Roland sues Behringer - Page 3

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

"Predrag Trpkov" <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote in message news11iam$nm3$1@ls219.htnet.hr...
>
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:vP5Yd.87596$wc.84547@trnddc07...
> >
> > "Geoff Wood" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:4230dea2@clear.net.nz...
> > >
> > > "George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > have you got production units in your hand that your comparing?
> > > > or just jumping on the bandwagon without a clue?
> > > > BTW mackie was handed their ass on a platter and told to get out and
> not
> > > > bring false , baseless claims to the court again
> > >
> > > So why did B agree to remove the MX3282 or whateveritwas from sale in
> the
> > > USA then ?
> > >
> > > geoff
> >
> >
> > The MX-8000 was the first copy of the Mackie 24 & 32x8-buss, and was being
> sold
> > by retailers AS SUCH!! A cheaper price point on a mixer with identical
> features;
> > retailers were simply saying... "Say, have you seen this cheaper COPY of
> the
> > Mackie?" After that, all hell broke loose.
>
>
> The prototype (?) of the MX8000 that they first showed at Musikmesse
> Frankfurt was practically a copy of the Mackie 24/8. They changed it a bit
> for the production run. Most notably, they swapped the positions of eq and
> aux sections.
>
> It looks like a tried and tested 3-step MO.
>
> 1. Show a new product or a product line, virtually identical to other
> company's well-established product line. Announce the pricing, invariably
> the fraction of the cost of originals.
>
> 2. Wait for reactions. Uproar, controversy, condemnation - it's all free
> publicity. Lawsuits? Even better. Let it stew for several months. In case of
> a lawsuit, study it carefully and change the design just a little bit,
> enough to render the lawsuit baseless.
>
> 3. Flood the market.
>
> I'll keep my Intelligate, but I'm not buying any more B products. It's an
> environmental issue to me.
>
> Predrag


Hank has a couple of pieces he likes (as do lots of others I'm sure, but
we can't be certain they've actually got the experience to compare the
product with something else or if that's all they know), and I find the
Ultra-Curve Pro analyzer & EQ to be fairly useful. With their earlier
dynamics devices, especially compressors, I could hear the obvious
degradation of signal that occured by simply putting them in the path.

DM

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

You're right, Mike. Paul lost. So what? His guitars are by far better
than even the custom Gibs, so Gibson didn't do anything to his business.
You need to play Gantt's PRS. Absolutely perfect.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1110714725k@trad...
>
> In article <mo6dnfnX4bzcM67fRVn-ow@comcast.com> tyreeford@comcast.net
writes:
>
> > I also read PRS lost. Don't know if they appealed, or could.
>
> Now that I remember it, I think I also read that they lost. I was
> saving the press release for a while to show to a local guy who is
> very attached to his PRS guitar. I'll look for it.
>
> Nope, no longer have it. I guess it's history. Was that about that the
> guitar that made PRS famous was a double cutaway, and Gibson sued when
> they made a single cutaway model? Not being an electric guitarist, I
> don't really see where there would be a technical advantage to a
> single cutaway over a double other than perhaps a few ounces more mass
> in the body, probably far enough away from the bridge and pickup so
> that it didn't make a characteristic change in the sound - so the only
> good reason for that body design would be cosmetic. That might be
> something that a lawyer could (and apparently did) make a case of.
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

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

play on wrote:

>
> Gibson has an extremely predatory legal style when it comes to
> "defending" it's trademarks. They also have a lot more lawyers than
> Paul Reed Smith I bet.
>
> Al



Perhaps Gibson, like Monster cable, doesn't forsee earning anything by
selling product this decade, and so approaches these periodic lawsuits
as providing income, not righting a wrong. Not seriously, but isn't it
interesting that Gibson didn't consider how this further drives down
how little we care about Gibson? Is the count here something like 200
to zero? If anyone didn't think they were someone we didn't want to do
business with before....

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

David Morgan wrote:

> "Predrag Trpkov" wrote...
<snip>

> > I'll keep my Intelligate, but I'm not buying any more B products. It's an
> > environmental issue to me.

