Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Dear John,

Thank you for your comment.

Allow me to share a slightly different view. While Apple outsources all its manufacturing operations to contractors like Foxconn and Flextronic, other companies like Dell have gone in the opposite direction. As with every business one has to decide which disciplines are core to overall strategic direction. It is the business model that influences this decision.

While Apple’s business is defined through a high volume/low model mix, Dell’s model requires a more flexible approach due to its diverse product portfolio and the need to adapt to unique customer specifications. As a consequence, Dell focuses on extreme production efficiency in highly customized factories which require massive investments that no 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party contractor would ever consider. The fact that Dell owns 3000+ manufacturing patents is proof of the strategic importance of manufacturing to its business.


85 online patents
145 operations patents
249 desktop
xx peripherals
xxx portables and notebooks
xxx servers storage and networking
Patents | Dell
I'll take your word for it that they have 3000 patents. Here's a link if anyone wants to count em. I don't.

My suspicion is that Dell is nervous about their product designs walking out the side door of their factories over there, so they patented every geegaw and bracket they could to use as ammunition against copycats.

Dell has a remarkable business model, but for a slightly different reason IMO. They basically sell direct to end users via their website. 85 of their patents were for that end of their business. By using quick turn through their offshore factories and shipping from the far east, they can sell a computer and receive the payment literally before they start final assembly on that already sold computer. They statistically manage sub assemblies and peripherals, in queue to have the right amount of parts to satisfy sales and can change prices on the fly to manage those sales by raising prices on inventory moving too fast, or dropping prices on subassemblies selling too slow.

As you know most manufacturers don't gat paid, sometime for weeks after they deliver product and as much as months after buying parts and building product. So Dell had a near magical business model that didn't require borrowing capital to expand sales. His sales literally self-fund nearly unlimited internal growth. Of course it takes more than one good idea to dominate an industry that competitive and Dell has/had other issues.

[edit] Coincidentally, I just read in the newspaper about Dell buying another software company (Quest Software, $2.4B). Software is a much higher profit margin business than commodity computer hardware. IBM transformed itself from computer hardware to software and services decades ago. It looks like Dell for one, is not that in love with their old business model and trying to change. [/edit]

Note: Manufacturing a large number of SKUs that use common technology inside (similar pots switches, ICs, etc) allows for effective use of raw inventory, where long term forecasting can be done in the aggregate, with finer adjustments closer in. Vertical integration of more custom subassemblies can further relieve logistical management issues. Of course one needs to be careful to not become too reliant on short run capability and though line extension create so many models that you end up competing with yourself. This is the old lite-beer conundrum, where new sales come from your own existing products.

Compared to the consumer industry, production runs in the professional audio industry are very low and generally unattractive to large contract manufacturers like Foxconn and Flextronic. Audio companies are left to deal with medium size or even 3[SUP]rd [/SUP]tier contractors. Today, almost all companies in our industry use Chinese manufacturing and are constantly on the hunt for the next factory that offers lower cost. As a result, contractors have a short-term mentality and do not invest in long-term relationships or expensive quality measures. It’s all about today’s order!

Behringer was the first audio company to move production to China. I must admit, in the early days we had our fair share of painful experiences with third-party manufacturing facilities. The reality of manufacturing in China is that you must control it or it will wipe you out. Initially we used 3rd party manufacturers who had little experience with audio products. It is common knowledge that those manufacturers made unauthorized parts substitutions to maximize profit and explicit work instructions were often ignored.



The concept of offshore manufacturing to reduce cost is hardly novel. CBS built Fender products over in japan back in the '60s. Marshal made gear in Korea and later India. Taiwan was a major offshore factory for many companies. As I like to inform the China haters, the US was the cheap offshore manufacturer for Europe Hundreds of years ago. :)

In my judgement before the last couple decades, the US MI industry was underdeveloped with inefficient distribution channels (small mom and pop music stores), and ineffective advertising (modest general brand positioning). I credit Greg Mackie with dragging the MI industry into consumer style advertising, where they ignore the dealer distribution channels and marketed product features directly to the end user, this hard sell created pre-sold consumer demand and reduced dealers to order takers. That worked very well for them for a while (remarkable growth in their early years), but their "made in USA" branding identity became a liability as consumer trends shifted to accept offshore manufacturing, when the price reduction was large enough (I estimate more than 20% cheaper is enough to make consumers forget where something is made). This is normal maturing of a market, that has happened before and will happen again in other markets.

