|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 4, 2023 22:42:41 GMT -6
There was an Apple ad not too long ago promoting their laptop's new colors. That's fine, but they raved about it like it was an amazing new feature. To me it was silly, perhaps to a younger crowd not so much. I can't imagine the meetings that must have taken place to decide on those awful colors for the Bock. They're basically a classic mic update, cream, silver or black would make sense. If they were going to do a color, the least they should have done was pick something bold and new, not a washed out Martha Stewart towel color. I had forgotten all about those colors. In retrospect it was a sign of things to come. Blatantly thumbing their nose at the pro market.... Pandering to the bedroom crowd. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Feb 4, 2023 23:05:39 GMT -6
Now, somebody tell UAD to make one of those Bock 67's or 251's for $1199 for me please ;-) Seconded |
|
|
|
Post by reddirt on Feb 4, 2023 23:22:06 GMT -6
I had forgotten all about those colors. In retrospect it was a sign of things to come. Blatantly thumbing their nose at the pro market.... Pandering to the bedroom crowd. Not sure the prices are "bedroom crowd" John . Not pointing any fingers but this thread has become a little "purple" IMO - largely speculation Cheers, Ross |
|
|
|
Post by plinker on Feb 5, 2023 0:56:10 GMT -6
Cloning one's own electrical circuit is much easier than emulating it in software. Cloning a public domain electrical circuit is also much easier than emulating it in software.
Higher profit margin -- yes!
Easier? So what? you still have materials costs, labor costs, distribution costs, etc, which you don't have with software. Whith softyware, after your development is done it's pretty much all gravy. And from what I hear, they don'y usually go for a straightforward circuit emulation - it's more of a function emulation. You previously said that software is "much easier from every aspect" and I was responding to that -- Easier and cheaper are distinctly different qualities, and I was very clearly responding to the former; you, the latter. Please see my previous response to Ward.
In the short run, the effort of cloning hardware functionality (in hardware) is cheaper, but costs significantly more to product-ize and distribute. Emulating hardware functionality (in software) is significantly more difficult, but cost much less to product-ize and distribute.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 6, 2023 19:01:59 GMT -6
Easier? So what? you still have materials costs, labor costs, distribution costs, etc, which you don't have with software. Whith softyware, after your development is done it's pretty much all gravy. And from what I hear, they don'y usually go for a straightforward circuit emulation - it's more of a function emulation. You previously said that software is "much easier from every aspect" and I was responding to that -- Easier and cheaper are distinctly different qualities, and I was very clearly responding to the former; you, the latter. Please see my previous response to Ward.
In the short run, the effort of cloning hardware functionality (in hardware) is cheaper, but costs significantly more to product-ize and distribute. Emulating hardware functionality (in software) is significantly more difficult, but cost much less to product-ize and distribute.
So you believe that emulating something in software is for some reason more dificult than developing and fine tuning hardware?
No comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Feb 6, 2023 19:51:45 GMT -6
David Bock has left the stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by plinker on Feb 6, 2023 20:18:34 GMT -6
You previously said that software is "much easier from every aspect" and I was responding to that -- Easier and cheaper are distinctly different qualities, and I was very clearly responding to the former; you, the latter. Please see my previous response to Ward.
In the short run, the effort of cloning hardware functionality (in hardware) is cheaper, but costs significantly more to product-ize and distribute. Emulating hardware functionality (in software) is significantly more difficult, but cost much less to product-ize and distribute.
So you believe that emulating something in software is for some reason more dificult than developing and fine tuning hardware?
No comment.
Yes; I do believe, and have provided a very sound argument, that emulating audio gear in software is more difficult (for many reasons) than cloning existing hardware designs that have schematics and reference architectures. Do you have credentials in either software engineering or electronics engineering?
If so, I'm all ears. If not...no comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Feb 6, 2023 20:41:43 GMT -6
So you believe that emulating something in software is for some reason more dificult than developing and fine tuning hardware?
No comment.
