I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838

Todd

Todd McFadden wrote:
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

I don't know who did it first, but dbx also made (or still makes) a
preamp with a yellow LED to illuminate the tube. Like the Behringer, it
also had a "show window" for the tube, and the marketing department
decided that the tube glow wasn't bright enough.

On 19 Sep 2005 16:42:30 -0700, Mike Rivers wrote:

Todd McFadden wrote:
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

I don't know who did it first, but dbx also made (or still makes) a
preamp with a yellow LED to illuminate the tube. Like the Behringer, it
also had a "show window" for the tube, and the marketing department
decided that the tube glow wasn't bright enough.

The Hammond XK-3 (a $2000+ unit which attempts to sound like the classic
elctro-mechanical B-3) also employs this technology and ruse to convince
the buyer that the tube is doing something.

BTW--there are Hammond fanatics who swear by the sound of the Xk-3.

"May you live in interesting times"

Art

BTW--there are Hammond fanatics who swear by the sound of the Xk-3.

I've sworn at them before but why would anybody swear BY one?

-----------------------------------------------------------
www.RickRyan.com

In article ,
Art Science wrote:

BTW--there are Hammond fanatics who swear by the sound of the Xk-3.

They sound pretty good -- although there's really no substitute for
a Leslie in the room with it.

"Todd McFadden"
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838



** I am no Behringer lover - but this ******'s story is a total crock of
****.

I hope Berringer sue.




........... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Todd McFadden"
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838


** I am no Behringer lover - but this ******'s story is a total crock of
****.

I hope Berringer sue.

.......... Phil

You reckon he faked the pics ?

Graham

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:51:55 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838



** I am no Behringer lover - but this ******'s story is a total crock of
****.

I hope Berringer sue.

It seems factually accurate. Planting the idea "is the tube connected
at all" is mischievous, but it isn't stated as fact. I can't
understand why he's so worried about a cosmetic trick.

"Laurence Payne in the Ass "
"Phil Allison"

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838



** I am no Behringer lover - but this ******'s story is a total crock
of
****.

I hope Berringer sue.


It seems factually accurate.


** The imputations and suggestions made are fallacious, malicious and
defamatory.



Planting the idea "is the tube connected
at all" is mischievous, but it isn't stated as fact.


** So it qualifies as a malicious and reckless imputation - ergo
defamation.


I can't understand why he's so worried about a cosmetic trick.


** Neither will a court.

Behringer ought to sue the turd's arse off.



............ Phil

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
It seems factually accurate. Planting the idea "is the tube connected
at all" is mischievous, but it isn't stated as fact. I can't
understand why he's so worried about a cosmetic trick.

Perhaps because it is a visual indication of the underlying
circuit-design trick?

I know 3 things.

1. This Behringer mic pre they speak of sounds like crap. As you would
expect from a cheap mic pre. I KNOW this because I LISTENED to it with
my EARS.

2. Behringer steals designs. Lost in court to Aphex, and settled with
Mackie. For an unpublished sum of money. (They even copied the spelling
mistakes on the PCB from the Mackie board. Yes it was that obvious they
would loose.) Roland(Boss) has a suit pending because they stole their
pedal designs. They came out with a DJ mixer that was a blatant rip-off
of the Pioneer DJM600. They ripped off the design of the SwizzArmy
cable tester.

3. Behringer quality control is horrible. I have bought their stuff and
have gladly gotten rid of all of it. I have sold their most popular
products and listened to them with my ears. You can count on Behringer
to start substituting lower quality components on their junk in some way
on everything eventually and never gets stopped by QC.

In article , says...

I know 3 things.

1. This Behringer mic pre they speak of sounds like crap. As you would
expect from a cheap mic pre. I KNOW this because I LISTENED to it with
my EARS.

2. Behringer steals designs. Lost in court to Aphex, and settled with
Mackie. For an unpublished sum of money. (They even copied the spelling
mistakes on the PCB from the Mackie board. Yes it was that obvious they
would loose.) Roland(Boss) has a suit pending because they stole their
pedal designs. They came out with a DJ mixer that was a blatant rip-off
of the Pioneer DJM600. They ripped off the design of the SwizzArmy
cable tester.