If you want to take credit for pioneering in mainland China from the MI business, you can have it. CM in China have been servicing other major industries well before that but mainland China was playing catch up with Taiwan and more qualified PAC rim manufacturers. Mainland China was clearly cheaper, but you get what you pay for. You enjoyed a competitive advantage from that move that compelled others in the industry to ramp up their plans for mainland Chinese manufacturing.

Your stories of unsupervised CM do not sound that different from problems experienced using sub contractors at any significant distance. I recall how much of a PIA it was to keep a factory 25 miles away out of the ditches. Make that thousands of miles away with major language and cultural differences and the process control discipline becomes that much more critical.


Frankly, it was a losing battle. So 10 years ago we opened our own manufacturing plant and today, we are one of the very few companies that has its own plant. We are proud of our dedicated people and high quality facilities. Was it easy? Absolutely not; but, it was worth the pain as today it is a huge competitive advantage. We now control our own destiny, we make long-term investments and we achieve quality levels only top tier contract manufacturers can offer.

When we acquired Midas, we invested in the most sophisticated equipment and spent over US$ 20 million. We built one of the most high-tech and automated plants in the world with high-precision SMT machines, in-circuit testers, optical inspection systems that automatically check every solder joint and x-ray equipment that can “see” through multilayer boards with fine-pitch and ball-grid parts.

If you take a look at our company videos on YouTube, you can see the huge investment we made in “Behringer City” or "MUSIC Group City" as we call it today. Hopefully you will experience the difference the MUSIC Group offers and better appreciate our decision to make our manufacturing processes a strategic priority.

MUSIC Group continues to invest both in great people as well as in cutting-edge infrastructure and this is our long-term strategy.

Uli

Good luck with your expansion in China, and brand acquisitions of western badges... I heard rumors of a 100 piece AP analyzer buy. Perhaps ramping up digital mixer production (or just a rumor). i don't expect you to comment on here-say either. Lets hope China remains open to western business interests. The more trade we do with them, the less dangerous they are.

JR
 
Last edited:
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Dear Uli, I see that you are responding to select posts in this and other threads again. I have not seen my question answered yet so I will repost just one last time as I certainly do not wish to be a pest:

"I am honored to be able to present a question to you. What methods and standards does Behringer use to rate the power output of your power amps? How do your methods and standards compare to other popular brand amps in the same product bracket?

Take an iNUKE 6000 as an example. My question would be 6000 watts into what load, with what input, at what supply voltage, and for how long a duration? Forgive me if this is published somewhere, I have not yet found it. "

Thank you for the helpful info you have so far provided.

John Lutz
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Dear John,

Many thanks for your question and your patience in awaiting my answer. As I have said earlier, I spent the last month traveling with the acquisition of Turbosound and of course the Infocomm show in Las Vegas.

Your question about power amplifier ratings is an interesting one for several reasons. Although over the years there have been attempts at standardizing the way power amplifiers are measured and rated, it appears to me that even in the face of legislation, there continues to be no consensus in the pro audio industry.
Forgive me for stating what you already know John, but for some readers a bit of history may be in order.


There was a time when the accepted method for measuring amplifier power was to inject a sinusoidal signal (usually 1 kHz) and measure the output just as the sine wave began to distort. This type of measurement assumed that the amplifier would be operated in that manner, although we were all aware that actual program material was very different to a sine wave. Regardless, this RMS measurement became a standard.

While there have been several variations on this theme, the net effect of standard practice has always been that power measurements have been based on a continuous sinusoidal signal applied at the input. As imperfect as this system may have been, it did allow consumers to compare one amplifier to another and conclude which one had a higher rated power. Sounds good? Not so fast.