> Hank has a couple of pieces he likes (as do lots of others I'm sure, but
> we can't be certain they've actually got the experience to compare the
> product with something else or if that's all they know), and I find the
> Ultra-Curve Pro analyzer & EQ to be fairly useful. With their earlier
> dynamics devices, especially compressors, I could hear the obvious
> degradation of signal that occured by simply putting them in the path.

The Intelligate is one of the boxes that put me off Beri in the first
place. One sits in my neighbor's cabinet shop gathering dust. He's a
very fine drummer, and after trying for two years to get it happening he
consigned it to its present position in his kit. <g>

--
ha

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gtgf1e.1kanbvh1yom43jN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> David Morgan wrote:
>
> > "Predrag Trpkov" wrote...
> <snip>
>
> > > I'll keep my Intelligate, but I'm not buying any more B products. It's
an
> > > environmental issue to me.
>
> > Hank has a couple of pieces he likes (as do lots of others I'm sure, but
> > we can't be certain they've actually got the experience to compare the
> > product with something else or if that's all they know), and I find the
> > Ultra-Curve Pro analyzer & EQ to be fairly useful. With their earlier
> > dynamics devices, especially compressors, I could hear the obvious
> > degradation of signal that occured by simply putting them in the path.
>
> The Intelligate is one of the boxes that put me off Beri in the first
> place. One sits in my neighbor's cabinet shop gathering dust. He's a
> very fine drummer, and after trying for two years to get it happening he
> consigned it to its present position in his kit. <g>
>
> --
> ha


Hey, on second thought mine's been doing the same thing for a long time
now..... hmmmm........... yeah, thanks.

I have a vision........... of a Behringer-free outboard rack.

Predrag

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

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote...
> > David Morgan wrote:

> > > "Predrag Trpkov" wrote...
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > I'll keep my Intelligate, but I'm not buying any more B products. It's
> > > > an environmental issue to me.

> > > Hank has a couple of pieces he likes (as do lots of others I'm sure, but
> > > we can't be certain they've actually got the experience to compare the
> > > product with something else or if that's all they know), and I find the
> > > Ultra-Curve Pro analyzer & EQ to be fairly useful. With their earlier
> > > dynamics devices, especially compressors, I could hear the obvious
> > > degradation of signal that occured by simply putting them in the path.

> > The Intelligate is one of the boxes that put me off Beri in the first
> > place. One sits in my neighbor's cabinet shop gathering dust. He's a
> > very fine drummer, and after trying for two years to get it happening he
> > consigned it to its present position in his kit. <g>

> Hey, on second thought mine's been doing the same thing for a long time
> now..... hmmmm........... yeah, thanks.

> I have a vision........... of a Behringer-free outboard rack.

Meanwhile, back at secret mountain, I'm about to put a DEQ2496 into my
personal gig rack, which is shrinking wonderfully since I started
experimenting with the MIO as my smalltime live mixer.

--
ha

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

maybe so. I just think it's in very bad taste. If I were to build a new
console {yeah, right :-}} I would make it very clear that it was mine.
It's just a shity thing to do in my opinion. Just because the courts
would do nothing about it dose not mean bear-ringer is doing the right
thing. My 2 cents.

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

>
>
>>that would be based on your idea of value John
>>the 502 and 802 mixers are cheap and great value allowing one to put a
>>functional mixer"in harms way" and not lose 500 to 1000$ when a client
>>leave it out in the rain or a loose horse knocks it to the ground and
>>stomps on it
>
>
> I have to ask, do you have problems with horses in your studio


no studio

or at your
> live console?

yes I do much work with the equine community, carriage driving, horse
shows, IHSA, I have to bury all my wiring as a horse will see it as a
snake and freek out
these are step up and leave type shows, the gear is often left poorly
tarped, in the rain sun, dust, mud community R series speakers are
perfect for this abuse as well

If these are truly a concern, then I can understand your
> penchant for Behringer gear. I also think that your "throw away" approach
> to gear is wasteful, but you and I have distinctly differing philosophies.

when something is trashed you throw it away
a 1202 will trash as easy if not easier than a 502, I'd rather throw
away 60$ than 450$

