[[email protected]]

And this is serious, kind of. They have a speaker that looks like
this:

http://www.8thstreet.com/Product.asp...ory=Monitoring


Now, I've had these in my study for 10 years:

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com...ors?sku=600632

Now, purely on a visual level, wasn't it more effort to accomplish
that then to not?

I mean, years after all the court cases they had about the innards of
their gear, and this is what they keep putting out?

Why? What's the point?

[Richard Crowley]

wrote in message
...
And this is serious, kind of. They have a speaker that looks like
this:

http://www.8thstreet.com/Product.asp...ory=Monitoring


Now, I've had these in my study for 10 years:

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com...ors?sku=600632

Now, purely on a visual level, wasn't it more effort to accomplish
that then to not?

I mean, years after all the court cases they had about the innards of
their gear, and this is what they keep putting out?

The URL you cited says that the Roland product is discontinued.

[Eeyore]

wrote:

And this is serious, kind of. They have a speaker that looks like
this:

http://www.8thstreet.com/Product.asp...ory=Monitoring

Now, I've had these in my study for 10 years:

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com...ors?sku=600632

Now, purely on a visual level, wasn't it more effort to accomplish
that then to not?

I mean, years after all the court cases they had about the innards of
their gear, and this is what they keep putting out?

Why? What's the point?

Is saves having to design anything of course.

I recently made a suggestion to a potential client that they copy Behringer. Just for a laugh ! I'd
love to know how Uli would respond.

Actually I suggested they 'copy' and add an extra feature so the copy is better than the Behringer.
It's almost worth doing it for fun.

Graham

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:06:57 -0500, Eeyore wrote
(in article ):


I recently made a suggestion to a potential client that they copy Behringer.
Just for a laugh ! I'd
love to know how Uli would respond.

Actually I suggested they 'copy' and add an extra feature so the copy is
better than the Behringer.
It's almost worth doing it for fun.

Graham


Excellent! Thanks for my first chuckle of the day.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Glenn Dowdy[_2_]]

wrote in message
...
And this is serious, kind of. They have a speaker that looks like
this:

http://www.8thstreet.com/Product.asp...ory=Monitoring


Now, I've had these in my study for 10 years:

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com...ors?sku=600632

Now, purely on a visual level, wasn't it more effort to accomplish
that then to not?

I mean, years after all the court cases they had about the innards of
their gear, and this is what they keep putting out?

Why? What's the point?

I source speakers for a living, and for this price point some companies will
pick an off-the-shelf design from a Chinese manufacturer rather than pay for
tooling, which can get expensive. When I look at the two speaker sets, I see
such a design. I'm guessing that Roland bought it OTS, branded it Roland,
and had exclusivity for a certain length of time. If the Roland product is
discontinued, then the design is most likely available again. Behring picked
it up, changed the logo, and there you go. I also source PC gaming
accessories, and I've had the Chinese ODM offer me a design that has been a
best seller for the last few years under another brand, as the contract for
exclusivity on that particular product is over and the design has reverted
to the ODM.

Glenn D.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 12:08*pm, "Glenn Dowdy" wrote:


I source speakers for a living, and for this price point some companies will
pick an off-the-shelf design from a Chinese manufacturer rather than pay for
tooling, which can get expensive. When I look at the two speaker sets, I see
such a design. I'm guessing that Roland bought it OTS, branded it Roland,
and had exclusivity for a certain length of time. If the Roland product is
discontinued, then the design is most likely available again. Behring picked
it up, changed the logo, and there you go. I also source PC gaming
accessories, and I've had the Chinese ODM offer me a design that has been a
best seller for the last few years under another brand, as the contract for
exclusivity on that particular product is over and the design has reverted
to the ODM.

Glenn D.


I can certainly understand that when you look at a product, like DVD
dupers, and except for the label there are 20 brands that are exactly
alike. But in Behringer's case they always pick something that's, as
in the Roland case, where not only have I never seen another speaker
look like it, but that look would say to anyone who's ever shopped for
speakers "that looks just like the Roland", instead of "that looks
like that generic speaker everyone sells".

