[hank alrich]

fEeyore wrote:

hank alrich wrote:

Of seven DEQ2496's three failed within warranty

And you're *praising* Behringer ????

Obviously, they had a bad run of something. All the failed units came in
close succession. Since repair they have run realiably, and in the case
of the dance studio units, that means at east 12 hours/day 361
days/year.

The DEQ2496 offers me outstanding performance for the price, to the
point that I have been willing to cut them slack to see if the repaired
and/or replacement units will give good service over a reasonable life
span. So far it looks like they might. The ones in my little live rack
do not get coddled.

And in fact, if you could read for content, you would have understood
that I have praised Behringer's CUSTOMER SUPPORT. (Read that slowly and
give yourself a chance. I could type it with spaces between the letters
if that would help.)

I am not praising your comprehension. I think you may have an edge
connector loose.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Eeyore]

"Don P." wrote:

Eeyore scribbled:

"Don P." wrote:

My experience with Behr gear is that the newer stuff is much higher
quality than the older stuff, although none of mine has ever let me
down (as far as failures). I have a noisy, lousy-algorithm (for the
reverbs, anyway) DSP2024 that I keep for the pitch shifter patches
and vocoder, but the REV2496 is a night-and-day difference. Plates
that almost sound like real plates, smooth decays into velvety
silence, amazing graphic display for easy editing, etc, etc, etc.

I haven't heard that one. Sounds good.

I'll have to copy it and save on R&D !


I have one of the original ones (REV2496) that didn't pass the FCC testing
before they were forced to take it off the US market. I saw a press release
earlier this week that they are now all settled up on that.

It's not difficult.

How they (mis)handled that FCC business smacks of plain arrogance on Behringer's
part. It's not as if the FFC rules are anything new. There have been FCC regs
for RF emissions from 'computing devices' since the mid 80s. It's perfectly
clear that they always applied to digital audio too. I was looking into the
implications for Neve with their digital consoles back in 1987.

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:

How they (mis)handled that FCC business smacks of plain arrogance on Behringer's
part. It's not as if the FFC rules are anything new. There have been FCC regs
for RF emissions from 'computing devices' since the mid 80s. It's perfectly
clear that they always applied to digital audio too. I was looking into the
implications for Neve with their digital consoles back in 1987.

The problem is that ALL consumer electronics manufacturers handle this stuff
in the exact same way.

We got a computer at work that did not have an FCC Part 15 certification.
I called the vendor and they offered to send me a sticker I could put
on the back. Sheesh.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eeyore]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

How they (mis)handled that FCC business smacks of plain arrogance on Behringer's
part. It's not as if the FFC rules are anything new. There have been FCC regs
for RF emissions from 'computing devices' since the mid 80s. It's perfectly
clear that they always applied to digital audio too. I was looking into the
implications for Neve with their digital consoles back in 1987.

The problem is that ALL consumer electronics manufacturers handle this stuff
in the exact same way.

They do ?


We got a computer at work that did not have an FCC Part 15 certification.
I called the vendor and they offered to send me a sticker I could put
on the back. Sheesh.

Was that a major vendor ?

Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

How they (mis)handled that FCC business smacks of plain arrogance on Behringer's
part. It's not as if the FFC rules are anything new. There have been FCC regs
for RF emissions from 'computing devices' since the mid 80s. It's perfectly
clear that they always applied to digital audio too. I was looking into the
implications for Neve with their digital consoles back in 1987.

The problem is that ALL consumer electronics manufacturers handle this stuff
in the exact same way.

They do ?

Yes. Take a transistor radio into Wal-Mart, tuned to an AM station. You'll
find more than half the stuff sold in the electronics department is unable
to pass Part 15 certification. It's not just dimmers and touch lamps
either. There are even TV sets with lots of RF trash coming out. Nobody
cares. The FCC has no money to do any enforcement any more.

We got a computer at work that did not have an FCC Part 15 certification.
I called the vendor and they offered to send me a sticker I could put
on the back. Sheesh.

Was that a major vendor ?

Not really, but they were large enough to know better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mikael Willberg]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
"Don P." wrote:

I have one of the original ones (REV2496) that didn't pass the FCC testing
before they were forced to take it off the US market. I saw a press release
earlier this week that they are now all settled up on that.