Yes; I do believe, and have provided a very sound argument, that emulating audio gear in software is more difficult (for many reasons) than cloning existing hardware designs that have schematics and reference architectures. Do you have credentials in either software engineering or electronics engineering?
If so, I'm all ears. If not...no comment.
I think the biggest argument in favor of what you’re saying here is exactly zero plugins sound like their hardware counterparts. While some modern hardware manufacturers(like retro instruments) have exceeded the originals in some cases. I get what you’re saying and I’m not sure why it has been such a sticking point. It’s about the format, hardware clones are at least playing on the same ball field, sure some old parts aren’t available but you’ve at least got a fighting chance. Software seems more like trying to put a sock on a snake 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by plinker on Feb 6, 2023 20:46:34 GMT -6
Yes; I do believe, and have provided a very sound argument, that emulating audio gear in software is more difficult (for many reasons) than cloning existing hardware designs that have schematics and reference architectures. Do you have credentials in either software engineering or electronics engineering?
If so, I'm all ears. If not...no comment.
I think the biggest argument in favor of what you’re saying here is exactly zero plugins sound like their hardware counterparts. While some modern hardware manufacturers(like retro instruments) have exceeded the originals in some cases. I get what you’re saying and I’m not sure why it has been such a sticking point. It’s about the format, hardware clones are at least playing on the same ball field, sure some old parts aren’t available but you’ve at least got a fighting chance. Software seems more like trying to put a sock on a snake 🤣 Egg-friggin'-zactly! And, at the same time, thankfully, there are new software processing approaches that would be really difficult to do in hardware.
It's just like sex with a condom...that's what you were referring to, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Feb 6, 2023 21:27:46 GMT -6
Getting back to Bock...has anyone here ever tried the 507? I've long wondered about that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by ab101 on Feb 6, 2023 21:58:35 GMT -6
Getting back to Bock...has anyone here ever tried the 507? I've long wondered about that one. Here is one for sale and it is $6666.66 plus $188.88 shipping. (I am not making this up!) reverb.com/p/bock-audio-model-507-5-zero-7Maybe the person will take $5555.55 with 133.33 shipping? |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Feb 6, 2023 22:42:07 GMT -6
Getting back to Bock...has anyone here ever tried the 507? I've long wondered about that one. Here is one for sale and it is $6666.66 plus $188.88 shipping. (I am not making this up!) reverb.com/p/bock-audio-model-507-5-zero-7Maybe the person will take $5555.55 with 133.33 shipping? Oh wow, that's an interesting sales approach with the pricing there 😱 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 11:54:53 GMT -6
So you believe that emulating something in software is for some reason more dificult than developing and fine tuning hardware?
No comment.
Yes; I do believe, and have provided a very sound argument, that emulating audio gear in software is more difficult (for many reasons) than cloning existing hardware designs that have schematics and reference architectures. Do you have credentials in either software engineering or electronics engineering?
If so, I'm all ears. If not...no comment.
I have credentials in both and software engineering is always more difficult. Not necessarily because of the know how but the technical, long term support, cost limitations etc. invoked by the hardware which the software runs upon. It's always fun when someone says this plugin is maxing out my Celeron processor..
You can do a lot more with external DSP based physical racks, I'm not saying it's always necessary but a Briscasti for example is what it is for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 7, 2023 14:04:12 GMT -6
So you believe that emulating something in software is for some reason more dificult than developing and fine tuning hardware?
No comment.
Yes; I do believe, and have provided a very sound argument, that emulating audio gear in software is more difficult (for many reasons) than cloning existing hardware designs that have schematics and reference architectures. Do you have credentials in either software engineering or electronics engineering?
If so, I'm all ears. If not...no comment.
Credentials? Are you kidding? (No, you're just young) There were no real credentials in this from schools when I started out. I learned by doing and by working for older people in the biz. That's the way most of us did it back then. I'm72 years old I got interested in this around 1960. My Dad was a professor at The University of Oklahoma and most of my friends were fellow "college brats" - which gave us free access to the university science labs (up to a point, anyway.) The wold was full of ham radio guys who built their own rigs - and their own stereo sound systems. From parts, not finished components.
