It's available gratis with a wide range of their mixers and audio recording gear. Details at link below.

http://www.behringer.com/EN/tracktion/index.aspx

Just waiting for the U-PHORIA UMC204 interface to become available, so hopefully this deal will still be going.

I dropped Tracktion back in the 2x days...

I use tracktion 3. Unless something has recently changed the new version 4 does not include all the Mackie plugs.

The new version does not include the excellent Mackie plugins. However, if you have your Tracktion 3 installer files, I'm told that you can re-install the Mackie plugins into the T4 installation - which is great news. The Mackie/Acuma plugins are top drawer.

Behringer have really upped their game with their purchase of Midas and Klark Teknik (sp?). I have used their new X32 digital mixing board and accompanying digital personal monitor systems - excellent flexibility and sound quality. The board was supposedly a Midas design that Behringer came alongside and brought to market. It shows. I think it's the easiest to use of the 3 different digital mixing board series that I've used (Roland, Behringer and PreSonus). The channel strip on the Behringer runs circles around the other two.

-Scott

Strong words, Scott. I have liked Behringer since the days when their gear, especially their large mixing desks, had a just reputation for being flimsy. (I lost one of their early multieffects processors to a static charge, but have remained loyal.) They've come a long way, haven't they?

When Sweetwater Music started carrying their line a couple of years ago, I think that is what put them into the 'finally being considered legitimate' category for some folks. There are still those who will automatically disregard them, but I've been using the V-Amp series of products for 10+ years, and yes I had a failure with the V-Amp 2 that I own - promptly repaired free of charge by Behringer. That was about 8 years ago.

I also own a Bass V-Amp Pro rack mount unit. And our church is now using the X32, and loving it.

-Scott

I just picked up a used Bass V-Amp at a July 4th sale. It must be about 10 years old, but it works great (and is incredibly deep--the Tap button can control eight functions. Thankfully, I got a photocopied manual; it's no longer available on the Behringer site). It must be my dozenth or so piece of Behry gear.

B********* is hated for many more reasons than poor quality gear. Their penchant for copying/ripping off other manufacturers is legendary. Here is an interesting discussion on the subject, by people who make their living doing live sound:

http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,136246.0.html?PHPSESSID=rrtrl9rf4mjh4vtqhklbbualn3

I read the first page of the discussion to which you provided the link. I assume if their ostensible theft was actionable someone would have done so, so that's a nonstarter.

No, it's not Crown or Allen & Heath, but for me it has, with one notable exception which I mentioned above, been perfectly serviceable. At the time I got them my Truth B2031A biamped active 8-3/4" monitors were equivalent to gear going for three times the price. I recently bought back a Behringer Blue Devil guitar amp I had traded in on a used bass because it is uniquely suited to what I do. I don't know anyone who makes its equivalent at any price. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

FWIW, I made my living at live sound for many years, but well before B. came on the scene. I ain't mad with nobody--I'm just sayin'.

"I assume if their ostensible theft was actionable someone would have done so, so that's a nonstarter."



FCC good enough for ya? $1 million fine?


http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-263862A1.html



"Legal cases[edit]
In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages[15][16] but such claims were later rejected by the court. In their suit, Mackie said that Behringer had a history of copying products by other manufacturers and selling them as their own.[17] The Mackie suit detailed an instance, in which Behringer was sued by Aphex Systems for copying the Aural Exciter Type F—in that case Aphex Systems won 690,000 Deutsche Mark.[17] The Mackie suit also mentioned similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer.[17] On 30 November 1999, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that circuit schematics are not covered by copyright laws.[18][19][20]

In 2005, Roland Corporation sued to enforce Roland's trade dress, trademark, and other intellectual property rights with regard to Behringer's recently released guitar pedals.[21] The two companies came to a confidential settlement in 2006 after Behringer changed their designs.[22]

In 2009 Peavey Electronics Corp. filed two lawsuits against various companies under Behringer/Music Group umbrella for patent infringement, federal and common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution and unfair competition.[23] In 2011 The Music Group filed a lawsuit against Peavey for "false advertising, false patent marking and unfair competition".[24]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behringer

Niner-Zero,

I apologize for not knowing your real name. I know I've seen it before, but please forgive me for not using it here. So's you'll know, as far as I'm concerned we're just having a spirited discussion, not an argument. I'm learning things. I hope you feel the same. (To the rest of the community, I apologize for hijacking my own thread, but I'm having fun.)