>
> As an anecdotal counterpoint, I have both a Micro 1202 and a CR1604 which
> have both been through hell and back.

its clear we experience different levels of "hell"

They've both been soaked, dropped
> and the 1604 has suffered some fairly severe chassis damage to the mic
> inputs. I'd love to replace both of them for something else (Allen and
> Heath 16:2 Mix Wizard or an Onyx 1640 come to mind) but neither necessity
> or finances have required or allowed their replacement. I will certainly
> say that I have gotten my money's worth out of them (both were bought used).

my 1402's could not even remain functional in sunlight, they overheated
and ruined Tapeing and live sound at the Dodge poetry festival, as well
as trashing the feed I was sending NPR

>
> I'll be sure to take them by the local stables to put them up to the
> Gleason test.

snide childish comment , but thanks anyway
>
>
>
>>they are simple enough to give to announcers and DJ's
>>would I pull out a 802 to mix a cd for sale
>>no
>>would I carry one to use as a notepad, hotel room mixer to put ideas
>>into a recorder
>>absoulutly
>>would I put one out for a presidential speech, doubt it
>>would I put one out to mix a mic and audio from a video presentation in
>>a high school aud
>>can't imagine using anything else
>
>
> I can't think of a single DJ that wouldn't be insulted if I put any non-DJ
> mixer in front of them.

the mixer does not go in front of a dj, it is a interface between the dj
mixer and my sound system giving me control over the signal sent to my amps
>
>
>
>>value is matching the tool to the job so you can do the job with the
>>least stress and walk away in the black
>>
>>and every once in a while you find something from a "utilitarian "
>>maker(which is what I consider behringer& mackie) whos quality and
>>feature set so far outpaced its modest cost it becomes serious
>>competition for "industry standard" items
>>this is happening with DEQ and DCX VS BSS/KT/XTA system processors right now
>>
>>Value is utility/expense IMO
>>and at this point many behringer items are excellent value
>>George
>
>
> Getting the job done right and walking away in the black aren't always
> synonymous,

if your not going away with positive cash flow you have not done the job
right, perhaps you bid to low, or your cost of services was too high
I do this to make money

but I will agree that Behringer boards are utilitarian. Hell,
> I'd even consider early Mackies (up to the VLZ line) to be in the same
> boat. However, the point where utility is overridden by quality in the
> Behringer world manifests itself about a week after they are purchased.
>
> - dsb
>
> PS - I fully expect you to plonk me, just as you did to Ivan for stating
> an opinion that differs from yours.
>
>
not yet , you have only been marginally insulting and have not thrown
out complete lies , boasts and bullshit
when you do
then you will be banned from my news experience
not that you or I care one plug nickel

George

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

"ivis" <ivan40@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1111071444.149588.16290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> My goodness. You work all day, come home and think. Maybe I'll go look
> at the old use net group and see if the old guys are still around and-
> Wham!
>
> Oh well... I find this more offensive than profanity.
>

I can certainly understand that. It seems that there aren't too many people
around here that are willing to carry on a decent conversation that's
related to Pro sound. Apparantly the old guys that you refer to are
probably no longer here. I wonder if they were chased off by the group of
"I know everything and hate you if you don't agree" crowd.

It's a shame though, that people who are looking for honest answers and
opinions may come here and be "eaten alive" by the group that currently
"runs" this place (figuratively speaking). (Ironically, when I first typed
that last sentence, I made a typ-o and put "ruins" instead of "runs".
Perhaps that would have been more appropriate.) At least there are plenty
of good Pro sound forums out there that are moderated so that people that
refuse to respect others are banned.

I've only been here a few days and it seems that every post I make is met
with a profane and/or "you must submit" mentality. Heck, the other day they
even accused me of being the reincarnated version of someone else that used
to post on here. Apparantly they think that if more than one poster
disagrees with them that it must be the same person using different log ins.
It must be very hard to comprehend that there are a LOT of people that
disagree with their opinions.