3. Behringer quality control is horrible. I have bought their stuff and
have gladly gotten rid of all of it. I have sold their most popular
products and listened to them with my ears. You can count on Behringer
to start substituting lower quality components on their junk in some way
on everything eventually and never gets stopped by QC.

So you're saying you don't like Behringer?

On 9/30/05 12:00 AM, in article ,
"Mark2112" wrote:

I know 3 things.

(SNIP U.B. Negative comments of merit)

Know one thing Mark, you;re gonna get much crap for your comments...

Welcome to the Behringer Reality Check Club.
There are few of us, but we are armed with the sword of facts.
That's little consolation when they go limbaugh on you, but the lack of
Bstuph in my ownstable makes me smile despite them.

SSJVCmag wrote:


"Mark2112" wrote:

I know 3 things.

(SNIP U.B. Negative comments of merit)

Know one thing Mark, you;re gonna get much crap for your comments...

Welcome to the Behringer Reality Check Club.
There are few of us, but we are armed with the sword of facts.
That's little consolation when they go limbaugh on you, but the lack of
Bstuph in my ownstable makes me smile despite them.

And I still gotta say, if you haven't tried the DEQ2496, you should...

It's a lot of EQ power in one rackspace for so little money.

Again, they have some sleeper kit amongst the lot. Going to be working
with the DCX2496, too, soonly.

This stuff will surprise you. And I see no obivous precedent for it in
terms of "ripoff" talk. Don't shortchange your own self by painting it
all with one brush.

Further, the little UB501 and UB802 mixers have proven useful in a
couple of installs I've done.

--
ha

"Mark2112" wrote in message
...

2. Behringer steals designs. Lost in court to Aphex, and settled with
Mackie. For an unpublished sum of money.

The Aphex case was about patent infringement, not copying deigns.

I don't see the significance of the fact that we don't know how much money
Mackie paid Behringer as a result of Mackie's failed court case.

Roland(Boss) has a suit pending because they stole their
pedal designs.

No, Roland is claiming trademark infringement; it says the Behringer pedals
look the same as its pedals.

Tim

Tim Martin wrote:
"Mark2112" wrote in message
...

2. Behringer steals designs. Lost in court to Aphex, and settled with
Mackie. For an unpublished sum of money.

The Aphex case was about patent infringement, not copying deigns.

This is because strictly speaking, copying a design isn't illegal
unless the design is patented or the layout copyrighted.

Behringer made a copy of the Aphex board that was so accurate that it
still had the Aphex logo on it. This is bad. It was a long time ago,
and they seem to have learned their lesson, but a lot of people are
still resentful of Uli for having ever even tried something like that.

I don't see the significance of the fact that we don't know how much money
Mackie paid Behringer as a result of Mackie's failed court case.

The Mackie suit was kind of silly and I'm not really surprised that it
failed. Behringer clearly did model their design off of the Mackie,
but there's no crime in that.

Roland(Boss) has a suit pending because they stole their
pedal designs.

No, Roland is claiming trademark infringement; it says the Behringer pedals
look the same as its pedals.

Right. And in the consumer electronics world where the physical design is
more important than what is inside it, this is a big deal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Here we go again...

"Mark2112" wrote in message
...

2. Behringer steals designs. Lost in court to Aphex, and settled with
Mackie. For an unpublished sum of money.

On 10/1/05 3:30 PM, in article ,
"Tim Martin" wrote:
The Aphex case was about patent infringement, not copying deigns.