The problem with this method is, as most manufacturers and users discovered over time, that it measures a parameter that may not necessarily be the best predictor of actual amplifier performance. Real program material, whether it be music or speech, is very different from a sine wave and it is a leap of faith to correlate one to the other. Imagine a car that is capable of pulling a heavy load up a mountain compared to one that accelerates aggressively; which one is more powerful? It depends on what your objective is.

I believe that this disparity between what was measured and what was really needed was driven by the measurement technology of the day. In fact, the use of a steady-state sine wave is a throw-back to a time before digital oscilloscopes and programmable signal generators, when pretty much any technician could replicate the measurements on their test bench. Regardless of whether it was the “right” measurement, it was at least a measurement that almost anyone could make.

In the last 10-15 years we have seen the emergence of a whole new breed of amplifiers with power ratings in the thousands of watts, not just hundreds. Respected brands such as Lab Gruppen and Powersoft have led the way into this new realm not by measuring amplifiers the “old” way using a steady-state sine wave but by other means that more closely mimic the dynamics of real program material. The objective is to better quantify the performance of their products in the actual environment where they will be used.

Inherent in this approach is a lack of agreed measurement standards and definitions. I have yet to see published documentation on the precise measurement methods and techniques used by these and other manufacturers claiming specifications based on "maximum output power".

I can only assume that capable engineers are using good judgment in creating test routines that inject impulse signals of sufficient amplitude and duration along with periods of reduced energy to arrive at their power ratings. In any event, most manufacturers must consider this proprietary IP as they are not publishing such data currently.


This brings us to the iNUKE series of power amplifiers that BEHRINGER introduced just over a year ago. iNUKE amplifiers were the culmination of extensive research and development in our engineering team around power efficiency. As I have said in other posts we proudly operate one of the most capable power engineering teams in the industry with extensive experience in both SMPS and Class-D amplification.
Our new patent-pending "Class Zero" technology that combines power supply and amplifier into a single stage was in fact a direct outcome of the research the preceded the iNUKE range. With this new "Class Zero" technology, we have been able to design amplifiers with up to 94% efficiency (AC to AC), which is a remarkable increase of 10-15% compared to the most efficient SMPS and Class-D designs. The final component count and cost will have to be seen until the mature design stage, but energy efficiency in light of carbon footprint reduction and green energy is definitely worth pursuing.


I am proud to say that iNUKE amplifiers have become a tremendous commercial success and are now outselling even our EP4000; one of the most successful power amplifiers of all time. They have also earned the praise of users and the press, who have conducted their own independent testing.

Allow me to post the "Tools4Music" review of the NU3000:

http://www.behringerdownload.de/_pd...ols4music English review_2012-03-13_Rev.0.pdf

You'll see that the reviewers confirmed, with rigorous testing, that the NU3000 actually delivers even more than its rated power! That is gratifying to see as it mirrors our own in-house test results.


Thanks again for your question John, as you have touched on an important but seldom-discussed topic in our industry. While we always support standards and also ensure that all of our products are UL listed and FCC compliant, even though many of our competitors skirt the law (try searching www.fcc.gov to see who has been fined for non-compliance), it appears that power amplifier measurement standards have not kept up with measurement technology.

If such a standard does come to pass, then rest assured that we will follow it right along with venerable competitors such as Lab Gruppen, Powersoft, Crown and QSC among others.


Warm regards and again sorry to keep you waiting.

Uli
 
Last edited:
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Hello Uli,

I will re-post my questions as well as it fell into a time frame of you being very busy. These are 2 and a half quite general and partly personal question, I can understand when you don't want to answer them or part of them:

---
I have a few questions that come into my mind.

1. Looking back on the history of your enterprise, what's the most important decision you made?
1a. What was your biggest fail in the past?

2. What are you trying to achieve within the next 10 (20) years?
---

Greetings from Hamburg, Germany,

Chris
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Dear John,

Many thanks for your question and your patience in awaiting my answer. As I have said earlier, I spent the last month traveling with the acquisition of Turbosound and of course the Infocomm show in Las Vegas.