There is a difference with "did not pass" and "was not tested" and in
this case they were not tested. FCC Compliance test demonstration was
done at 2005.03.13 (3/13/2005) for REV2496.

How they (mis)handled that FCC business smacks of plain arrogance on Behringer's
part. It's not as if the FFC rules are anything new. There have been FCC regs
for RF emissions from 'computing devices' since the mid 80s. It's perfectly
clear that they always applied to digital audio too. I was looking into the
implications for Neve with their digital consoles back in 1987.

At least they did not label their gear with fake certification
labels. I suspect that a REAL cheap clone manufacturer would have
faked them and added every possible label to the cover.


Was this already mentioned :

----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.behringer.com/01_news/pr_...g=eng&prid=299

Press Release
BEHRINGER Resolved FCC Compliance Issues Before Recent Ruling.
June 15, 2007
BOTHELL, WA
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Mig


(Try #2 - #1 disappeared)

--
**** Mikael Willberg ***** "Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that" **
* * and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. *
* Tampere * (Douglas Adams) *
******** Finland ************************************************** **********

[Peter Becker]

On Jun 8, 11:15 am, "Bill Ruys"
wrote:
In the "readers letters" section of the current Audio Technology magazine
(issue 54) out of Australia, UliBehringerpersonally responds to the
copying/patent infringement claims made by so many on this forum. His
letter was in response to a similar claim made by one of the magazine's
readers. It makes for very interesting reading.

As this is a letter from UliBehringerresponding to a reader's accusations,
it may not be subject to copyright. If not, maybe I could post the letter
somewhere for everyone to read.

Anyone interested?


That's what I found on Audio Technoilogy Magazine Australia. Pretty
interesting and also watch the video.

http://www.audiotechnology.com.au/behringer.html

Peter


YOUR WORD
Readers' letters

BEHRINGER SOUL
Gotta Have Soul? (Issue 52) - Firstly, I have to say, love the
magazine a lot. We subscribe at work (Darwin Entertainment Centre)
where I'm the FOH engineer. Just wanted to write in and make a quick
point about your Behringer article.

I agree: with you for the most part, bur I couldn't help but think of
the old blue 16-channel Behringer I have at home. I do live dubs here
in Darwin and I've been using the old Eurorack mixer I bought when
they first came out. It cost a lot more than they do these days and I
admit that this is a vital part of the argument. But, a Mackie of the
same vintage and some current Spirit mixers we have here at the centre
don't have the sound I need for what we do. I firmly believe this
cheap little mixer has 'soul'. In fact, I've grown to really love this
thing to the point where I've gone to the trouble of servicing it
regularly and doing a few little mods. If I lost it, I'd be mortified
- if it means this much to me, then it must have character and soul.

Send onto Uli this information if you get time, maybe: he might revert
some of their current design ideas to days gone by (or stop cutting
the corners integral to the blue Eurorack sound)...

Justin Moon

--

Gotta Have Soul? (Issue 52) - Watched your video diary. Enjoyed
it. Had a question, though. You mentioned how Behringer had some
quality issues in the beginning. What you didn't mention, is
Behringer's rotten reputation for stealing proprietary information and
manufacturing clones of other's R&D. It has lost large lawsuits with
both Mackie and Aphex for outright stealing and copying. Many in the
pro audio community won't have anything to do with them for these
reasons. This is not private information but has been published many
times over the years.

I've heard that Mr. Behringer has just told the litigants to sue and
has made money despite losing these lawsuits. He just makes more than
he loses. I cannot support that kind of organisation with that
attitude.

David Dansky
Performance Sound Designer & Mixer.
Hollywood, CA



At the risk of seeming long-winded, explaining Behringer's side of
things requires me to go into some detail