Oi...
B copied (-copied-) units, boards, designs, manuals (incompetantly.. heck
white-out-modifying the model designation from "TYPE B" to "TYPE F" is right
up there with cattle brand fakery...) Sheeshe, at least stick to personal
opinions like "I don;t care about the cheating, they;re cheap".. Or that
ilk: and I quote
--------------------------
Apr 1999 Marvin_Caesar wrote:
This message is prompted by replies made by Michael Liedel, customer
support manager of Behringer, regarding Ulrich Behringer's history of theft
and lies.
Inasmuch as Aphex was the first company targeted by Behringer and inasmuch
as I was directly and personally involved during the entire episode,
everything that is contained in this message is the truth as I know it.
*Liedel stated that "the Aphex case was mainly about a dispute about
Aphex's patent and Uli Behringer's own patent application". That is a lie.
The truth is that Behringer copied the Aural Exciter Type B, right down to
the circuit board and the manual, and called it the Typ F. The front panel
was made to look very similar to our unit. The manual, being so blatant a
copy, caused people who bought the Behringer copy to call our distributor
in Germany for service.
*When it became clear to us that Behringer was going to be more than a
garage operation, we first sent a legal letter to him demanding that he
stop and then filed a patent suit. To suggest that Behringer had a patent
filing himself is also a lie. He abused the legal system in Germany to
delay justice. It took six years to get the court to finally issue an
judgment of patent infringement and forced him to stop selling infringing
products.
Behringer then told the world that he 'discovered' that it was better to
not generate harmonics- that was after he 'invented' his own harmonic
generator which just happened to be a copy of the Aural Exciter. *After the
infringement was proven in court (not out of court as Liedel stated), the
next step was to establish damages. That took another two years through the
delay tactics that Behringer continued to use. The court finally caught on
to his games. On the night before the last hearing, Behringer claimed to
have a cold and asked for another delay. I had flown from LA to Frankfurt
and the judge denied the request. At the hearing the lawyer for Behringer
was admonished by the judge and told to agree to pay an amount which would
be acceptable to us. If that agreement was not reached within a short time,
the judge would force the settlement amount and also force Behringer to pay
all court fees and our legal costs. Behringer paid 800,000DM. That amount
was small compared to the benefit he received, but at least the world knows
that he was found guilty of patent infringement and that he had to pay a
significant, albeit insufficient, sum. *Behringer's attack on our products
was not limited to the Aural Exciter. He tried to copy our 612 gate. He
could not get our VCA so he used the VCA that we had used previously. We
had to use a heat spreader on our new VCA which was not necessary on the
previous design. Behringer glued a useless piece of metal on his VCA's
showing that he either did not understand what was going on in the unit,
only making a poor copy of it, or he simply tried to copy as exactly as
possible. He also copied our manual- page for page, illustration for
illustration. The court immediately issued an order for him to stop and
reimbursed us for our legal fees. *I cannot comment directly on his raids
on other companies' products, but based on my experience I know that he
used similar tactics. He not only screws other manufacturers, but I have
direct knowledge of him screwing a supplier. He has set up distributors
and, after the distributor has done all the hard work, hired one individual
from that distributor to set up his own distribution. *The mistake I
naively made was thinking that once people knew who this miscreant was,
they would never want to do business with him or buy his products. People
turn a blind eye when there is a possibility to make a quick buck or buy a
product which, on the surface looks like the original, but is cheaper. *I
have absolutely no illusions that this message will change anybody'sbusiness
methods or purchasing decisions. I just hope that those who are ethically
challenged do not complain too loudly if they ever get ripped off. I also
hope that people who do have some sense of right and wrong get a little
twinge whenever they see a Behringer product in a rack.
Especially now that they know the truth.
-----------------------------------------


I don't see the significance of the fact that we don't know how much money
Mackie paid Behringer as a result of Mackie's failed court case.

Your assumption that Mackie in any way paid anything beyond any court costs
is fascinating, please point to sources. OTOH immediately this case went to
judgement; Behringer was made to sever all ties with Sam Ash (their then
exclusive US distribution and warranty service arm) and prohibited from
partnering with anyone else and thus begin a laborious year-plus process of
building their own from scratch while Mackie, as far as I know, was in no
way affected.


Roland(Boss) has a suit pending because they stole their
pedal designs.

No, Roland is claiming trademark infringement; it says the Behringer pedals
look the same as its pedals.

'look the same'
'stole pedal designs'
Your point of difference here is...?

In article ,
Tim Martin wrote:

No, Roland is claiming trademark infringement; it says the Behringer pedals
look the same as its pedals.

They do. The grip surface on my Roland EV-5 looks exactly like the
pedals on my Behringer 1010. Until now I'd just assumed that the part
came from the same third-party vendor.

(Sorry for the long post.)

Look at the official press releases.

http://www.loudtechinc.com/news/1999/01111999.html

http://www.loudtechinc.com/news/1999/11081999.html

Allow me to fill in what went down as I remember it in plain English.
For those that were not in the music biz at the time or too young to
know or care. This was also confirmed by few reliable sources at...oh
let's call them "Deep Center".

