Re: New Midas M32 Console
Let me understand this correctly. How many times do I need to post on a public forum in order to have a voice? I thought that I had permission when I registered for the site? Do I need someone else’s permission?
While I can't speak for the others, the weight of anybody's comments in any community is considered in the context of their relationship to the community. If no relationship exists, and they do not identify their occupation or reason for participation, their comments get evaluated by their tone and content.
JR, are you claiming to have invented applying a 60mm fader on a small format mixer?
Or did you perhaps copy that feature from a large format mixer? Surely, you are not claiming to have been the first one to invent mixers altogether? Based on your own analysis, it would seem that you are unethical to design mixers in the first place since you clearly copied other mixer ideas.
This is an example I what I mean by tone... As i clearly stated I was the first to use a slider for the channel fader on a small utility mixer for the MI market. It may have actually been done before in an obscure small professional mixer, but nothing that sold in any numbers. Before that it was common practice to use rotary controls for channel faders on small budget mixers.
You comments are progressively sounding like a troll... One who just picks arguments for no real purpose. Or perhaps introducing false arguments to try to discredit me. Good luck with that.
Also, thanks for posting the pictures. I agree with Karl that the mixers just aren’t the same at all. They don’t have the same features, shape, color, or other features. I briefly checked the specs and they are also not the same.
My statement was about their preliminary specifications that may have been printed before their actual version even existed as hardware. This was from some trade show literature that somebody picked up for me. I am often handed piles of literature by my dealers who want me to see what's new.
JR, the reason why your analysis is incorrect on this issue is because if it were correct, we would only have one TV manufacturer, one car manufacturer, what about laptops, or pretty much every product ever created that has competition. Clearly, the problem here isn’t copying, it’s competition.
Yet more expansive and fallacious arguments. is this junior high school debate club? Do I need to cite which fallacies you are arguing with?
You accuse Behringer of copying your feedback patent since they did not design it “out of a vacuum”.
Why put quotes around words I did not say.. you are getting annoying.
JR, I believe that it would be disingenuous for you to claim that you designed your patent “out of a vacuum” either. As you may recall, there were more than 30 prior patents cited as part of your own patent application and visual indication of equalizer bands was well known before your patent. To my knowledge, audio analyzers were very popular in the 70s and could be found on every simple car radio or home stereo equalizer.
I would be what they call someone "skilled in the art". I am a student of what work has been done before and stand on the shoulders of others. I have no doubt that my FLS invention was novel.
Despite your apparent research you are missing the important distinction between how the sundry graphic EQs with level indicia over every slider work and my invention. The prior art your describe used a fixed threshold and individual comparators for every bandpass, so all of the bandpasses that exceeded that fixed threshold would illuminate simultaneously, not just the one loudest bandpass LED. This might indicate the feedback in an otherwise silent background or the feedback in addition to other sounds if several were above threshold.
My invention, to make this description as simple as I can, used a compound multiple input comparator where all of the BP outputs were compared to each other, so only the one loudest BP LED lights up. This behavior provided a useful one LED only indication in response to feedback that was perceived as useful and embraced by many sound system operators. The products using this were very successful.
JR, you simply designed one version of a mixer and one version of a Feedback Indicator. So did Behringer and so did others. To claim that a competitor of your design is really a copy is a pretty distorted view.
No they used the same compound mutli-input comparator as my invention. There were a few minor differences that were apparently enough to win their own patent for the improvement (cheaper). I have no idea how this was argued in court but probably not involving the discrete circuit design. As I have already conceded Behringer has won this case in court so legally I no longer claim that they are "infringing" on my invention . In addition to that my patent which issued in 1998 will expire soon so then it will be public domain and be free for all to use. As is the law.
I also find it interesting as people challenge your view point, you want the topic to go away and escape the discussion or try to “lock it”.
What people? You... ? it seems I have people supporting me, and people being rude to you.
You are not making credible, thoughtful, arguments, but increasingly argumentative and pejorative not to mention fallacious statements.
This may be entertaining to some, but it seems a huge waste of my time for me to keep rehashing the same subject over and over.
I have no desire to make the modern Behringer company look bad. However I find it difficult to ignore people telling me about me and my history. I was there...I lived my history.
You seem like an unusually motivated Behringer advocate, or do I have an equally motivated personal detractor that I do not know about? You are making it hard for me to like you.
.
JR