1.) Legal Cases: The Aphex case is around 20 years old, so it's quite
understandable that the facts have become mixed with fiction. Back
then I had a little garage company and believed Aphex's patent was
invalid due to prior art and advise from a lawyer. At that time there
were several companies who produced those exciters, such Akai, SPL,
D&R, etc. Hence I did not stop production and rather filed for
invalidation, which triggered a court case that tasted several years.
Later, I also filed for my own patent application for circuitry that
made the harmonics processor level-independent (patent DE3904425), an
invention that was sponsored by the reputable Fraunhofer Institute,
which invented MP3. To cut a long story short, the court decided that
Aphex's patent was valid and unfortunately my own patent would also
infringe. I simply lost the case and paid for damages. Concurrent with
our case were allegations that the Aphex patent 'inventor' Kurt
Knoppel had stolen the patent from someone whom he worked for as a
treasurer. But I even heard that Aphex themselves were sued by Harvey
Rubens who claimed his VCA patent was infringed. Just Google 'Aphex
Harvey Rubens' for more details. Concerning Mackie, all I can tell you
is that it was a dispute over trade dress and IP. Behringer definitely
did not lose any case against Mackie, as can be confirmed from the
public record. However, our settlement agreement does not allow any
party to disclose details. After Aphex we never lost an IP case again,
a far cry from David's allegations.

2.) How Behringer designs products: Our R&D department, which I head,
is one of the largest in the MI/Pro Audio industry. With over 200
engineers operating in Germany, USA, Philippines and China, Behringer
R&D includes some of the finest DSP, analogue and digital system,
speaker, instrument amplification, mechanical, PCB, process and
quality engineers anywhere - truly a dedicated and sophisticated team
that I am really proud of. Our technology portfolio contains around 20
patents with many more applied for. We constantly release
revolutionary products such as the digital EQ DEQ2496, the modeling
amp V-AMP or the digital mixer DDX32l6, which took over five years to
develop. We spend more money on R&D than in any other Behringer
department... because R&D is truly the heart and soul of our
engineering-driven company. How else would we be able to release up to
200 new products per year? When you look at our product range, you
will find many product categories, such as mixers, processors,
speakers, etc. that are common with our competitors. While our look
might be similar to other's products, what's 'under the hood' is quite
different. For example, to design mixers is not rocket science since
analogue designs are relatively generic. But what makes the difference
in a Behringer mixer is the choice of components and the fact that we
make so many of these components ourselves; from prosaic parts like
switches to our outstanding V888 transistor used in our mic pre's.
Lower costs are merely a side benefit of vertical integration and high-
volume production. Because we produce millions of products a year,
quality must be Behringer's main focus. Designing and building
everything we can ourselves - right down to the pulp in our speaker
cones - is the best way to ensure quality and cost control. Do we look
at successful products in the market and then follow? Yes, of course,
as do our competitors. But it makes no commercial sense to release a
product with identical performance, features and price. Powered by
over 200 R&D engineers, the Behringer approach is to offer better
audio performance, feature set, plus design each product to be
produced at lower cost.

3.) Intellectual Property. It's important to understand that IP
(Intellectual Property) legal cases are very common in any industry.
Just look at recent cases with Gibson versus PRS, Microsoft,
Blackberry, etc. These guerilla tactics are especially common in the
US where legal fees are sky high and each party has to pay its own
legal fees regardless of the outcome of the case. Plus, IP is a grey
area, as it deals with patents, trade dress, copyrights, designs etc.
where not much is black and white. This, along with the fact that IP
litigation is often used as a tool to push a competitor out of
business, are reasons why there are so many cases in this area of law.
There is a common misunderstanding about copying and reverse
engineering. While 1:1 copies are clearly illegal, reverse engineering
is an ethical and legitimate way to design, one that is used by major
corporations every day. Remember that technology is generally public
domain (unless protected by patents or copyrights). This is the basis
for any industry to evolve, and you'll surely find the latest BMW on
Mercedes' workbench and vice versa. We definitely look at our
competitors' models - just as they learn from us. In fact, when you
walk around tradeshows, Behringer is among the most imitated
manufacturers. Where legal, we have no prob1em with this. Neither
should our competitors. The following article gives you some valuable
background information:

http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam...%20reveng3.pdf

4.) Why are our products so affordable? We have tools that allow us to
efficiently design massive libraries of everything from analogue and
digital circuitry designs to DSP algorithms. This provides us with
economies of scale in our product designs, and reduces time-to-marker
tremendously as well as cost. We strive to use the same components in
as many designs as possible, cutting inventory, carrying costs and
providing more buying power. It has always Behringer's philosophy to
pass on those benefits to our customers and offer high-quality
products for musicians that don't have deep pockets. This has
undoubtedly made enemies among competitors who do not have the same
commitment to vertical integration, economy of scale or dedication to
their customers.

