If Behringer and Ampeg had a crack baby....

[JimmyM]

Just because Behringer have a deceptive strategy : make you believe it is the same as the original, or even better, while it is not at all. This also has been answered.

right. take sx for example...sx makes no bones about their fender copies being cheap, so your expectations are lowered. but surprise...it's not that bad. behringer actually expects people to believe that their gear is as good as the stuff they copy, and it's nowhere near as good. not even close. that's marketing by lying, and i don't dig it.

 

[muddycreek]

Just because Behringer have a deceptive strategy : make you believe it is the same as the original, or even better, while it is not at all. This also has been answered.

Nobody makes you believe anything. If one REALLY thinks they're going to get 'the same or better for half the price,' well, i don't know what to say about that. Go on with your bad self.

 

[silvertones]

My comment about point to point was cause I didn't read up and didn't know if they were PTP or PCB. After reading I believe they are PCB. Forget it.
BTW can't even be sold in the USA as they don't meet FCC requirements.
This product is currently not available for sale in the United States and Canada pending verification of compliance with applicable technical standards and regulations.

 

[JimmyM]

Nobody makes you believe anything. If one REALLY thinks they're going to get 'the same or better for half the price,' well, i don't know what to say about that. Go on with your bad self.

the problem is, jon, people actually DO think that. sure, caviar emptor and all that, but to rip off other designs then trash the originals in their ad copy in an effort to make people think they're getting an equal or improved product is bs.

 

[JayAmel]

Nobody makes you believe anything. If one REALLY thinks they're going to get 'the same or better for half the price,' well, i don't know what to say about that. Go on with your bad self.

"Twice the features, half the price". That's Behringer statement. Enough said, unless you totally agree with that.

 

[BrBss]

"Twice the features, half the price". That's Behringer statement. Enough said, unless you totally agree with that.

I do partially agree with that. But they forgot to mention its 1/10 the quality

 

[JayAmel]

the problem is, jon, people actually DO think that. sure, caviar emptor and all that, but to rip off other designs then trash the originals in their ad copy in an effort to make people think they're getting an equal or improved product is bs.

Totally agreed. And what very few people tend to figure out, is that the percentage of real profit Behringer makes on each product they manufacture, is way higher than what Ampeg/Loud earns when making a Heritage SVT-CL, or that Mackie earns from the sale of a 1642VLZ3.

 

[seamonkey]

B* just doesn't build their own stuff. They build stuff for others, but they're smart enough to protect the IP of the companies that hire them out (they keep it a secret):
Invalid Link Removed

Here's an interesting interview with Uli B.
Invalid Link Removed

B* and other companies in the Music Group seem to be doing very well. They don't seem to care much about internet lore. Sales are up and they're acquiring other companies.

They have some good sounding and reliable gear from their other divisions but I personally wouldn't buy any of their current bass amp products, as they all seem old class-ab built to fit some vintage look and sound and not much on the ergonomics. When they join the lightweight class-d heads and neo cabinets I make take a look again.

 

[JayAmel]

OMG, Midas and Klark-Teknik were top notch audio equipment. What'll become of them now ?

B* and other companies in the Music Group seem to be doing very well.

Of course, and that will last as long as the cheapofetish music market will work.

 

[Bongolation]

electronic circuits can, and have been patented.. so, you can remove the "if".. as to copyrighting circuits, it's another story..

I didn't say circuits were unpatentable, but that almost all music gear circuits were, and that's the truth -- because they are virtually all derivative of previous circuits and therefore unpatentable and therefore are 100% in the public domain.

I don't know the details about Aphex (who apparently actually does [or did] hold patents on technology that actually was original), but Behringer has claimed that they've never lost a case over circuitry, merely trade dress and dubious applications of copyright, not patent.

IMO, Behringer is capitalizing on minimal modification of existing circuits and production in China.. it would be one thing if they were producing a product that was simply cheaper.. but, they capitalize by using market confusion by styling their products to actually look like the product they are copying..

That's the specious "trade dress" issue, which is widely abused when there are no actual proprietary claims over the technology.

Nobody is "confused" by this: Look at the generic or store brand items in your supermarket that are right next to the "name brand" ones -- same color package, same graphic styling, etc. It's perfectly customary and routine in business. That, say, FMIC can try to claim the letters S, P, J and T as trade dress is more outrageous to me than anything Behringer has ever done.

My problem with the trade dress issue is that the customer is misled to think the Behringer product is a true copy, the way the Safeway Ibuprofen is exactly the same as Advil, which -- contrary to the overwhelmingly prevalent popular delusion -- it is not. The Behringer circuit is derivative, but not the copy you hope you're getting, because Behringer changes the circuits and components to make them cheaper, not because they are under the slightest legal or moral obligation to do so as an issue of circuit ownership, because there isn't any such thing. The circuit belongs as much to me as it does to Ampeg. That's the INTENT of patent law, to serve the common weal and make evolving derivative or out-of-patent technology cheaper and more available to more people.

In short, I'm bugged not that Behringer makes 100% copies, but that they don't. They should.

I'm also bugged that they do such a crappy job of building their stuff, but that's a separate issue.

 

[ColinGWood]

Yo, don't be talkin smack 'bout Peavey.

+111

 

[Buster Brown]

I didn't say circuits were unpatentable, but that almost all music gear circuits were, and that's the truth -- because they are virtually all derivative of previous circuits and therefore unpatentable and therefore are 100% in the public domain.

