• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

SX Stingray

#101
Stealing is indeed bad. I'm glad everyone has taken a harsh stance on stealing. Now, lets throw out all our PC's because the concept was stolen from the initial creator. If everyone is so opposed to SX Stingrays, why havent people been opposed to the following companies that manufacture Stingray Look-a-likes?

Jay Turser:
Invalid Link Removed

Stellar Guitars
http://www.stellarguitars.com/neptune003_blue.htm

Agreed, regressive thinking is not the quickest way to the establishment of new instruments, shapes, ideas, but there is something Confucious said that yields some insight on this situation. In chinese, it is "Wenguerzhixin" Not sure how many chinese scholars are here (i am certainly not), but it goes along the lines of "Reveiwing the past creates new questions for the present"


The musicman concept is a tested seller. I feel, like with the music industry and the file sharing concept, that SX Stingray's, along with any other knockoff, will bring more players to Ernieball MM's in the future.
 
#106
tplyons said:
Companies are forced to create decent products due to competition. If you don't like the OLP, buy an Ibanez. Buy a Squier. Obviously the OLP's are good enough quality where they are large sellers, and I've seen many more OLP's out there than Squiers. If you don't like 'em, doesn't make bootlegging any more legal.Companies can be very original. If not, feel free to pay a licencing fee. That's why there are laws, to protect the companies who do the research and development of these products. Notice that the Warwick Streamer looks a lot like a Spector? It's a licenced copy and Spector gets money each time a Streamer is sold. Sure, they look the same, but they're very different animals.

How often does a custom bass come along that people hate? Very often. But many new designs become successful: Warwicks are original. No mistaking them for Fender or Ernie Ball. Ibanez Soundgears, Ergodynes, even ATK's (the "poor man's Stingray" -- which looks nothing like a Stingray, doesn't inflict any sort of copyright infringement in design, only having a similar tone based on a similar construction and pickup placement).Why don't you see new designs? Because people are too busy copying old ones. If people actually respected copyrights, there would be much more initiative to produce something new and unique. Look at Carey Nordstrand, Bud LeCompte, our very own Hambone. Plenty of new stuff out there.
Click to expand...

I'm not really trying to argue the morality issue of copying designs with you, I'm just saying why I think a lot of companies find it more appealing to do that than to try and design and push their own original products. With these copy basses being geared toward the beginner's market, people new to the bass want to play the things that look like what they see their favorite players playing, and usually that looks like a Fender, or maybe a MM. I don't think if SX had it's own original body design that people would buy them as much. Is it better to be original? Yes, of course it is. But it's not nearly as profitable, and companies know they can make a lot more money making copies than they can doing their own thing.

Bass and guitar copies have been going on basically since they've been invented. It's just so common now that I don't understand why people are still getting angry over it. If EBMM is angry about it they can sue, but somehow I doubt they're real worried about a $150 SX copy taking their market share.
 
#107
Joe Nerve said:
just wanted to plug in. no comment at the moment. it's 6:45AM.

does anyone else take their bongo into the bathroom with them. i mean, instead of a magazine?
Click to expand...


...

Hahahahahahahahaha.

I'd be afriad of any sorts of "misfirings" tainting the bass.

So are these SX look-alikes active for 100 dollars less than the OLP?

Oh well... I have my stingray, and never intend to buy an SX...
 
#111
Fong249 said:
Stealing is indeed bad. I'm glad everyone has taken a harsh stance on stealing. Now, lets throw out all our PC's because the concept was stolen from the initial creator. If everyone is so opposed to SX Stingrays, why havent people been opposed to the following companies that manufacture Stingray Look-a-likes?

Jay Turser:
Invalid Link Removed

Stellar Guitars
http://www.stellarguitars.com/neptune003_blue.htm

Agreed, regressive thinking is not the quickest way to the establishment of new instruments, shapes, ideas, but there is something Confucious said that yields some insight on this situation. In chinese, it is "Wenguerzhixin" Not sure how many chinese scholars are here (i am certainly not), but it goes along the lines of "Reveiwing the past creates new questions for the present"


The musicman concept is a tested seller. I feel, like with the music industry and the file sharing concept, that SX Stingray's, along with any other knockoff, will bring more players to Ernieball MM's in the future.
Click to expand...