Uli Behringer
Chairman, Behringer

[Peter Becker]

That's what I found on Audio Technoilogy Magazine Australia. Pretty
interesting and also watch the video.

http://www.audiotechnology.com.au/behringer.html

Peter


YOUR WORD
Readers' letters

BEHRINGER SOUL
Gotta Have Soul? (Issue 52) - Firstly, I have to say, love the
magazine a lot. We subscribe at work (Darwin Entertainment Centre)
where I'm the FOH engineer. Just wanted to write in and make a quick
point about your Behringer article.

I agree: with you for the most part, bur I couldn't help but think of
the old blue 16-channel Behringer I have at home. I do live dubs here
in Darwin and I've been using the old Eurorack mixer I bought when
they first came out. It cost a lot more than they do these days and I
admit that this is a vital part of the argument. But, a Mackie of the
same vintage and some current Spirit mixers we have here at the centre
don't have the sound I need for what we do. I firmly believe this
cheap little mixer has 'soul'. In fact, I've grown to really love this
thing to the point where I've gone to the trouble of servicing it
regularly and doing a few little mods. If I lost it, I'd be mortified
- if it means this much to me, then it must have character and soul.

Send onto Uli this information if you get time, maybe: he might revert
some of their current design ideas to days gone by (or stop cutting
the corners integral to the blue Eurorack sound)...

Justin Moon

--

Gotta Have Soul? (Issue 52) - Watched your video diary. Enjoyed
it. Had a question, though. You mentioned how Behringer had some
quality issues in the beginning. What you didn't mention, is
Behringer's rotten reputation for stealing proprietary information and
manufacturing clones of other's R&D. It has lost large lawsuits with
both Mackie and Aphex for outright stealing and copying. Many in the
pro audio community won't have anything to do with them for these
reasons. This is not private information but has been published many
times over the years.

I've heard that Mr. Behringer has just told the litigants to sue and
has made money despite losing these lawsuits. He just makes more than
he loses. I cannot support that kind of organisation with that
attitude.

David Dansky
Performance Sound Designer & Mixer.
Hollywood, CA



At the risk of seeming long-winded, explaining Behringer's side of
things requires me to go into some detail

1.) Legal Cases: The Aphex case is around 20 years old, so it's quite
understandable that the facts have become mixed with fiction. Back
then I had a little garage company and believed Aphex's patent was
invalid due to prior art and advise from a lawyer. At that time there
were several companies who produced those exciters, such Akai, SPL,
D&R, etc. Hence I did not stop production and rather filed for
invalidation, which triggered a court case that tasted several years.
Later, I also filed for my own patent application for circuitry that
made the harmonics processor level-independent (patent DE3904425), an
invention that was sponsored by the reputable Fraunhofer Institute,
which invented MP3. To cut a long story short, the court decided that
Aphex's patent was valid and unfortunately my own patent would also
infringe. I simply lost the case and paid for damages. Concurrent with
our case were allegations that the Aphex patent 'inventor' Kurt
Knoppel had stolen the patent from someone whom he worked for as a
treasurer. But I even heard that Aphex themselves were sued by Harvey
Rubens who claimed his VCA patent was infringed. Just Google 'Aphex
Harvey Rubens' for more details. Concerning Mackie, all I can tell you
is that it was a dispute over trade dress and IP. Behringer definitely
did not lose any case against Mackie, as can be confirmed from the
public record. However, our settlement agreement does not allow any
party to disclose details. After Aphex we never lost an IP case again,
a far cry from David's allegations.