I don't know the details about Aphex (who apparently actually does [or did] hold patents on technology that actually was original), but Behringer has claimed that they've never lost a case over circuitry, merely trade dress and dubious applications of copyright, not patent.


That's the specious "trade dress" issue, which is widely abused when there are no actual proprietary claims over the technology.

Nobody is "confused" by this: Look at the generic or store brand items in your supermarket that are right next to the "name brand" ones -- same color package, same graphic styling, etc. It's perfectly customary and routine in business. That, say, FMIC can try to claim the letters S, P, J and T as trade dress is more outrageous to me than anything Behringer has ever done.

My problem with the trade dress issue is that the customer is misled to think the Behringer product is a true copy, the way the Safeway Ibuprofen is exactly the same as Advil, which -- contrary to the overwhelmingly prevalent popular delusion -- it is not.

You had me up until your last sentence. You see I have had a "day" job for many years. Now retired and working in the music indutry, I worked as a "Private label" buyer for a large grocery wholesale distributor (VERY LARGE). The "private labels" are actually licensed products to carry that "Private Label". In other words in your sentence above, you claim that the private labeled Ibuprofen is not the same as Advil. That is completely untrue. It most certainly is. Usually from the same plant. The "private labels" are held to the exact same standards as their labeled counterparts.

I would suggest that the next time you go to the grocery to purchase, say, canned vegetables - you might consider that the came from the same plant where the "brand name" vegetables came from. Perhaps not "first run", but the exact same plant.

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack.....

 

[JimmyM]

honestly, i think it's a case by case issue...take eucerin cream, a moisturizing cream i use. the wal mart version of eucerin is watery and pasty, whereas the real thing is smooth and not at all watery. however, i too have worked a little grocery store work as a resetter, and buster, generally what you said is what people tell me.

 

[Bongolation]

"Private Label". In other words in your sentence above, you claim that the private labeled Ibuprofen is not the same as Advil.

No, I didn't.

Read it again. I was referring to Behringer not being the exact same thing, not the store brand ibuprophen, which is. I was going to re-write that sentence, but I didn't think anyone would blow it as "which" always refers to the earliest subject.

And...there is no need to "license" out-of patent drugs. Whether or not a company has somehow finagled trade dress BS (and that's what it is) to include "any ibuprophen drug in a yellow box," I dunno. Maybe.

 

[Bongolation]

If one REALLY thinks they're going to get 'the same or better for half the price,' well, i don't know what to say about that.

I do. It's my life. I NEVER pay real money for ANYTHING.

Of course, I usually get the name brand for over half off, so I don't have to buy lesser brands...but dollar value is everything.

Many forms of gear are insanely overpriced. Only aggressive marketing and credulous buyers can make some stupid analog "boutique" dirtbox with $6.21 in components in some project box, thrown together in some Chinese electronics mill be worth $180.

Most gear should cost less than it does -- and it costs less than it would have if Behringer hadn't started providing some perspective on gear pricing. People forget that part, and that's one reason why you should be grateful to Behringer, even if you think their stuff is junk and you never own a single piece of it. Behringer -- and the companies who have tried the same thing, like Nady, Danelectro, etc., etc. -- have forced "better" gear producers to be more competitively priced.

 

[Mooblar]

eewww gross! like, eucerin is for old people!

 

[JimmyM]

eewww gross! like, eucerin is for old people!

well...i'm old. so there!

 

[JMac- Wiskerface Designs]

I would expect a $200.00 amp, to sound like a $200.00 amp. That is what always made me chuckle and look the other way when I first saw the behringer gear. I couldn't ever convince myself that I got a great deal buying one of their cheapo copycat amps or pedals. In the end it all boils down to one thing, you get what you pay for. I can fix up a cheap bass and make it sound and play decent, but a cheap amp will always be a cheap amp or a good boat anchor.

 

[thedude77md]

Playing devil's advocate here, of those that have posted to this point, who has owned Behringer gear and had a significant problem with it?

The reason I ask is that I have seen threads here on TB regarding gear from just about every manufacturer having problems or crapping out at one point or another. I by no means think Behringer is top of the line stuff, but threads I've seen here indicate that Behringer gear is no more or less reliable than other brands; it just seems people like to chime in because they have a reputation of being "cheap" (as in quality, not price) just as Peavey had back in the late 70's/early 80's and still exists as a stigma to this day.

I am not taking the time to search through the forums, but off the top of my head, the most common technical issue threads I've seen are regarding Ampeg, MarkBass, and Aguilar (yes, Aguilar!) amps. Personally, the amps I have had technical issues with were MarkBass and Sunn, albeit Fender owned but branded as Sunn.

 

[QPNBASS]

I've actually heard and played a few bugera amps. the 333xl (loosley based on the peavey XXX), the 6260 (based on the peavey 5150) and the BVV3000 (based on the ampeg svt cl). While these amps don't exactly nail the tone, they are (for the most part) quality amps.

The 333xl by no means recreates the xxx but has a great tone to it. Youtube it and see.
The 6260 comes very close to the original peavey 5150 with the right cab.
The BVV3000, like the 6260, comes very close to the amp it's based on and is built like a tank.

$700 does sound ridiculous for a 300 watt all valve amp but with both guitarists in my band sporting bugera amps (the above mentioned 6260 and 333xl) for over a year with no repairs, it wouldn't be too big of a leap for me to get this amp. Surely, when I get the money I will become an SVT snob but until then I wouldn't mind having an all tube amp for the price of an ampeg b2re (which sound like absolute garbage even if it is made by ampeg).