What are your "credentials"
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 7, 2023 14:06:16 GMT -6
I think the biggest argument in favor of what you’re saying here is exactly zero plugins sound like their hardware counterparts. While some modern hardware manufacturers(like retro instruments) have exceeded the originals in some cases. I get what you’re saying and I’m not sure why it has been such a sticking point. It’s about the format, hardware clones are at least playing on the same ball field, sure some old parts aren’t available but you’ve at least got a fighting chance. Software seems more like trying to put a sock on a snake 🤣 Egg-friggin'-zactly! And, at the same time, thankfully, there are new software processing approaches that would be really difficult to do in hardware.
It's just like sex with a condom...that's what you were referring to, right? I believe you missed the point once again.
Gawd, talking to you kids is like trying to explain something to someone who speaks only a foreign language...
Think for a monent - we are not talking about "approaches that would be really difficult to do in hardware". That's irrelevant. You can't even do a decent job on stuff that's dead easy to do in hardware. That you software guys still CAN'T GET RIGHT!
You have to learn to walk before you even think about running. Have a little humility fer crissake!
Apologies to everybody else. I'm in a certain amount of pain these days and it makes me cranky. Don't get gout.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Feb 7, 2023 14:08:22 GMT -6
We'll probably see something like "David Bock Designs" or "FocusBock" or some other spin. LOL But how old is he? I know he was working at Power Station, which was a long ass time ago. Has to be near retirement age. He knowingly sold the name and rights to Bock microphones knowing someone else was in charge of decisions ultimately. I'm sure he's sitting pretty.
I'm interested to know who else was let go. I'm sure David's salary was a higher one, and once they own the IP and brand he isn't completely essential. Valuable, of course, but I'm sure they could have pulled off building mics without him in the first place. It was the branding that gave them legitimacy.
I haven't seen Ben Lindell doing any of the marketing videos for some time.
A lot of things have collided with this company. They've been strategizing their diversification for years now, knowing that DSP couldn't be their main thing forever. And studios are only going smaller and cheaper. They are trying to straddle that line between high-priced brand and affordable entry brand. Not unlike every other big name that isn't Neumann. But that chip factory fire was a big deal, and COVID had its pros and cons for a business like theirs. If they were financing new growth for diversifying, and then those other things hit costs of current business expenses, they could be looking at an issue where they had to cut expenses somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 7, 2023 14:50:21 GMT -6
Well at least my Soundelux U195, is serial number (get this)... 007 I expect at least a $5K CASH offer from Plush now. Goes with that Walther PPK. And he even has a Degree in, Triggernometry. Hmm... Maybe $5K is too low guys? Chris I have 007 Weight Tank. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2023 14:57:55 GMT -6
Yes; I do believe, and have provided a very sound argument, that emulating audio gear in software is more difficult (for many reasons) than cloning existing hardware designs that have schematics and reference architectures. Do you have credentials in either software engineering or electronics engineering?
If so, I'm all ears. If not...no comment.
Credentials? Are you kidding? (No, you're just young) There were no real credentials in this from schools when I started out. I learned by doing and by working for older people in the biz. That's the way most of us did it back then. I'm72 years old I got interested in this around 1960. My Dad was a professor at The University of Oklahoma and most of my friends were fellow "college brats" - which gave us free access to the university science labs (up to a point, anyway.) The wold was full of ham radio guys who built their own rigs - and their own stereo sound systems. From parts, not finished components.