Also, this wouldn't the wholesale taking of a generic design, since
the tweeter side is reversed on one speaker, and the LED is an inch
west. In the example of the DVD burners they are truly identical
except for the label.


I'm more amused by it than anything else.

[Ron Capik]

Glenn Dowdy wrote:

wrote in message
...
And this is serious, kind of. They have a speaker that looks like
this:

http://www.8thstreet.com/Product.asp...ory=Monitoring


Now, I've had these in my study for 10 years:

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com...ors?sku=600632

Now, purely on a visual level, wasn't it more effort to accomplish
that then to not?

I mean, years after all the court cases they had about the innards of
their gear, and this is what they keep putting out?

Why? What's the point?

I source speakers for a living, and for this price point some companies will
pick an off-the-shelf design from a Chinese manufacturer rather than pay for
tooling, which can get expensive. When I look at the two speaker sets, I see
such a design. I'm guessing that Roland bought it OTS, branded it Roland,
and had exclusivity for a certain length of time. If the Roland product is
discontinued, then the design is most likely available again. Behring picked
it up, changed the logo, and there you go. I also source PC gaming
accessories, and I've had the Chinese ODM offer me a design that has been a
best seller for the last few years under another brand, as the contract for
exclusivity on that particular product is over and the design has reverted
to the ODM.

Glenn D.

Put another way, marketing vs innovation [or engineering] they
went with marketing. It's a valid choice. Ethical? Well, it's a free
market.
[YMMV]


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 9:50*pm, Ron Capik wrote:
Glenn Dowdy wrote:
wrote in message
...
And this is serious, kind of. * They have a speaker that looks like
this:

http://www.8thstreet.com/Product.asp...Category=Monit...

Now, I've had these in my study for 10 years:

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com...BK-Powered-Mic....

Now, purely on a visual level, wasn't it more effort to accomplish
that then to not?

I mean, years after all the court cases they had about the innards of
their gear, and this is what they keep putting out?

Why? *What's the point?

I source speakers for a living, and for this price point some companies will
pick an off-the-shelf design from a Chinese manufacturer rather than pay for
tooling, which can get expensive. When I look at the two speaker sets, I see
such a design. I'm guessing that Roland bought it OTS, branded it Roland,
and had exclusivity for a certain length of time. If the Roland product is
discontinued, then the design is most likely available again. Behring picked
it up, changed the logo, and there you go. I also source PC gaming
accessories, and I've had the Chinese ODM offer me a design that has been a
best seller for the last few years under another brand, as the contract for
exclusivity on that particular product is over and the design has reverted
to the ODM.

Glenn D.

Put another way, marketing vs innovation [or engineering] they
went with marketing. It's a valid choice. Ethical? Well, it's a free
market.
[YMMV]

Later...

Ron Capik
--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, but how many cars are derivative of other car designs? How many
guitars look exactly like a Stratocaster? There IS a derivative
character to the free market. On the other hand, Behringer steps over
the line quite often.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 22, 7:57*pm, " wrote:

Yes, but how many cars are derivative of other car designs? How many
guitars look exactly like a Stratocaster? There IS a derivative
character to the free market. On the other hand, Behringer steps over
the line quite often.

I think what happened with Fender is that the Strat became so
ubiquitous that it lost its ability to claim damage. And you had a
few companies gingerly shipping strat copies, and when the sky didn't
fall it eventually became the 500 companies doing it today, and that's
that. Sort of the reverse with Behringer, which is a single company
which oddly does in fact have its own look which one can identify
certain lines with, yet they seem to still have a yen for making
products that you have to look three times at to make sure they aren't
an old favorite, and I can't think of anyone else doing it.

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

I think what happened with Fender is that the Strat became so
ubiquitous that it lost its ability to claim damage. And you had a
few companies gingerly shipping strat copies, and when the sky didn't
fall it eventually became the 500 companies doing it today, and that's
that.

Well, look at how many companies are making double cutaway electric
guitars, yet Gibson singled out PRS to go after, and they (Gibson) won.
Maybe they were concerned that the PRS was really a better guitar than
they were selling.