Let's address the notice from the FCC. It has nothing to do with theft, but with failing to meet FCC guidelines. In addition, it references a proposed forfeiture. Do you know if it was ever levied? Also, note the date--it's rather old business.




I'll grant you the court actions, which are new to me, but they are even more dated, going back to the mid- to late 1990s. How long should someone hold a grudge? I know of no ethical or legal issues with their current offerings and, as I said before, their stuff works at least well enough for my purposes, generally vastly exceeding expectations.

Richard

No problem Richard. No argument. If you're happy using B gear, it's no skin off my nose.

I was actually reacting to Scott's statement that Behringer was "finally being considered legitimate" by some folks. I thought it might be instructive to others just why Behringer was considered illegitimate in the first place.

To me, their disregard for FCC compliance pales in comparison to their wholesale theft of other company's designs, which is legendary in the SR community. (Just ask Bob Mackie!)

The companies that have actually sued are just a few of the victims.

BTW, I was aware of the Behringer lawsuits and so forth, when I bought my first Behringer product, the V-Amp 2. I think Aphex may have won the battle with Behringer, though Mackie did not.

In that V-Amp 2 product, I saw usability that outshined the competition at the time in several ways - but primarily with the way that Behringer used optical encoders, with lit LEDs for where the knob position was located, for the almost all of the knobs on the product, when everyone else was relying entirely on LCD readouts.

I bought the V-Amp 2 for darkened stage use, and the lit knobs on the thing gave it a level of functionality that the other products I was shopping at the time, simply did not have:

(Original Line-6 POD, Johnson J-Station, whatever Digitech pedal was similarly priced at the time).

The lit knobs allows one to see what type of preset is being selected, from rather far distance. All of the other units on the market required me to be within a couple feet of the display.

That did it for me. People claimed that Behringer was ripping off the Line-6 POD because it was similarly shaped. The two products were nothing alike, other than they did amp simulation with effects.

As for ripoffs, that CT100 sure does look like a copy of the Swizz Army product. This goes back to before I bought my first piece of Behringer Gear, roughly 2005 or so time frame.

I don't know that they still do this. It appears to me that they have taken a different approach in the past 5 or so years, instead buying music equipment companies outright.

How were they able to do that? Perhaps by saving money on product design and development that other companies spent money on. I don't like that one bit.

-Scott

Hmm. I have the CT-100. Had no idea of the existence of the other. The front panel is identical apart from color and very minor variations in text.

Richard this is what various start up companies have done for years. Rip off other companies in order to get themselves off the ground. The thinking is they can get away with it long enough to get established and the owners make some serious cash. Since it takes years for these things to get discovered and then for the lawsuits to start, then more years due to court delays and continuances they're still ripping off stuff and still making money while all that is being litigated. When they finally lose in court and have to pay up, the lawsuits just become the cost of doing business because now the company is big enough to handle it. They simply ate the fines and moved on.

Iow, this was planned from the beginning and the strategy worked. It's a very cynical comment about some businesses but smart people know that no matter how much bad publicity gets generated from stuff like this it's still "inside baseball" and the general public has no clue so from their point of view, no harm, no foul.

Now they're legitimate, now they've cleaned up their act and everything is cool. The question is do you want to reward them for being snakes in the first place because it was totally willful, totally planned out. It was no accident. How do you accidentally sit down at a bench and copy an electronic circuit and then the case and controls that goes with it?

Bob

Bob,

I believe everything you say. I am disappointed. Uli B. presented himself as an idealist and an optimist. It's a shame that he was so cynical. I was completely unaware of it at the time, but I'm sure I would have acted differently had I known.