Mackie filed suit against Behringer for stealing their designs right
down to the spelling mistakes on the printed circuit boards.
Mackie filed a suit against Samson and Sam Ash Stores because Samson
Tech was the US distributor of Behringer and Sam Ash Stores Inc. is the
parent company. Mackie got an injunction to halt sales and distribution
of the Behringer boards in question, at least in the US not sure of else
where, and immediately halted all shipments to Sam Ash stores of Mackie
products. Translation Samson and Sam Ash stores were both losing money
big time in the affordable mixer market. They could not sell the most
popular mixers at all from either Mackie No. 1 or Behringer. Sam Ash
needs affordable small and mid-size mixers to make money in pro audio it
is one of the most profitable market segments. They see the handwriting
on the wall with Mackie's claim on Behringer and cut their losses early.
They severed all ties and agreements with Behringer tell Greg Mackie how
sorry they are this happened we love you Kiss Kiss get the Mackie Boards
flowing into Sam Ash stores.
Mackie's suit against Behringer kept moving forward and while it was
lumbering through the court system re pleat with jurisdictional BS about
"our mixers are made in Asia our company is in Europe the US Courts have
no business bla bla bla...
Behringer starts substituting lower cost and lower quality components to
see how much they have to change to get around the lawsuit. (I don't
recall the particulars sorry to say.)
Behringer decides it's better to settle then risk a judgment also
cutting losses. Mackie dropped their suit and the word on the street at
all the dealers was and undisclosed sum of money passing from one
Germany company to these people making mixers out in Washington
somewhere near Woodinville I believe. But I will neither deny nor
confirm said transaction. (wink-wink nudge-nudge) Behringer never made
the same mixer again, all further mixers were as we would expect from
Behringer working the swirl down the quality toilet. (Their next
generation although less expansive then Mackie left much to desired in
the quality area, i.e. noise floor, busses distorting, channels dying
prematurely etc. You know the same junk they sell today.)

That's how I recall the events in a very broad strokes, long story short
kind of way.
I will neither confirm or deny any detail or sources for any of the
information in this post. The official story is in the press releases.
The same way Nixon cleared everything up with his "official" press
releases.

On 10/3/05 12:42 AM, in article ,
"Mark2112" wrote:

(Sorry for the long post.)

Look at the official press releases.

http://www.loudtechinc.com/news/1999/01111999.html

http://www.loudtechinc.com/news/1999/11081999.html

Allow me to fill in what went down as I remember it in plain English.
For those that were not in the music biz at the time or too young to
know or care. This was also confirmed by few reliable sources at...oh
let's call them "Deep Center".

Mackie filed suit against Behringer for stealing their designs right
down to the spelling mistakes on the printed circuit boards.
Mackie filed a suit against Samson and Sam Ash Stores because Samson
Tech was the US distributor of Behringer and Sam Ash Stores Inc. is the
parent company. Mackie got an injunction to halt sales and distribution
of the Behringer boards in question, at least in the US not sure of else
where, and immediately halted all shipments to Sam Ash stores of Mackie
products. Translation Samson and Sam Ash stores were both losing money
big time in the affordable mixer market. They could not sell the most
popular mixers at all from either Mackie No. 1 or Behringer. Sam Ash
needs affordable small and mid-size mixers to make money in pro audio it
is one of the most profitable market segments. They see the handwriting
on the wall with Mackie's claim on Behringer and cut their losses early.
They severed all ties and agreements with Behringer tell Greg Mackie how
sorry they are this happened we love you Kiss Kiss get the Mackie Boards
flowing into Sam Ash stores.
Mackie's suit against Behringer kept moving forward and while it was
lumbering through the court system re pleat with jurisdictional BS about
"our mixers are made in Asia our company is in Europe the US Courts have
no business bla bla bla...
Behringer starts substituting lower cost and lower quality components to
see how much they have to change to get around the lawsuit. (I don't
recall the particulars sorry to say.)
Behringer decides it's better to settle then risk a judgment also
cutting losses. Mackie dropped their suit and the word on the street at
all the dealers was and undisclosed sum of money passing from one
Germany company to these people making mixers out in Washington
somewhere near Woodinville I believe. But I will neither deny nor
confirm said transaction. (wink-wink nudge-nudge) Behringer never made
the same mixer again, all further mixers were as we would expect from
Behringer working the swirl down the quality toilet. (Their next
generation although less expansive then Mackie left much to desired in
the quality area, i.e. noise floor, busses distorting, channels dying
prematurely etc. You know the same junk they sell today.)

