WA-1B Tube-Optical Compressor (Tube Tech CL1B)
- Thread starter akamoosh
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Brian Roth
Well-known member
On this forum, we don't encourage people to steal designs from manufacturers still selling "active" products.
Bri
Bri
Last edited:
To be honest, I don't see any issues with it. I saw into the tube tech and inside the wa-1b. They make use of various tubes and transformers. Thus, I wouldn't claim that they are being robbed. Every business also engages in comparable activities; for example, Audio-scape replicated the LA2A while UA had the rights to it. Samsung attempts to imitate the iPhone in the same way with its phones. Whether it's morally correct is, I suppose, subjective. In any case, I heard a sound comparison of the WA-1b, and I'll be honest—it sounds almost exactly like the original.
umm. Where did I encourage anyone to steal designs from an active manufacturer? Do you work for Tube Tech? Or is it do you own a Tube Tech?
living sounds
Well-known member
We try to avoid non sequitors here (except in the Brewery
).Brian Roth
Well-known member
OK fine.... I won't reply...End of discussion.
pucho812
Well-known member
I had already covered this in a different thread. But that thread was mainly me poo pooing the warm copy. Going back in history at the beginning of diy, we were doing projects to learn, I never thought it would become a business model for some companies.
Warms entire catalog is poor copies of gear, I don’t know how they manage to fuck it up so badly as they use cinemag and lundhal transformers. Never thought a unit with a lundahl could sound so bad.
The sad part is the current crop of audio folks seem to be ok with theft in both software and hardware forms.
Paul wolf, iirc had a great comparison of plugins v hardware. He said it was like sex with blow up doll, it will pass but it’s not the real thing. I feel the same applies to warm vs real companies.
I was wondering whether the copyright had finished as I thought no-one was able to make a DIY copy due to copyright issues. I couldn't understand how the clone company was able to commercially sell theirs if it was still IP protected??
I heard a comparison between an original and the clone, and I thought it could have been better, as the clone seems to produce a weaker body and was not as smooth, and more raspier and sounded harsh than the original. I think it will sell though, as it has no competition and the original is popular?
I am actually considering one, but thought, maybe there is a DIY project around if a commercial clone is now allowed? I feel DIY projects are more truer, can even be better quality or more creative than the original design.
I heard a comparison between an original and the clone, and I thought it could have been better, as the clone seems to produce a weaker body and was not as smooth, and more raspier and sounded harsh than the original. I think it will sell though, as it has no competition and the original is popular?
I am actually considering one, but thought, maybe there is a DIY project around if a commercial clone is now allowed? I feel DIY projects are more truer, can even be better quality or more creative than the original design.
Back in the 70s I started an audio kit business (Phoenix Systems) so my customers could save money by assembling the products themselves. This was a well established category with major companies like Heathkit selling a wide range of products (most of my early test equipment was assembled from kits).
By the 1980s modern manufacturing technology, like automated machine insertion of components and wave soldering reduced the labor content in modern SKUs to be almost insignificant. The last few cents of assembly cost were shaved by offshore manufacturing. Back then it was made in Japan, but the cheapest factory floor has moved several times since then (Korea, China, India, Viet Nam, etc).
I decided to get out of the kit business when I saw finished goods selling for less retail than my kit parts cost me to buy.
===
The audiophile business was always a little cra-cra, more driven by fashion than utility. Some studio products walk and quack like that old audiophile duck.
===
IP protection is not perfect. After spending thousands of dollars to patent an invention, that only gives you the right to sue somebody for infringing. Those cases are very expensive and not guaranteed to provide justice. My former employer sued Behringer for copying my very successful FLS invention. They won by not losing in court.
JR
By the 1980s modern manufacturing technology, like automated machine insertion of components and wave soldering reduced the labor content in modern SKUs to be almost insignificant. The last few cents of assembly cost were shaved by offshore manufacturing. Back then it was made in Japan, but the cheapest factory floor has moved several times since then (Korea, China, India, Viet Nam, etc).
I decided to get out of the kit business when I saw finished goods selling for less retail than my kit parts cost me to buy.
===
The audiophile business was always a little cra-cra, more driven by fashion than utility. Some studio products walk and quack like that old audiophile duck.
===
IP protection is not perfect. After spending thousands of dollars to patent an invention, that only gives you the right to sue somebody for infringing. Those cases are very expensive and not guaranteed to provide justice. My former employer sued Behringer for copying my very successful FLS invention. They won by not losing in court.
JR
living sounds
Well-known member
It depends what is protected. Most studio gear is based on principles that cannot be patented in this day and age. So protection needs to rely on design (how things look rather than how they work), trade marks and more general laws against unfair competition. A blue front panel and readily availible meters, knobs, lights probably don't provide sufficient protection in most jurisdictions, as long as the name isn't copied and the design isn't copied exactly.
I do think it's kind of a sad business model to copy innovative, high quality designs and create cheap mass produced resemblances.
That said, I am guilty of feeding the business model myself, having bought a few Behringer LA2A copies and upgraded the important parts to own great sounding compressors for a lot less. But I wouldn't have bought the original either, so this was more of a DIY-shortcut...
While I respect IP, perhaps more than most due to my personal experience. I think applying modern mass production techniques to quality designs to make good products more affordable for the mass market, is an admirable goal. From 15 years working for Peavey I found that selling affordable product, even with decent performance, does not win much respect from consumers.
