Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
| How rude of you. I guess you yourself buy a lot of Behringer gear and are emotionally invested in the argument and hence forgot your manners. I said what I had to say because someone specifically asked about something in my earlier post. I also do not need to explain myself to you, thank-you very much. Yes, I've owned a lot of Behringer products in my early days of engineering. I had a Behringer MX8000 8 bus console that was returned for repair 8 times in 3 years. I've had original composers, which worked great and newer composers, which were rubbish. I still have a patch-bay and an ADA8000, which is a horrible sounding device, unless it is externally clocked. I also wrote reviews for pro audio magazines for a period of years, worked in sales for audio gear as both a dealer and a distributor (and sold Behringer) so I think I know what I am talking about. The VAMP certainly doesn't kick the ass of the Pod Pro, at least the XT- which is excellent esp if using the AES/EBU IO and auxed into PT. I've A/B'ed them. On the topic of companies ripping off other companies- well in some ways there is a certain amount of borrowing from everywhere but never in the history of Pro Audio has a single company stolen the ideas of so many other companies with such regularity. It is their business plan, their modus operandi and they are very, very successful at it. The Boss and Ibanez pedals are completely different designs- asymmetrical vs symmetrical distortion. The C12 and the Elam (not Elan) are not exactly the same- here are some differences: 1. The pattern selector for the C12 is a separate box that connects on the power supply, the elam has the selector on the microphone. More gain, less noise. 2. The tube is mounted right side up in the C12 and upside down in the elam. The elam allows for less heat congestion and less heat on the capsule. 3. The elam has a superior grill. Some more info on the ELAM 251 vs the C12, quoted from Klause Heyne (some repetition of my points above but worth reading if you actually care about the differences between the two): "It was already mentioned that the (CK12) capsule tolerances were significant. But not only were the original CK12s handmade, and the discretionary assembly aspects significant, there also were significant (and measurable) design changes of the capsule's sub-assembly parts over the years. For example, you can find five different backplate resonators in use between 1954 and 1972. In addition, there are electrical and mechanical differences between C12 and ELA M 251 which influence the two mics' timbre significantly: 1. Pattern switch on ELA M improves s/n of cardioid pattern by 4dB over C12 with its remote controlled pattern adjustment 2. Proximity of tube grid to capsule in ELA M improves s/n by another dB: The tube is installed 180º, i.e. upside down 3. Tube biasing of 6072 is different in both models, and creates different timbre, tube noise level and noise spectrum 4. Double mesh (+ nylon insert, in some ELA M mics) filters and slows down the incoming sound in ELA M, whereas a single, coarse-mesh wire weave in C12 lets much more sound through unimpeded. (Downside: a propensity for hum when the C12 is placed too close to stray magnetic fields, and greater sensitivity for popping) 5. Capsule mount on C12 interferes with direct signal path to the diaphragm on rear access (especially of concern in omni and figure eight) 6. Different cable topology and connector scheme for each model affects timbre 7. Mic amp circuitry, particularly the high impedance section, is different (too many items to mention, but one that sticks out: in cardioid pattern, the C12 uses a coupling capacitor between capsule and tube grid, the ELA M does not.) In total, both mics are stellar on the appropriate sound source, but not necessarily interchangeable." It isn't about that though- I don't particularly have a problem with the individual specifics of Behringer's game plan and this isn't a big issue for me, but for people to pretend that they do not have a game plan that is intentionally going out to rip off the designs of other manufacturers is laughably unrealistic. Are they the only one's, not at all, but no one does it so relentlessly. Regards, Jim Richmond On Sep 15, 2007, at 2:04 AM, Luigi Meloni wrote:
|