Richard

Ok, let's flip the coin over, just for giggles.
/I ain't taken sides, but I had a thought (duck!)

Cars all have an engine, brakes, steering wheel, gas pedal, .. all in the same place and pretty much the same stuff. They all work pretty much the same.

I guess only the original maker should be able to make cars like that.

Ford didn't invent the car; he improved the assembly line.
Do NOT buy Ford; he stole someone's idea and just manufactured it cheaper so more people could afford it!

Yeah, I'm trolling, but it ain't all cut and dried.
One device looks like the other. However if you look under the hood there are differences. You can buy a hand made car .. or a Ford off the assembly line.
Behringer is not the exact same parts/assembly as what they are compared too, but it comes down to bang-for-the-buck. Been that way for a hundred years.

I thought of posting this last night but thought better of it.
I probably got dummer over night.

rharv, I sort of agree with you, but I don't agree as well.

The CT-100 example above goes beyond copying function - which unless technology function is patented - it's o.k. to copy function.

The blatant stealing of dimensions, layout, etc. seems over-the-top bullying of Behringer on EBTech.

MOST of Behringer products today are not like this - in fact, they have quite a few innovative features that other companies would do well to copy functionally - for example, using LEDs around the outer edge of an optical encoder to indicate position of the encoder, the GREAT channel strip on the X32 mixer and the 'view' buttons on same(simply crushes any other digital mixer within the same price order of magnitude), etc.

However, this particular example is more than all cars have 4 wheels, therefore the adopters of the 4 wheel cars are in violation of stealing.

A Ford Focus is not a direct copy of a Honda Civic, though functionally they have many similarities.

Now, Chery motors in China has been guilty of outright dead copying other companies designs - Copied a GM vehicle so closely that the doors interchanged. The Chery model outsold the GM model 6 to 1 in China http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=2277&catid=9

If you look at cable testers at Musician's friend - you'll see 7 products, with 6 form factors. http://www.musiciansfriend.com/search.jsp?sB=r&Ntt=cable+tester Behringer and EBtech identical except for paint color and the Behringer claim that they did all their work in Germany printed right on the side of it, the rest all have different form factors. What is interesting is that I have the Nady format cable tester, but I got mine from Cascade microphones in a deal that they threw in their own branded version of that thing on a ribbon mic deal. Let's say that the innards of the CT-100 and the Swizz Army tester are actually different - but why did they have to copy everything down to LED locations, text orientation, etc? Couldn't they have changed it up even just a little bit? Seems like bullying.

I am really torn on this revelation of the CT-100. I like Behringer's new products for the most part - really useful, innovative and inexpensive. But I don't like that it appears that perhaps the way they got that way was through outright intellectual property theft of other products/designs.

Dear Guys,

I am new to this forum but thought I would share a few forum posts that Uli Behringer CEO of MUSIC Group posted on SoundForums in the past months. The listed posts address the current topic at hand directly.

http://soundforums.net/varsity/4299-uli-behringer-music-group-q-3.html

See post #51 and #54

Also see the following forum in regards to the FCC:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/geekslutz-forum/807705-open-letter-uli-behringer-4.html

See post #92

I hope it helps with the discussion at hand.

Best Regards,
Joe Sanborn
Manager, Product Support
MUSIC Group
BEHRINGER

Actually the Nady, Peavey, and LiveWire all share a form factor. So you're seeing 7 products with 4 form factors. The PlanetWaves and Galaxy are unique.

I've had the 9024 digital finalizer, the Ultratone K3000FX Keyboard Amp, and BHL1800 Bass Amp for years...They've given me great sound for the money!

That forum is very interesting Joe. Even though I think I have an idea of the history of certain violations and lawsuits I'm also a realist. I know full well lots of companies have skeletons in their closets and there are two sides to every story. That was then and this is now.

I like reading what Uli has to say and thanks for posting the links.

Bob