Your question about power amplifier ratings is an interesting one for several reasons. Although over the years there have been attempts at standardizing the way power amplifiers are measured and rated, it appears to me that even in the face of legislation, there continues to be no consensus in the pro audio industry.
Forgive me for stating what you already know John, but for some readers a bit of history may be in order.
This is a similar issue to loudspeaker power handling, two opposite sides of the same coin, i.e. how to quantify this (not continuous sinusoidal) music power that either speakers can handle, or power amps can make.

Loudspeaker professionals have gravitated toward noise, or shaped noise testing as more useful than sine wave testing. Power amp specification have so far resisted such conventions.

Opinions surely vary about this and consumers are not very good about understanding the nuances of complex specifications. The marketplace has pretty much evaluated amp technology based on how it performs in the real world, with real loads and real music.

I recall the hand wringing decades ago when amp technology evolved from continuous 24x7 duty, to reduced duty cycle music power. The marketplace voted overwhelmingly for reduced duty cycle (with the reduced cost). The rest is history.
There was a time when the accepted method for measuring amplifier power was to inject a sinusoidal signal (usually 1 kHz) and measure the output just as the sine wave began to distort. This type of measurement assumed that the amplifier would be operated in that manner, although we were all aware that actual program material was very different to a sine wave. Regardless, this RMS measurement became a standard.

While there have been several variations on this theme, the net effect of standard practice has always been that power measurements have been based on a continuous sinusoidal signal applied at the input. As imperfect as this system may have been, it did allow consumers to compare one amplifier to another and conclude which one had a higher rated power. Sounds good? Not so fast.
Max sine wave power roughly correlates with PS rail voltage. All things equal (similar technology and design rigor) consumers can use this to compare amplifiers. Where they encounter gotcha's is when one model scrimps on how long it can deliver that voltage limited output. The marketplace and word of mouth generally polices where amplifiers end up in the pecking order.
The problem with this method is, as most manufacturers and users discovered over time, that it measures a parameter that may not necessarily be the best predictor of actual amplifier performance. Real program material, whether it be music or speech, is very different from a sine wave and it is a leap of faith to correlate one to the other. Imagine a car that is capable of pulling a heavy load up a mountain compared to one that accelerates aggressively; which one is more powerful? It depends on what your objective is.

I believe that this disparity between what was measured and what was really needed was driven by the measurement technology of the day. In fact, the use of a steady-state sine wave is a throw-back to a time before digital oscilloscopes and programmable signal generators, when pretty much any technician could replicate the measurements on their test bench. Regardless of whether it was the “right” measurement, it was at least a measurement that almost anyone could make.
Its actually more conflicted than that. We have had the technology for decades to make accurate and repeatable test stimulus with digital sound files, but the million dollar question is what exactly should be in that 'industry standard" sound file? I have pondered this for a long time and this is a difficult question because the test would effectively determine winners and losers in the amp marketplace based on how you measure against this arbitrary sound file.

Big dog amp designers for decades have not been able to rely upon sine wave testing to fully evaluate their designs, so have used alternate tests like a few favorite CD tracks, and rigorous field testing. Since a CD will generally be more compressed (less dynamic) than live performances this can be useful, and they have been doing that for decades.

Perhaps this was John's actual question for Uli.. i.e., how do his engineers evaluate their amp designs in this absence of industry standard metrics? This is a pretty well discussed topic on professional forums.
In the last 10-15 years we have seen the emergence of a whole new breed of amplifiers with power ratings in the thousands of watts, not just hundreds. Respected brands such as Lab Gruppen and Powersoft have led the way into this new realm not by measuring amplifiers the “old” way using a steady-state sine wave but by other means that more closely mimic the dynamics of real program material. The objective is to better quantify the performance of their products in the actual environment where they will be used.
This evolution and more than thousand watt power amps have been around for more than 15 years. Over decades there has been an ongoing arms race between amp makers and loudspeaker makers to balance amp power output and loudspeaker driver power handling. At the very highest power points for both, the design task becomes a matter of peaceful coexistence with the SOTA, but in general the very high peak power output systems do not get operated at abusive high average power duty cycles, like lower power systems.