I have an attitude (it's personal) about Behringer but at this point the horse is out of the barn, out of the county. A couple decades ago they cherry picked the category killers from multiple audio product segments and mass produced them in China (they were even "inspired" by at least two of my designs). Many of the small innovative companies that they borrowed from are no longer in business.
Since Behringer has pretty much run out of SKUs to copy they started to design some of their own, and their cheap digital mixers dominate that category honestly. Stop me from saying more nice about Behringer, that already left a bad taste in my mouth.
JR
pucho812
Well-known member
The very first Uli product was a copy of a unit a friend of mine designed. As he likes to say, not only did Uli copy it, he copied the mistakes too.While I respect IP, perhaps more than most due to my personal experience. I think applying modern mass production techniques to quality designs to make good products more affordable for the mass market, is an admirable goal. From 15 years working for Peavey I found that selling affordable product, even with decent performance, does not win much respect from consumers.
I have an attitude (it's personal) about Behringer but at this point the horse is out of the barn, out of the county. A couple decades ago they cherry picked the category killers from multiple audio product segments and mass produced them in China (they were even "inspired" by at least two of my designs). Many of the small innovative companies that they borrowed from are no longer in business.
Since Behringer has pretty much run out of SKUs to copy they started to design some of their own, and their cheap digital mixers dominate that category honestly. Stop me from saying more nice about Behringer, that already left a bad taste in my mouth.
JR
Any other uli story
Years ago at namm uli was holding court in the lobby of the Hilton. He sees one of the reps from ap and calls him over to talk and impress the uli entourage. Uli says that they use more ap’s than anyone else that they are the biggest user. The rep told Uli, the pro audio industry isn’t even our biggest user.
I recall Greg Mackie in our booth at a trade show complaining that Uli copied his 8 bus mixer, mistakes and all (perhaps referring to the lack of an input pad switch. I didn't ask for details. )
===
Without getting into ancient history, some who are old enough may recall when Uli was making rack mount signal processing boxes as a small company in Europe. He borrowed from sundry other manufacturers but not as blatantly as his later cherry picking entire SKUs.
At Peavey one of my tasks was reviewing outside technology. I recall finding some correspondence in the files from Uli to Hartley. Thankfully I have forgotten most of the details.
I spent some time working with a Chinese contract manufacturer that was one of Uli's early vendors. In fact when I toured the factory there was still some Behringer production on one of the upper floors (that I was not allowed to see). They shared some uncomplimentary anecdotes, but that may have been just schmoozing the new guys.Any other uli story
Years ago at namm uli was holding court in the lobby of the Hilton. He sees one of the reps from ap and calls him over to talk and impress the uli entourage. Uli says that they use more ap’s than anyone else that they are the biggest user. The rep told Uli, the pro audio industry isn’t even our biggest user.
JR
living sounds
Well-known member
They're still at large in the synthesizer department, it's quite shameful. Current IP laws are not well equipped to handle the likes of Behringer.
I've also heard some Uli & the-companies-he's-associated-with anecdotes that I can't repeat in a public forum... But they came from a trusted source delivering first hand experience...
Plus, I've experienced how what seemed like an army of payed trolls attack you the minute a magazine review unfavourable to Behringer gets released.
I own one of those very early Behringer units, an exciter. Very sturdy brown 19" unit, made in Germany, I think. Doesn't get any use (who needs an exciter these days?).
prosecuting patents is a deep pockets game
I have my own real life first hand experience, but like I said that horse has long left the barn.
been there done that.... On a different sound reinforcement forum I traded a bunch of arguments with one of those hired attack trolls. I found out after the fact, from a third party, that my sparring partner was actually a lawyer, not that it did him/her much good. I had facts and truth supporting my claims.
Around that time 15-20 (?) years ago, Uli undertook a "charm offensive" actually joining that sound forum and taking questions from the public. It was mostly civil.
That sounds about right. I think he messed around with single ended noise reductions too.
JR
Matador
Well-known member
The X32 console seems pretty fantastic for the $$.
living sounds
Well-known member
pucho812
Well-known member
Tube tech has responded on this…
Yeah... these still-in-production units just don't quite sit right with me...
Using a topology to inspire a design - no problem. Using the same styling, marketing based on the hard work of others and a "don't buys theirs, buy ours... it's just as good!" approach is... a bit of an arseh#le move.
I don't jump at these units... thousands will. Let's just hope that it actually just hits a sector of the market that wasn't realllllly going to buy a legit cl1b; and that most who were aren't swayed by the cheaper $$.
Warm seems to have a lot of customers. I'd love to see them run originals at the low $ with confidence... even with an "inspired by" list if they wanted...
Using a topology to inspire a design - no problem. Using the same styling, marketing based on the hard work of others and a "don't buys theirs, buy ours... it's just as good!" approach is... a bit of an arseh#le move.
I don't jump at these units... thousands will. Let's just hope that it actually just hits a sector of the market that wasn't realllllly going to buy a legit cl1b; and that most who were aren't swayed by the cheaper $$.
Warm seems to have a lot of customers. I'd love to see them run originals at the low $ with confidence... even with an "inspired by" list if they wanted...
It's a shifty line
. The LA2A is still in production. The Neve 1073. The 1176. The SSL Bus Compressor. Yet all of these are still being copied/cloned/diy'd everywhere. Even peanut butter. The toilet paper on Bob Clearmountain's NS10m's have been cloned...and last I heard, the type and brand is still in production! 2 Ply, is all I can give away.