A couple of early Behringer products were carbon copies, but they now
have their own engineering department, that makes its own mistakes and
has its own successes. Still, how many ways can you make a speaker or a
mixer look and still have it perform its intended function?

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:

A couple of early Behringer products were carbon copies, but they now
have their own engineering department, that makes its own mistakes and
has its own successes. Still, how many ways can you make a speaker or a
mixer look and still have it perform its intended function?

This is true. And Behringer does partly-own factories in China where they
make their own products to their own designs.

But Behringer also rebadges a lot of products from other factories in China,
such as their microphones. And plenty of other companies rebadge and
sell those products under other names too.

The Roland-look amp COULD have been a matter of Behringer copying the look
and feel of a Roland design. It could also have been some Chinese vendor
copying the look and feel of a Roland design and selling it to Behringer.
Or (and this is shockingly common) it could have been a manufacturer in
China contracted by Roland to make speakers for them who decided to make
the same speakers for Behringer too while they had the tooling in place.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Nov 22, 8:44*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


The Roland-look amp COULD have been a matter of Behringer copying the look
and feel of a Roland design. *It could also have been some Chinese vendor
copying the look and feel of a Roland design and selling it to Behringer.
Or (and this is shockingly common) it could have been a manufacturer in
China contracted by Roland to make speakers for them who decided to make
the same speakers for Behringer too while they had the tooling in place.


Scott, the reason this scenario is unlikely is that the Rolands have
been discontinued for ages after a decade or so of fame, while the
Behringers just shipped in 2004 (I Googled! : ) )

Maybe if they left the tooling in place for ten years, and also failed
to make a single other sale of the design I'd give it a vote. : )

[Eeyore]

Mike Rivers wrote:

wrote:

I think what happened with Fender is that the Strat became so
ubiquitous that it lost its ability to claim damage. And you had a
few companies gingerly shipping strat copies, and when the sky didn't
fall it eventually became the 500 companies doing it today, and that's
that.

Well, look at how many companies are making double cutaway electric
guitars, yet Gibson singled out PRS to go after, and they (Gibson) won.
Maybe they were concerned that the PRS was really a better guitar than
they were selling.

A couple of early Behringer products were carbon copies,

Early ?

The EP amplifiers are a straight rip-off of QSC's RMX circuitry ( I know.
I've compared the circuits.) and even bear a visual resemblance. Sekaku did
it too plus their version was sold under the Tapco brand !

I consider it a shameful disgrace.

Plus Behringer quality is as low as it gets.

Graham

[Eeyore]

wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

The Roland-look amp COULD have been a matter of Behringer copying the look
and feel of a Roland design. It could also have been some Chinese vendor
copying the look and feel of a Roland design and selling it to Behringer.
Or (and this is shockingly common) it could have been a manufacturer in
China contracted by Roland to make speakers for them who decided to make
the same speakers for Behringer too while they had the tooling in place.

Scott, the reason this scenario is unlikely is that the Rolands have
been discontinued for ages after a decade or so of fame, while the
Behringers just shipped in 2004 (I Googled! : ) )

Maybe if they left the tooling in place for ten years, and also failed
to make a single other sale of the design I'd give it a vote. : )

Oritron re-introduced the Koss Pro-4AA long after Koss deleted it.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

" wrote:
Now, purely on a visual level, wasn't it more effort to accomplish
that then to not?

I mean, years after all the court cases they had about the innards of
their gear, and this is what they keep putting out?

You've got a dropout electronics student coupled with Chinese investors and
manufacturing.

What's so hard to understand?

Stop buggering about with the groups McCarty. One day someone will catch up
with you. An injury might conceivably result.

alt.solar.photovoltaic removed.

Graham

[Mike Rivers]

Eeyore wrote:

The EP amplifiers are a straight rip-off of QSC's RMX circuitry ( I know.
I've compared the circuits.) and even bear a visual resemblance. Sekaku did
it too plus their version was sold under the Tapco brand !