Another confounding data point is the mains power limitation for many users who don't provide their own electrical distribution. So there is an upper limit to how much power we can pull from a typical outlet before popping a breaker or fuse. This has driven technology toward more effective power extraction (like power factor correction) and switching technology to reduce PS losses.
Inherent in this approach is a lack of agreed measurement standards and definitions. I have yet to see published documentation on the precise measurement methods and techniques used by these and other manufacturers claiming specifications based on "maximum output power".

I can only assume that capable engineers are using good judgment in creating test routines that inject impulse signals of sufficient amplitude and duration along with periods of reduced energy to arrive at their power ratings. In any event, most manufacturers must consider this proprietary IP as they are not publishing such data currently.
:) Established players have nothing to gain by publishing their benchmarks. It would only provide those inclined to copy a roadmap for how to compete against them. I don't think consumers are being injured by this status quo, and a fair system of complex power tests along the lines of speaker power handling would be just as confusing to consumers, if not more.
This brings us to the iNUKE series of power amplifiers that BEHRINGER introduced just over a year ago. iNUKE amplifiers were the culmination of extensive research and development in our engineering team around power efficiency. As I have said in other posts we proudly operate one of the most capable power engineering teams in the industry with extensive experience in both SMPS and Class-D amplification.
Our new patent-pending “Class Zero” technology that combines power supply and amplifier into a single stage was in fact a direct outcome of the research the preceded the iNUKE range.


I am proud to say that iNUKE amplifiers have become a tremendous commercial success and are now outselling even our EP4000; one of the most successful power amplifiers of all time. They have also earned the praise of users and the press, who have conducted their own independent testing.

Allow me to post the "Tools4Music" review of the NU3000:

http://www.behringerdownload.de/_pd...ols4music English review_2012-03-13_Rev.0.pdf

You'll see that the reviewers confirmed, with rigorous testing, that the NU3000 actually delivers even more than its rated power! That is gratifying to see as it mirrors our own in-house test results.


Thanks again for your question John, as you have touched on an important but seldom-discussed topic in our industry. While we always support standards and also ensure that all of our products are UL listed and FCC compliant, even though many of our competitors skirt the law (try searching www.fcc.gov to see who has been fined for non-compliance), it appears that power amplifier measurement standards have not kept up with measurement technology.

If such a standard does come to pass, then rest assured that we will follow it right along with venerable competitors such as Lab Gruppen, Powersoft, Crown and QSC among others.


Warm regards and again sorry to keep you waiting.

Uli

I remin agnostic about the utility and/or need for duty cycle standards. I don't see the need for market intervention with imposed standards like back in the 1970s when the FTC stepped in to squash the ridiculous overstatements of hifi amplifier power. The professional market is efficient enough to sort out the real deal from the fakers, and there isn't one definitive measurement that would be universally meaningful for all musical genre's.

I wish Uli good luck with his new amp. I have seen the progression toward higher efficiency since class A/B was first replaced with class G/H (a huge improvement) and later by class D (a smaller but still useful benefit). With every improvement the amount of waste heat left to recapture gets progressively smaller. Now I suspect the foot race is mostly to make them cheaper.

JR
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Dear Christian,

thank you for reaching out and for your great questions.

I believe I have addressed them in my earlier comments, such as in my response to Michael Quick on page 7. Your question related to the vision of the Company can also be found in earlier responses.

Allow me to refer you to those comments so I don't risk repeating myself and boring the audience here. Thank you.

Viele Gruesse aus Manila

Uli
 
Last edited:
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Just a thank you to Uli Behringer and John Roberts for your time in this very informative thread. Some of both of your contributions to this field are enjoyed and appreciated by me on a weekly basis. For the record I still use several racks of the FLS equipped equalizers designed by JR and am ordering an X32 in a few weeks thanks to this thread and the contributions of Christian Boche who I knew from the SAC forum.

-Eric
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Hello Uli.