What are your "credentials"
So you don't have a clue then, understood. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 7, 2023 15:06:13 GMT -6
We'll probably see something like "David Bock Designs" or "FocusBock" or some other spin. LOL But how old is he? I know he was working at Power Station, which was a long ass time ago. Has to be near retirement age. He knowingly sold the name and rights to Bock microphones knowing someone else was in charge of decisions ultimately. I'm sure he's sitting pretty. I'm interested to know who else was let go. I'm sure David's salary was a higher one, and once they own the IP and brand he isn't completely essential. Valuable, of course, but I'm sure they could have pulled off building mics without him in the first place. It was the branding that gave them legitimacy. I haven't seen Ben Lindell doing any of the marketing videos for some time. A lot of things have collided with this company. They've been strategizing their diversification for years now, knowing that DSP couldn't be their main thing forever. And studios are only going smaller and cheaper. They are trying to straddle that line between high-priced brand and affordable entry brand. Not unlike every other big name that isn't Neumann. But that chip factory fire was a big deal, and COVID had its pros and cons for a business like theirs. If they were financing new growth for diversifying, and then those other things hit costs of current business expenses, they could be looking at an issue where they had to cut expenses somewhere. If they own the brand name they own his name, in essence. That's one of the things that concerns me - how tight their brand name ownership actually is. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 7, 2023 15:12:14 GMT -6
Credentials? Are you kidding? (No, you're just young) There were no real credentials in this from schools when I started out. I learned by doing and by working for older people in the biz. That's the way most of us did it back then. I'm72 years old I got interested in this around 1960. My Dad was a professor at The University of Oklahoma and most of my friends were fellow "college brats" - which gave us free access to the university science labs (up to a point, anyway.) The wold was full of ham radio guys who built their own rigs - and their own stereo sound systems. From parts, not finished components.
What are your "credentials"
So you don't have a clue then, understood. No, they didn't offer them back then. Audio engineers were taught by other, more experienced engineers. There were no "recording schools" like there are today. I don't believe that even placesd like Berklee had engineering programs yet. I wasn't considered a worthwhile business for a school to pursue. The closest you could get was Broadcast.
A clue? You are joking again, right? What I don't have is a meaningless piece of paper. That some seem to believe is a substitute for experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 7, 2023 15:12:17 GMT -6
It's all probably bone simple. A CFO's main concern is the bottom line, which is a number. Stockholders want profit. A virtual product that needs no metal parts made in different countries, no space for building and storage and doesn't need shipping or repairs seems much more attractive to those whose main concern is profit.
They may not get that the hardware production supports the software production, even if it is a loss leader. Once developed, plug-ins are a cash cow.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 7, 2023 15:18:57 GMT -6
It's all probably bone simple. A CFO's main concern is the bottom line, which is a number. Stockholders want profit. A virtual product that needs no metal parts made in different countries, no space for building and storage and doesn't need shipping or repairs seems much more attractive to those whose main concern is profit. They may not get that the hardware production supports the software production, even if it is a loss leader. Once developed, plug-ins are a cash cow. EXACTLY! (Unfortunately) |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 7, 2023 15:22:24 GMT -6
Why am I not surprised by this? My suspicion - Dave's standards are simply too high for the UA bean counters. Remember that they got their commercial "weight" by family ties and that UA does not now make the definitive versions of ANY of their famous pieces - and their prices are generally on the high side. I'm not a financial supporter, but I must admit that they haven't rested on their laurels -- I'd be surprised if >15% of their profits come from their hardware classics/reissues. No, they've all but thrown their former "laurels" out with the trash. That's why I bought my LA2A from Audioscape. Half the money, twice the quality. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 7, 2023 15:30:34 GMT -6
I kind of assumed that, David Bock aside, these recently discussed lay offs had something to do with whatever is going on with the Spark mini-debacle currently unfolding. It's starting to sound like a bit of a shit show. Which is disappointing. I like UA, but this seems problematic. Glad I don't use Spark right now. I used to love UA. It's why I'm so totally disappointed with what's left of the company now. I had a real Teletronix La2A fora day or two when I was middle manning it to a friend's studio for FM*. If I'd known the future I would have given FM the $250 out of my paycheck and kept it.
* FM = Fillmore Management Productions an division of BGP
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 7, 2023 15:32:43 GMT -6
Right now D. Bock must be the person with the most knowledge on quality microphone manufacturing. But I had lunch with him one day years ago & we talked about everything but microphones & I was extremely impressed with the man. I think he'll be on to something new when the time is right & we'll probably hear about it as soon as it happens.
I probably wouldn't go QUITE that far. There's always Klaus. |
|
