whisky "Scotch" is calling a Scotsman
>> "Scotch".
>> They dinnae like it.
>
> What about "scotch tape"... :-)
>

There are 2 types - Scotch Audio tape which I hear is quite good for
recording bagpipes, and Scotch Clear tape which used to be used to splice
the Scotch Audio tape to create an endless bagpipe loop to scare off the
English.


Gareth.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11fb6dgtfdaka11@corp.supernews.com...
> "Predrag Trpkov" wrote ...
> > "Pooh Bear" wrote ...
> >> I just had a conversation about this topic this afternoon with a
> >> supplier
> > and he
> >> mentioned that Brazil is becoming an attractive manufacturing
> >> proposition
> > now.
> >>
> >> Graham.
> >
> >
> > Goodbye rainforests.
>
> Already thousands (millions?) of hectares cut down for one or
> two seasons of questionable "agriculture". Unclear why they
> would have go into the rainforest to find space for factories?
>

Space for factories is the least of the problems. There are many ways for
the environment to get the raw end of the bargain when a rapid
industrialization takes place in a previously undeveloped country. I've seen
it happen and I've seen the consequences.

Predrag