Not everyone here has been like that. George and I strongly disagree but at
least he has not resorted to profanity and childish name-calling as others
have. From what I've seen, it seems that there are a few people on here
that have their own opinions but they won't post more than once or twice
because they are getting "eaten alive" by the small crowd that wants to
dominate this newsgroup. (another thought...this is a NEWSgroup but people
here won't believe you when you post articles from NEWS websites.)

Maybe when some of these people see that I'm not leaving, they will begin to
act a little more politely...but I doubt it.

Jeff

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

Hi,Hank, ;
Oh, It's Ivan, They don't show my whole name for some reason. I Guess
to hide our full E-mail? Nice.

Again, I'm sorry I went off into profanity. I should be careful about
how I take all this stuff. We all have our view of the world.

I know you folks are not here for my amusement but, When I was
shifting gears from full time music to splitting my living up with
making records, Folks like Mike Rivers, Mr. Doresy, Hank, Don, ALL you
guys really helped me just from reading. I rarely asked questions
because there is such a huge well of knowledge here. This includes guys
like Arny and George.

This place can be a challenge. At one point, someone used my name and
E-mail!! to POST!! Jeezeee. So, I have to remind myself what use net
can be like. I really do love this place. I'll try to make my
contribution more relevant and helpful.

Peace and Love........

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

david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:
> Roger W. Norman wrote:
>> Because the Broadcaster wasn't in production when the Les Paul came out.
>> And the Broadcaster only went through one year of production before it
>> became the Telecaster. Gibson brought out the production Les Paul in 1952
>> and there was a limited release of the 1951 Les Paul. If it comes down to
>> firsts, then Les Paul wins the battle. Leo was smart in not trying to copy
>> but becoming a force on his own.
>>
>> If one wants to get down to suits, then why was Apple able to sue HP for
>> it's "Look and Feel" when Apple stole Xerox's idea of a graphical user
>> interface in the first place? The Xerox Star was monumental. And Apple
>> LOST.
>>
> I thinbk the broadcaster started in 1950....
> This is from the Web, so it must be true

> "After several months of delay, Leo designed a truss rod. By November,
> the dual-pickup guitar went into full production as the Broadcaster
> model, first appearing on a December 1950 price sheet. The factory
> produced the model through the third week of February 1951 when Randall
> dropped the name because of a request from Gretsch (which produced
> Broadkaster drums and banjos). In a few days the Broadcaster became the
> Telecaster(R). (The single-pickup Esquire went into full production with
> a truss rod in January 1951.)"

And then Leo came out with another Broadcaster in the 80s when he formed
G&L. And he had to stop making those too!

Rob R.
(Big G&L and Musicman fan)

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

Oh yeah, thanks. It has nothing to do with people. Not me, not you,
insults just apear on the screen. use net isn't about people,it's
about computers talking.

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

"Rob Reedijk" <reedijk@hera.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news1d188$qmh$1@news1.chem.utoronto.ca...
> david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Rob Reedijk wrote:
> >>
> >> And then Leo came out with another Broadcaster in the 80s when he
formed
> >> G&L. And he had to stop making those too!
> >>
> >> Rob R.
> >> (Big G&L and Musicman fan)
>
> > And great guitars they are too. I love G&L (2 x F100 and a Broadcaster)
>
> Really?!!! I also have two F100s!
> Don't have a Broadcaster.
> But I have a Musicman Stingray GUITAR (I also have the more popular bass
> version). The Stingray Guitar is my favourite axe.

I've got an ASAT Classic. Love the sound, love the feel, but after two years
I STILL haven't gotten the intonation to work right, and I don't know why.
Never had that problem with an electric before.

Peace,
Paul

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

Rob Reedijk wrote:
> david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>Rob Reedijk wrote:
>>
>>>And then Leo came out with another Broadcaster in the 80s when he formed
>>>G&L. And he had to stop making those too!
>>>
>>>Rob R.
>>>(Big G&L and Musicman fan)
>
>
>>And great guitars they are too. I love G&L (2 x F100 and a Broadcaster)
>
>
> Really?!!! I also have two F100s!
> Don't have a Broadcaster.
> But I have a Musicman Stingray GUITAR (I also have the more popular bass
> version). The Stingray Guitar is my favourite axe.
>
> Rob R.
Hi Rob
I had a sabre. Great guitar too, but can't keep everything and the
broadcaster took it's place.
I just wonder how much longer they will remain cheap (the G&L's) In my
view, they are undervalued.