That's how I recall the events in a very broad strokes, long story short
kind of way.
I will neither confirm or deny any detail or sources for any of the
information in this post. The official story is in the press releases.
The same way Nixon cleared everything up with his "official" press
releases.

Indeed Mark, that's what my take on it was from the paperwork before it was
pulled from the public and the events that followed. Your timing on all
points makes much sense.

OK everybody, UB's overt and covert counterspin folks are lining up on the
phones, let's take the next call...

OK, so I have this old Electro-Voice mic stand (yes indeed, it IS an EV
stand, I'll guess it's from the 50's, and unlike anything I've ever seen
anywhere) that came with my first Old Mic Purchase decades ago (an Altec
coke-bottle for $75). This is a medium-grey tripod-base stand with the
interesting feature of being oil-loaded and pneumatically damped... Raise it
with one hand and it locks in place wherever, then press a red stud on the
lower section and the thing ssssllooowwwwllly eases down to it's shortest
height, even with a 639A on it for weight. It's paint-peeling and solid and
I have a thing about it; I like it.

Just picked it up and it felt like the bolt in the base was loose (I could
turn the shaft against the base) so I naturally tightened it up by turning
it clockwise like I always have to tighten that base bolt... And it kept
turning and lo and behold the main shaft slips too easily off the base (Bolt
solidly screwed into the now-separated short end-plug)!!
It seems like nothing's broken, and that perhaps a very tight
pressure-press-fit of the shaft onto the bolt plug in the bottom of the
shaft has finally loosened up... Maybe... My guess.. I don;t know. I can
slip th eshaft back onto the end plug (it's oily there now) but it doesn;t
get tight at all. I can pick the stand up and not have the base drop off but
it feels none too solid...

Does anyone KNOW this old stand (I came across one on the web a few weeks
back but never seen or heard of it elsewhere)... and what would be the
repair angle on this sort of thing?

John V

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:

It seems factually accurate. Planting the idea "is the tube connected
at all" is mischievous, but it isn't stated as fact. I can't
understand why he's so worried about a cosmetic trick.

Wait -- the tube is lit by LEDs? That's pretty funny, regardless of
anything else.

"Todd McFadden" wrote in message
...
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838

Todd

They're not the only ones that do this. As long as there are people gullible
enough to buy the "glowing tubes = warm music" myth don't expect it to go
away.

"Ricky Hunt" wrote in message
news:OfIXe.354066$_o.232914@attbi_s71...
"Todd McFadden" wrote in message
...
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838

Todd

They're not the only ones that do this. As long as there are people
gullible enough to buy the "glowing tubes = warm music" myth don't expect
it to go away.


Well it aint "warm music", it's "yellow music".

geoff

"Geoff@work" wrote in
message
"Ricky Hunt" wrote in message
news:OfIXe.354066$_o.232914@attbi_s71...
"Todd McFadden" wrote in message
...
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838

Todd

They're not the only ones that do this. As long as there
are people gullible enough to buy the "glowing tubes =
warm music" myth don't expect it to go away.


Well it aint "warm music", it's "yellow music".

Warning: a completely non-PC remark follows

Wonder where they assemble those puppies, anyhow?

"Geoff@work" wrote ...
Well it aint "warm music", it's "yellow music".

Do you have "yellow snow" down there in NZ? :-)

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Geoff@work" wrote ...
Well it aint "warm music", it's "yellow music".

Do you have "yellow snow" down there in NZ? :-)

Only if you **** in it.

Half a meter 'top up' on the skifield in the last 48 hours (all white).

geoff

Well, if the market isn't concerned with how closely Behringer
duplicates others' designs, why should they care much about how the
design works--or doesn't work. IOW, Behringer customers aren't really
concerned about the company's ethics, are they? later, ron

....
Todd McFadden wrote:
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838

Todd

Are you bothered when you discover that a singer uses Autotune in studio
works?
I am not... If it works, it works!
I understand that Behringer is doing a frode but as a sound engineer what
would you expect from it?