2.) How Behringer designs products: Our R&D department, which I head,
is one of the largest in the MI/Pro Audio industry. With over 200
engineers operating in Germany, USA, Philippines and China, Behringer
R&D includes some of the finest DSP, analogue and digital system,
speaker, instrument amplification, mechanical, PCB, process and
quality engineers anywhere - truly a dedicated and sophisticated team
that I am really proud of. Our technology portfolio contains around 20
patents with many more applied for. We constantly release
revolutionary products such as the digital EQ DEQ2496, the modeling
amp V-AMP or the digital mixer DDX32l6, which took over five years to
develop. We spend more money on R&D than in any other Behringer
department... because R&D is truly the heart and soul of our
engineering-driven company. How else would we be able to release up to
200 new products per year? When you look at our product range, you
will find many product categories, such as mixers, processors,
speakers, etc. that are common with our competitors. While our look
might be similar to other's products, what's 'under the hood' is quite
different. For example, to design mixers is not rocket science since
analogue designs are relatively generic. But what makes the difference
in a Behringer mixer is the choice of components and the fact that we
make so many of these components ourselves; from prosaic parts like
switches to our outstanding V888 transistor used in our mic pre's.
Lower costs are merely a side benefit of vertical integration and high-
volume production. Because we produce millions of products a year,
quality must be Behringer's main focus. Designing and building
everything we can ourselves - right down to the pulp in our speaker
cones - is the best way to ensure quality and cost control. Do we look
at successful products in the market and then follow? Yes, of course,
as do our competitors. But it makes no commercial sense to release a
product with identical performance, features and price. Powered by
over 200 R&D engineers, the Behringer approach is to offer better
audio performance, feature set, plus design each product to be
produced at lower cost.

3.) Intellectual Property. It's important to understand that IP
(Intellectual Property) legal cases are very common in any industry.
Just look at recent cases with Gibson versus PRS, Microsoft,
Blackberry, etc. These guerilla tactics are especially common in the
US where legal fees are sky high and each party has to pay its own
legal fees regardless of the outcome of the case. Plus, IP is a grey
area, as it deals with patents, trade dress, copyrights, designs etc.
where not much is black and white. This, along with the fact that IP
litigation is often used as a tool to push a competitor out of
business, are reasons why there are so many cases in this area of law.
There is a common misunderstanding about copying and reverse
engineering. While 1:1 copies are clearly illegal, reverse engineering
is an ethical and legitimate way to design, one that is used by major
corporations every day. Remember that technology is generally public
domain (unless protected by patents or copyrights). This is the basis
for any industry to evolve, and you'll surely find the latest BMW on
Mercedes' workbench and vice versa. We definitely look at our
competitors' models - just as they learn from us. In fact, when you
walk around tradeshows, Behringer is among the most imitated
manufacturers. Where legal, we have no prob1em with this. Neither
should our competitors. The following article gives you some valuable
background information:

http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam...%20reveng3.pdf

4.) Why are our products so affordable? We have tools that allow us to
efficiently design massive libraries of everything from analogue and
digital circuitry designs to DSP algorithms. This provides us with
economies of scale in our product designs, and reduces time-to-marker
tremendously as well as cost. We strive to use the same components in
as many designs as possible, cutting inventory, carrying costs and
providing more buying power. It has always Behringer's philosophy to
pass on those benefits to our customers and offer high-quality
products for musicians that don't have deep pockets. This has
undoubtedly made enemies among competitors who do not have the same
commitment to vertical integration, economy of scale or dedication to
their customers.

Uli Behringer
Chairman, Behringer





On Jun 20, 5:22 am, (Mikael Willberg) wrote:
In article ,

Eeyore wrote:
"Don P." wrote:

I have one of the original ones (REV2496) that didn't pass the FCC testing
before they were forced to take it off the US market. I saw a press release
earlier this week that they are now all settled up on that.

There is a difference with "did not pass" and "was not tested" and in
this case they were not tested. FCC Compliance test demonstration was
done at 2005.03.13 (3/13/2005) for REV2496.

How they (mis)handled that FCC business smacks of plain arrogance onBehringer's
part. It's not as if the FFC rules are anything new. There have been FCC regs
for RF emissions from 'computing devices' since the mid 80s. It's perfectly
clear that they always applied to digital audio too. I was looking into the
implications for Neve with their digital consoles back in 1987.

At least they did not label their gear with fake certification
labels. I suspect that a REAL cheap clone manufacturer would have
faked them and added every possible label to the cover.

Was this already mentioned :

----------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.behringer.com/01_news/pr_detail.cfm?lang=eng&prid=299

Press Release BEHRINGERResolved FCC Compliance Issues Before Recent Ruling.
June 15, 2007
BOTHELL, WA
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mig

(Try #2 - #1 disappeared)

--
**** Mikael Willberg ***** "Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that" **
* * and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. *
* Tampere * (Douglas Adams) *
******** Finland ************************************************** **********