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2ksk31pncgr92rtlki0tj57lpbnksbnita@4ax.com...
> On 17 Mar 2005 12:57:36 -0800, "ivis" <ivan40@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Oh yeah, thanks. It has nothing to do with people. Not me, not you,
> >insults just apear on the screen. use net isn't about people,it's
> >about computers talking.
>
> It has to do with the way people behave on the internet, which is
> completely different than if they met you in person, at a bar or
> whatever.
>
> Al


Speak for yourself. <g> I probably spell better in person.

DM

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

"play on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i5fm31dot4f176h9tumkrpi5b8scpnpbdt@4ax.com...
> I try to be civil on the net, but it's not always easy... I try to
> wait 30 seconds and take a few deep breaths before I hit the send
> button on a flaming post or email. Most of the time nowadays I trash
> it instead...
>
> Al

I wish more people around here would take that sort of approach. It might
make this place a lot more friendly.

Jeff

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

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:35:31 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>look at all the 31 band eq's that are visual similar, amps, mics
>that is why there are patents
>if a patent is violated then there is a actionable offense
>if not there is NO offense

Is this what you would LIKE the law to be?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

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

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:14:51 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>afaik production units are not even shipping yet so this all might be a
>tempest in a tea pot over artists renderings
>or prototype mock-ups
>go to behringers web site
>and they are just illustrations no photos
>George

Why do you have such a strong agenda on this subject, George?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:22:38 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

> In fact, having now sat on a few
>juries, the thought of being tried by a jury of my "peers" is very
>scarey.

Agreed. It's the best system we've got, I suppose. But keep well
away from it if at all possible.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:14:39 -0600, "John_LeBlanc"
<john__leblanc@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Really? Expensive = Good?
>> Discuss, with reference to e.g. Bose.
>
>In my world, "expensive" rarely exists outside of some definition of "value".
>For someone who believes in Audacity, my copy of Samplitude at $1,200.00 might
>seem expensive. But to me and anyone else who happily uses it daily, it might be
>considered it a great value. A $4,500, well regarded microphone that always sits
>in my mic locker is expensive to me. But to some guy who uses is four times a
>day, every day, it's a bargain.
>
>If everyone were to provide their collective experience, I'd be willing to bet
>the overwhelming majority would point to the idea that Expensive (high price)
>more often than not equals Quality (value). Not always, not guaranteed, but more
>often than not it does. In those cases it doesn't, the Internet provides a quick
>way to pass that experience around.

But people still buy the Bose Wave radio. Despite it being a
decidedly iffy design concept, and despite there being a cheaper
equivalent available.

Who will admit that their expensive mistake WAS a mistake?


CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

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

Just thought i would pipe in here, but who Hasn't sued them? I had a
friend that used to work for Rocktron, about 8 years ago and they got a
fax from behringer saying " haha we ripped of your "hush processor" "
This is an honest to god true story.

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

On 8/10/05 4:52 PM, in article pupkf1l016o08gns9t588e0k8ab6hp0bke@4ax.com,
"Mr Tuvok" <tuvok@vulcan.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:56:28 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
> <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>> "George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> have you got production units in your hand that your comparing?
>>> or just jumping on the bandwagon without a clue?
>>> BTW mackie was handed their ass on a platter and told to get out and not
>>> bring false , baseless claims to the court again
>>
>> So why did B agree to remove the MX3282 or whateveritwas from sale in the
>> USA then ?

Don't go there, you'll start asking why, in that same court case "having
mackies ass..." somehow means

Behinger, amongst other fascinatingly sudden self-abusive
'business-choices', being immediately dead cold cut off from (and prohibited
from having dealings with) Sam Ash (their sales distribution and SERVICE
vehicle and accused partner in the Mackie case) and having to start from
scratch building their own in the USA over the next 2 years.

Yeah, THAT was voluntary...

And here we go with this mess again as the B-folks jump up and down in
denial,
Let's watch...