For how long will Midas continue to provide parts and service for their discontinued analog console designs such as the XL and Heritage series?

I see a lot of used ones available and are tempted to buy one as long as I can locate parts for it.
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Hello Helge.
We try to keep spares for a period of 10 years after discontinuing a product. This obviously depends upon stock levels, component obsolescence, demand and other factors, some of which are beyond our control, so there are exceptions. For example, we still have some spares for XL3's, which we stopped building over 10 years ago, but none of the earlier OB motorfaders for XL4's. Most Heritage parts are still available, and should be for the next few years, subject to the aforementioned limitations. If you have any specific model in mind, contact out service department in the UK before purchasing.
Best regards,

Richard Ferriday - Midas Brand Manager.
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Uli - I'm based in the UK, and have been involved in pro-audio for many years. I currently run a small installations and consultancy business for churches, and often use Behringer gear because of its value-for-money.

It is a mystery to me that Music Group doesn't make an appearance at PLASA. Midas are always there, and Klark Teknik - but no sign of the X32, and no 'group' presence. Is this just because Behringer is seen as an MI company? Plenty of the other exhibitors there are just the same. Any particular reason for the absence?
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Hi Bob,

You ask a very timely question as we are in the latter stages of planning for PLASA; at least for Midas and Klark Teknik.

As the Senior VP of Marketing it is my responsibility to recommend trade shows that we will attend. Of course we make such decisions as a group, but ultimately it is up to me to make the case for attendance. PLASA is a show I know well having attended and exhibited several times in the past.

We have not historically attended because we felt that participation in PL+S was a better way to reach our customers in Europe. Of course trade shows consume immense resources; including people, lost productivity and incredibly high costs for displays and show services, so we need to think carefully before commiting.

I am interested in hearing more opinions, particularly from our UK based customers, on the relevance of PLASA. In fact I would love to hear opinions on all industry trade shows and which ones we should attend. I would also like to know if people are still interested in attending trade shows when all of the information is now so readily available online.

Thanks for your past support; it is greatly appreciated by all of us at BEHRINGER and the MUSIC Group!

Costa Lakoumentas
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Hi Bob,

I am interested in hearing more opinions, particularly from our UK based customers, on the relevance of PLASA. In fact I would love to hear opinions on all industry trade shows and which ones we should attend. I would also like to know if people are still interested in attending trade shows when all of the information is now so readily available online.

Costa Lakoumentas

Just to follow up on the last part of the reply; I know that in my opinion there is no substitute for real hands-on experience, especially when it comes to major products like the X32. The quality of the construction, the 'feel' of the faders, the responsiveness of the software, the quality of the display are all things which just cannot be assessed online.

I think PLASA is key to the pro-audio sector in the UK. I'm never going to travel to PL&S, although I realise it is more cost-effective for Europe. And it represents a shift away from the disco/budget/MI sector with which Behringer has been connected in the past. If you want to be taken seriously, go to PLASA. But that's just my opinion! Or pay for my visit to PL&S next April - I'd love to go...
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

During the last months I`ve read in many boards about the x32 and this mixer seems to be a good successor for our old equipment. Because I´ve made some bad experiences with Behringer products (and also good experiences) I decided to wait for the first experiences with the large scale products. And now, during holidays, the price was increased about 200€ in all big german stores (like tho...)! My question to Uli Behringer: Why that? Do you want to reduce delay in delivering? / Have you recognized that the product can be sold at a higher price? / Do the stores want to increase their margin?
Now the price is higher than announced in all the interviews I´ve seen in the net :(
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Dear Daniel,

Thanks you for your email and your past support of our brand.

We would love to see you purchase a new X32 and I am confident you will find it to be everything you expect it to be. The issue of market pricing is something that is completely out of our control, which is even regulated by law.

We work very hard to drive down the cost of every product that bears our brand so that we can pass on the savings to our users. This starts with the right designs, massive advance buys of components, the controlled costs of our own manufacturing and a slim margin.