So how many different amplifier topologies can you sensibly have?
There's a handful of transistors that are good for that service so
everyone is going to use them. There's only a certain amount of leeway
for biasing, so everyone is going to use essentially the same circuitry
and component values. I suppose there are some value-added things that
could make one different from another like a crossover circuit or a
limiter, or a mic input, or alternate connectors, but basically a 250
watt PA amplifier for $300 is going to be about the same no matter who
designs it.

Sometimes a bad idea or concept gets copied. For example, the new Mackie
and Behringer mixers have gain trim controls that have a 20 dB increase
in gain over about the last 10 degrees of rotation (I don't remember if
those are the exact numbers but I've measured both bacause it was damn
annoying and I wanted to mention it in a review). The justification,
which is indeed valid for a good many users, is that the 25-45 dB gain
range is spread out over a fair amount of rotation of the control, and
that's where most of those controls will be set. But for those of us who
don't regularly record amplifiers, drums, or screaming vocalists, we
want to be able to adjust gain in the 50-60 dB range.

But what I suspect is that Mackie had the idea for that taper (they've
used it on a number of their products) and Behringer gets the same pots
from the same source and probably never actually gave the taper any
thought.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

wrote:
On Nov 22, 8:44 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


The Roland-look amp COULD have been a matter of Behringer copying the look
and feel of a Roland design. It could also have been some Chinese vendor
copying the look and feel of a Roland design and selling it to Behringer.
Or (and this is shockingly common) it could have been a manufacturer in
China contracted by Roland to make speakers for them who decided to make
the same speakers for Behringer too while they had the tooling in place.


Scott, the reason this scenario is unlikely is that the Rolands have
been discontinued for ages after a decade or so of fame, while the
Behringers just shipped in 2004 (I Googled! : ) )

Maybe if they left the tooling in place for ten years, and also failed
to make a single other sale of the design I'd give it a vote. : )

How do you know they haven't been selling that speaker somewhere else
that you don't know about? Maybe they've been making it all along?

[Eeyore]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The EP amplifiers are a straight rip-off of QSC's RMX circuitry ( I know.
I've compared the circuits.) and even bear a visual resemblance. Sekaku did
it too plus their version was sold under the Tapco brand !

So how many different amplifier topologies can you sensibly have?

Getting on for hundreds. Maybe more. QSC's legendary trademark grounded collector
arrangement (as copied by Behringer) is a bit oddball. Almost everything else is
emitter follower.

Besides Behringer didn't just a copy that bit, it's a copy of ALL the circuitry.
Sekaku even went as far as to use the same component references. Like R10 on a
QSC is R10 on theirs etc.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Sometimes a bad idea or concept gets copied. For example, the new Mackie
and Behringer mixers have gain trim controls that have a 20 dB increase
in gain over about the last 10 degrees of rotation (I don't remember if
those are the exact numbers but I've measured both bacause it was damn
annoying and I wanted to mention it in a review).

Tell me about it.


The justification,
which is indeed valid for a good many users, is that the 25-45 dB gain
range is spread out over a fair amount of rotation of the control, and
that's where most of those controls will be set. But for those of us who
don't regularly record amplifiers, drums, or screaming vocalists, we
want to be able to adjust gain in the 50-60 dB range.

But what I suspect is that Mackie had the idea for that taper (they've
used it on a number of their products) and Behringer gets the same pots
from the same source and probably never actually gave the taper any
thought.

No it's simply a standard taper, probably 10C or 15C. They do that.

I use something different that's specially made. In fact my history of doing so
goes back to 1981 because as a *sound mixer* as well as a designer I know it's
important.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

Sometimes a bad idea or concept gets copied. For example, the new Mackie
and Behringer mixers have gain trim controls that have a 20 dB increase
in gain over about the last 10 degrees of rotation (I don't remember if
those are the exact numbers but I've measured both bacause it was damn
annoying and I wanted to mention it in a review).

Tell me about it.

The justification,
which is indeed valid for a good many users, is that the 25-45 dB gain
range is spread out over a fair amount of rotation of the control, and
that's where most of those controls will be set. But for those of us who
don't regularly record amplifiers, drums, or screaming vocalists, we
want to be able to adjust gain in the 50-60 dB range.

