Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eric Hill - USA" data-source="post: 79947" data-attributes="member: 2100">Re: X32 DiscussionThat&#039;s what I was thinking, too.If Midas did indeed have input as to using locking XLR&#039;s on the X32 (which probably cost more money than non-locking), the most plausible explanation they didn&#039;t use EtherCON is to save space.Although, the other issue could be licensing. I haven&#039;t looked closely to see if Behringer is using actual Neutrik XLR&#039;s. But, for the moment, Neutrik might have a patent on EtherCON.Behringer made a decision to save money by not licensing MP3. They probably wouldn&#039;t want to pay a Neutrik premium for EtherCON.All those monies add up. If they didn&#039;t, we&#039;d have a Midas. <img src="http://soundforums.net/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /> Instead, we have a great value in the X32.Eric H.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eric Hill - USA, post: 79947, member: 2100"] Re: X32 Discussion That's what I was thinking, too. If Midas did indeed have input as to using locking XLR's on the X32 (which probably cost more money than non-locking), the most plausible explanation they didn't use EtherCON is to save space. Although, the other issue could be licensing. I haven't looked closely to see if Behringer is using actual Neutrik XLR's. But, for the moment, Neutrik might have a patent on EtherCON. Behringer made a decision to save money by not licensing MP3. They probably wouldn't want to pay a Neutrik premium for EtherCON. All those monies add up. If they didn't, we'd have a Midas. [IMG]http://soundforums.net/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif[/IMG] Instead, we have a great value in the X32. Eric H. [/QUOTE]

Verification