Audio "Exciters"??

[Guest]

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

"ChuxGarage" <chuxgarage@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041112102355.21770.00000501@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >No, Aphex sued Behringer for stealing their circuit design and their PC
>>board layout, to the point that the Aphex logo was still on the Behringer
>>boards.
>
> Not to open old wounds, but did anybody actually see one of the Behringer
> circuit boards with Aphex written on it? Or is that another Urban Legend?
>
> I'm told the owner's manual was a very close rip off, and I have no doubt
> that
> the circuit was very similar too. As I understand it, Uli worked for
> Aphex at
> one time, so I can understand how circuit ideas "migrate." But the logo?

The actual PCB foil negative maybe ? Or design file if hat technology...

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

Raglan <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote:
>So you're suggesting that Uli handed over an Aphex product to his
>Chinese subcontractors for reverse engineering, and they proceeded to
>go a bit too far? It's possible, I suppose, but wasn't the early
>Behringer stuff actually produced in Germany?

That fits the facts that I have seen, and I can't think of a better
explanation. If you can, let me know.

This, incidentally, is not in any way unusual. I recently declined to
review a product sold by a company who has "their own factory in China."
I sent them a copy of the schematic (which really took me no longer than
an hour to figure out), showing how their device worked and why it wasn't
a good idea, and they called me back to thank me profusely because they
didn't have a copy of the schematic and had been trying to get one from
the factory for a while.

>As for the court transcripts, I remain a little sceptical. Cases such
>as this are usually decided on the papers, and only seldom on argument
>in court. Is it possible that you've seen the plaintiffs' affidavits
>but not the respondent's replying affidavits? That would make your
>view of the cases somewhat unbalanced.

I have seen all of the filings that were made public, which indeed may
not tell all of the story at all. If there's any more information out
there, I would welcome seeing it.

>I've used a fair bit of Behringer gear for live sound, and I've found
>it adequate, cheap and also reliable, contrary to much of the foaming
>opinion I read on Usenet. And the company does seem to be moving into
>a new league. If you haven't tried the DEQ2496 (a notably original
>product as far as I can see), you might like to.

Right now I am trying to _avoid_ trying out new gear....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

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

"Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
> to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
> him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.

Well they did get pinged for actually creating a net-list to clone the
MAckie 24.8, it is said.

> And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented?

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

geoff
www.paf.co.nz

 

[Guest]

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

"Geoff Wood" <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote in message news:<VWjld.1129$3U4.99092@news02.tsnz.net>...
> "Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> > I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
> > to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
> > him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.
>
> Well they did get pinged for actually creating a net-list to clone the
> MAckie 24.8, it is said.
>
> > And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented?
>
> Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
>
> geoff
> www.paf.co.nz

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

Raglan

 

[Guest]

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

"Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message >> Don't know if
it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
>> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
>>
>> geoff
>> www.paf.co.nz
>
> It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
> the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
> serves.

So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

;-)

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

Geoff Wood <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:

> "Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message >>

> >> Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
> >> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
> >
> > It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
> > the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
> > serves.
>
> So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

Patents only last for a certain period (20y?). The very idea with
patents is to spread technology and make it available to others. The
inventor is given a protected period where he is granted monopoly for
the protected invention and in return, when that period is over, the
invention is placed in the public domain for all to use. If one wants to
prevent a competitor to use a certain invention for ever then a patent
is not the way.

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

 

[Guest]

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

>Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??

Craane Song HEDD.

It's what the Aphex Aural Exciter wanted to be and wasn't.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

 

[Guest]

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

>Subject: Re: Audio "Exciters"??
>From: somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za (Raglan)
>Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2004 6:02 PM
>Message-id: <45eabfb.0411121702.78fe284f@posting.google.com>


>Let us not forget that the revered Jim Marshall took his first step on
>the road to fame and riches by stealing Fender's amplifier designs.


Not Fender designs to begin with, they were RCA designs and the patents had
probably expired..
>And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented? Not aware that anybody has
>ever paid royalties on their stolen versions of the design. And what
>about PRS, anybody? Paul has just been *proved* by a court of law to
>be a thief. Yes, an absurd finding, I agree, but no doubt every bit as
>valid as the possibly apocryphal case that establishes Behringer in
>the popular mythology as a coven of rogues.
>
>Raglan
>

Behringer lost the case. Case closed!
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

 

[Guest]

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

mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se (Lars Farm) wrote in message news:<1gn8l9o.tbt0ta7j8lmgN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se>...
> Geoff Wood <geoff@paf.co.nz-nospam> wrote:
>
> > "Raglan" <somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za> wrote in message >>
>
> > >> Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
> > >> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
> > >
> > > It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
> > > the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
> > > serves.
> >
> > So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!
>
> Patents only last for a certain period (20y?). The very idea with
> patents is to spread technology and make it available to others. The
> inventor is given a protected period where he is granted monopoly for
> the protected invention and in return, when that period is over, the
> invention is placed in the public domain for all to use. If one wants to
> prevent a competitor to use a certain invention for ever then a patent
> is not the way.
>
> Lars

Very true. However, the patent could not have expired before others
started cloning the humbucker. Gibson's patent would have been applied
for c. 1957, and granted c. 1960.

Raglan

 

[Guest]

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

rickpv8945@aol.com (Richard Kuschel) wrote in message news:<20041114130401.12272.00000792@mb-m28.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: Audio "Exciters"??
> >From: somewhatanonymous@webmail.co.za (Raglan)
> >Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2004 6:02 PM
> >Message-id: <45eabfb.0411121702.78fe284f@posting.google.com>
>
>
> >Let us not forget that the revered Jim Marshall took his first step on
> >the road to fame and riches by stealing Fender's amplifier designs.
>
>
> Not Fender designs to begin with, they were RCA designs and the patents had
> probably expired..

I defer to your superior knowledge.

> >And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented? Not aware that anybody has
> >ever paid royalties on their stolen versions of the design. And what
> >about PRS, anybody? Paul has just been *proved* by a court of law to
> >be a thief. Yes, an absurd finding, I agree, but no doubt every bit as
> >valid as the possibly apocryphal case that establishes Behringer in
> >the popular mythology as a coven of rogues.
> >
> >Raglan
> >
>
> Behringer lost the case. Case closed!
> Richard H. Kuschel

Which one may as well say about Paul Reed Smith losing his case to
Gibson earlier this year. Except I don't think many reasonable people
would.

Raglan

 

[Guest]

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

Just for the record, I'm looking at a couple of Gibson humbuckers I
bought in the early 70's and they both have a sticker on the bottom that
says "PAT NO." followed by a number that's unfortunately scratched off
beyond recognition.

@D

Geoff Wood wrote:
>
> Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
> pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".
>
> geoff
> www.paf.co.nz
>
>