But what I suspect is that Mackie had the idea for that taper (they've
used it on a number of their products) and Behringer gets the same pots
from the same source and probably never actually gave the taper any
thought.

No it's simply a standard taper, probably 10C or 15C. They do that.

I use something different that's specially made. In fact my history of doing so
goes back to 1981 because as a *sound mixer* as well as a designer I know it's
important.

Actually, if I can find the file, I just realised I have a copy of the special
taper Neohm made for use. They really spent some time on it. It had a carbon wiper
too to avoid the all too common early failure of this control, one of the most used
pots on a desk. Can be found on the Studiomaster '8 into 4' rack mounting mixer,
examples of which are still in use today.

It may have been the first real 'volume quantity' mixer ever built. We made 200 a
month which was unheard of back then. But for the lack of transformer ins and outs
we could have sold tons more to the US too.

http://www.studiomaster.com/1978%20-%201981.htm at the bottom. My first commercial
product.

Graham

[Mike Rivers]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Sometimes a bad idea or concept gets copied. For example, the new Mackie
and Behringer mixers have gain trim controls that have a 20 dB increase
in gain over about the last 10 degrees of rotation

But what I suspect is that Mackie had the idea for that taper (they've
used it on a number of their products) and Behringer gets the same pots
from the same source and probably never actually gave the taper any
thought.

Eeyore wrote:

No it's simply a standard taper, probably 10C or 15C. They do that.

One of the engineers who I knew at Mackie had the task of specifying the
taper for the gain trim pot. He sent me some spreadsheets of values that
he used for the design. Clearly it wasn't a standard pot, at least not
at the time. That would have been too simple. This would have beein
around 1997 or so. I'm not familiar with the 10C/15C designations. Maybe
it's become a standard taper now that more manufacturers want it
(because more manufacturers want it).



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Eeyore]

Mike Rivers wrote:

Mike Rivers wrote:

Sometimes a bad idea or concept gets copied. For example, the new Mackie
and Behringer mixers have gain trim controls that have a 20 dB increase
in gain over about the last 10 degrees of rotation

But what I suspect is that Mackie had the idea for that taper (they've
used it on a number of their products) and Behringer gets the same pots
from the same source and probably never actually gave the taper any
thought.

Eeyore wrote:

No it's simply a standard taper, probably 10C or 15C. They do that.

One of the engineers who I knew at Mackie had the task of specifying the
taper for the gain trim pot. He sent me some spreadsheets of values that
he used for the design. Clearly it wasn't a standard pot, at least not
at the time. That would have been too simple. This would have beein
around 1997 or so. I'm not familiar with the 10C/15C designations. Maybe
it's become a standard taper now that more manufacturers want it
(because more manufacturers want it).

They've been standard for donkey's years. C means reverse log. 10 or 15 refers
to the percentage resistance at the centre point.

Most 'volume pots are' A15s for example. Where A is log. B is linear (JIS
standard)

Page 4 of 6 for example.
http://www3.alps.com/WebObjects/cata.../RK16/RK16.PDF

Other codes are used for more exotic tapers.

Page 9 of 10
http://www3.alps.com/WebObjects/cata...S__1/RS__1.PDF

The W taper suits graphic EQs for example.

Graham

[Federico]

http://www.behringer.com/VM1/index.cfm?lang=ENG
F.

[Glenn Dowdy[_2_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...


The Roland-look amp COULD have been a matter of Behringer copying the look
and feel of a Roland design. It could also have been some Chinese vendor
copying the look and feel of a Roland design and selling it to Behringer.
Or (and this is shockingly common) it could have been a manufacturer in
China contracted by Roland to make speakers for them who decided to make
the same speakers for Behringer too while they had the tooling in place.

Based on my experience, this is my opinion. Hell, just walk around the HK
Electronics Show that showcases Chinese manufacturers and you'll see product
after product that are 95% similar to the branded products sold in the US.

Glenn D.