We will never compromise the quality of the parts, manufacturing processes or the people who build our products. Quality is our first concern. All of our work is aimed at delivering the products to the end users at the lowest possible cost. We are relentless in our pursuit of this goal.

However it is entirely up to individual retailers to set selling prices and they must do so based on their own strategies, philosophies and criteria. I can assure you however that we have not changed the price to our partners.

I can only suspect that with limited supply and immense demand there must be some forces driving up costs. Let me assure you that we are doing all we can to guarantee that every person who wants an X32 will be able to get one.

Warm regards

Uli
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Hi all!

Unfortunately for me I've never had the pleasure of watching a product launch from the start, of an exciting product like this, in pro audio. I've done it many times for computer software and other IT stuff. So I really don't know what 'normal' is.

I too have noticed the price hikes on various websites. The first rule of business is 'supply versus demand' and I suspect those retailers are artificially hiking the price. Why wouldn't they? Demand is extremely high for this hot new product and supply is low because obviously, it's very new. Why wouldn't they put their price up and make an extra £200.00 clear profit for a couple of months? Some websites have their original published price in the UK, around £1,800.00. So they must be either missing the whole idea that there is high demand or they've decided this is a good chance to undercut their big rivals and makes a few quick sales.

But what's really confusing me here is.... is it normal for a pro audio company to create a product, build it, box it, ship it and retail it before they actually create a manual for it? I mean, the people that are now taking delivery of their X32 one would assume cannot find a full manual in the box with the console right? If that were myself and I'd paid over £1,800.00 for a new state of the art complex product, I'd be pretty miffed that there was no manual. I'd be phoning the shop and asking if they lost it!

I'm not an audio novice by any means, but I suspect some musicians who have never used a digital console will be lost with this product, until they can get hold of the manual. Okay, so it's on the website (even though that's not the full manual by any means), but some people won't even look there for it.

Just strikes me as a bit odd, that's all.


Kind regards, Andrew
Mama - The UKs 'all era' Genesis tribute band!
Carillon Video - Professional Wedding Videographer & Wedding Video Production Services in Bolton, Manchester & all over the UK
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

is it normal for a pro audio company to create a product, build it, box it, ship it and retail it before they actually create a manual for it?

Sadly, yes..
especially with products that are somewhat self explanatory with menus and displays.
also, those menus and displays have the potential to change right up to the last minute (firmware revisions can be dropped in at literally the last minute before the box is closed) and then the manual could be inaccurate.

Jason
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

Thank you Uli for your quick response. To be honest, I didn´t expect such a quick answer!
On the other side your answer is a shock for me: On 1st August all the big german internet stores (thomann, music store, rockshop, Musikhaus Korn, Just Music, ...) increased the price exactly 200€. This looks like we have the same "mafia-like structures" as with petrol prices.
Nethertheless I will watch the experiences of the users and if they are not bad I will try it in other european countries. The 3 year-warranty will be the same :)
 
Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A

The 3 year-warranty will be the same :)
I am still confused about the three year warranty. There is a limited one year warranty that is non-transferable and that "If you do not retain your purchase receipt then this Limited Warranty will be void. In the unlikely event that you require to exercise this Limited Warranty, we will need you to provide a copy of this purchase receipt. Without this we will unfortunately not be able to process your request for warranty repair."

Apparently you may "qualify" for an extension of "up to" three years if the product is registered online with MUSIC Group within 90 days of purchase. However, the "Warranty Limitations and Exclusions" state that the coverage of the power supply and accessories is limited to 90 days and the coverage of digital displays, LCDs, meters, sensors, switches, potentiometers and "Any mechanical component that may be affected by externally applied force" is limited to one year. The warranty language also limits any coverage to the hardware and excludes software, which would seem to also apply to firmware.

So is the warranty extension to three years or is it "up to" three years and could be less then that? How does one know if their warranty has been extended? And since the faders, meters, pots, switches, display, connection points, etc. being limited to one year of coverage, the power supply to 90 days and the firmware and software having no warranty seem very relevant for a product like the X32, does the warranty extension affect the Warranty Limitations and Exclusions or do those still apply as stated?