Thet reminds me when I was a kid and I discovered that U2 guitar player The
Edge wasn't playing all the notes.... it was a delay!!!
F.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:32:22 GMT, "Federico"
wrote:

Are you bothered when you discover that a singer uses Autotune in studio
works?
I am not... If it works, it works!
I understand that Behringer is doing a frode but as a sound engineer what
would you expect from it?

Thet reminds me when I was a kid and I discovered that U2 guitar player The
Edge wasn't playing all the notes.... it was a delay!!!

When I was new to rec.audio.pro I was told that someday I would get
my ears, and when I did, I would be able to discover that these studio
tricks were being used by, of all things, LISTENING!

Of course, I always thought (until told otherwise, and I actually
played it at half speed and heard it for myself) that the instrumental
part on "In My Life" was done on a harpsichord. It was kinda bright,
had a kinda fast decay, but what did I know...

F.

Todd McFadden wrote:

I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838

Todd

No surprise frankly.

Behringer simply feeds the marker with what it wants.

If the market is receptive to crap- then it's likely to be fed **** !

Graham

"Todd McFadden"
I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838



** I am no Behringer lover - but this ******'s story is a total crock of
****.

I hope Behringer sue.




........... Phil

I hope Behringer sue.

.......... Phil

They wouldn't be the first ones to try and sue the author!

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2756

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Todd McFadden wrote:

I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838

Todd

No surprise frankly.

Behringer simply feeds the marker with what it wants.

If the market is receptive to crap- then it's likely to
be fed **** !

Letsee, the tube is part of the circuit but the author is
upset because some LEDs were placed behind it to enhance its
warm, yellow glow.

Someone needs a life!

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Todd McFadden wrote:

I am generally a Behringer fan, but this is outrageous:

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=2838

Todd

No surprise frankly.

Behringer simply feeds the marker with what it wants.

If the market is receptive to crap- then it's likely to
be fed **** !

Letsee, the tube is part of the circuit but the author is
upset because some LEDs were placed behind it to enhance its
warm, yellow glow.

Someone needs a life!

The purchaser maybe ? (or should that be the designer ? )

Graham

Letsee, the tube is part of the circuit but the author is
upset because some LEDs were placed behind it to enhance its
warm, yellow glow.

Someone needs a life!

The purchaser maybe ? (or should that be the designer ? )

Graham


the next logical step is to modulate the backlighting... and switch in red
LEDs for overdrive.

they got to come up with a catchy name... how about ultragroovytubyessance?

TimPerry wrote:

...snip..
warm, yellow glow.
Someone needs a life!
The purchaser maybe ? (or should that be the designer ? )
Graham

the next logical step is to modulate the backlighting... and switch in red
LEDs for overdrive.

they got to come up with a catchy name... how about ultragroovytubyessance?

Nah, that red glow of the plate overheating isn't dynamic enough. I'd opt for
the blues and greens of arcing and e-beams hitting the glass. G

Me, I put blue filters in front of the tube's viewing port on my Tube-EQs
to cut down on the backlighting glare.

Later...

Ron Capik
--

TimPerry wrote:


Letsee, the tube is part of the circuit but the author is
upset because some LEDs were placed behind it to enhance its
warm, yellow glow.

Someone needs a life!

The purchaser maybe ? (or should that be the designer ? )

Graham


the next logical step is to modulate the backlighting... and switch in red
LEDs for overdrive.

they got to come up with a catchy name... how about ultragroovytubyessance?

If ppl want *toys* - I'm happy to oblige !

Just don't let toys masquerade as serious pro-audio !

Graham

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:45:19 -0400, "TimPerry"
wrote:

the next logical step is to modulate the backlighting... and switch in red
LEDs for overdrive.

they got to come up with a catchy name... how about ultragroovytubyessance?

The early 1970's were truly great, but who *really*
wants to relive 'em?

"It was the best of times. It was the worst of times"
etc.

Chris Hornbeck

TimPerry wrote:
Letsee, the tube is part of the circuit but the author is
upset because some LEDs were placed behind it to enhance its
warm, yellow glow.

Hey, why not leave the tube _out_ of the circuit and light it entirely
with LEDs? You'd probably get better sound quality, and you'd never have
to worry about the tube burning out.