Well, neither of the above examples feature the 3+1 headstock, so there isn't a whole lot legally that can be done there.
 
#112
Smallequestrian said:
Well, neither of the above examples feature the 3+1 headstock, so there isn't a whole lot legally that can be done there.
Click to expand...

The Three and One Headstock

History shows us that in EB copies the pickguard, body shape, bridge, control cover and pickup are not lawsuit issues, but would we be having this discussion if the SX basses had a 2&2 or 4 inline headstock?

I suspose we would, because the good name of EB is being threatened... :rolleyes:

A fun bit of trivia: Jay turser basses are made so that you can rotate the outer bottom tuner and have a perfectly aligned 3&1 tuner arrangement. You just have to drill four tiny mounting screws. The present arrangement is a bit off, I wonder if early on Tursers had the 3&1 and had to change it, but did so with no real modification to the manufacturing process.
 
#113
Fong249 said:
Do not expect MIA quality from a bass built in factories in foreign countries, such as China, Korea, Japan, Indonesia. Sure, there will be a diamond in the rough occasionally. Bless the man who gets that one. But people, SX is bass on a budget. Gotta look at that aspect of this whole SX Stingray situation.
Click to expand...
It's actually more like: Do not expect "MIA" quality from a bass that sells for $150 U.S. regardless of where it's made... Period. Commission these same factories in foreign countries to build a high quality instrument that sells for over a grand and see what they could do (Hmm... Lakland 55-02 anyone?)

- Ugly.
 
#114
you know, I think the problem here is that SX is charging such a low price. If they were charging $3000, they wouldn't be "stealing", they would be "inspired by" and no one would be upset. :hiding:

Really, no one who was ready to buy a Stingray is going to buy an SX, but they are obviously intrigued by the design. If the SX is as crappy as the EBMM fanatics want it to be, they are going to want the real thing even more. No one's going to play a crappy faux-Stingray and say, "Wow MM sucks." They are going to say, "Well, I'm going to have to buy a real Stingray."

If it's an ethical issue then let's also have a discussion about how outraged we are over those Fender design "stealers."
 
#116
toad said:
If it's an ethical issue then let's also have a discussion about how outraged we are over those Fender design "stealers."
Click to expand...

+1.
I really don't get why people are drawing their little moral lines in the sand over this particular bass.

One more point...
Rondomusic isn't advertising it as a Stingray, EBMM, or anything else. In fact, the only reference to the "Original" on their page is "MM-style humbucker pickup". All the "Stingray-copy" advertising is right here in this thread.
 
#117
Maybe...just maybe...Team International has some sort of legal agreement with EBMM to use the design. Maybe the design patent has expired. There were so few of these imported that it may be a *knockoff and run*. We don't know and may never know.
Once again, an SX is a cult favorite, it is a great platform for mods and usually a decent player out of the box. To compare it to any EBMM or FMM product is well...useless.

I just don't get it....:scowl:
 
#119
Spanky2112 said:
Uh oh....
SX=Behringer:confused:
Hardly....
Click to expand...
i don't exactly think this thread was talking about the quality of the copy, but more the fact that that new SX single humbucker bass is a direct copy of the SR, similar to what behringer did with almost their entire product line, so in that sense, SX is exactly like behringer, in that they are making their money off designs that they didn't develop, rather someone else got it right, and then both companies jumped on the bandwagon...i won't insert my opinion here, but i do observe that there are people here who are against some companies for their blatent ripping off of other designs, yet for a bass, its ok for them to copy....just an observation :)
 
#120
SX vs. OLP: Why would I pay an extra $100 for a "legit" piece of crap? I've played OLP's before at GC. I wanted to like them, but something always buzzed, or there were dead spots or I nearly sliced my hand on sharp frets protruding from the neck. Yea, let me pay an extra $100 for that. I own an SX SJB75, I have none of those problems. For $160, it blows practically every other beginner bass out of the water. Same with my Ibanez GSR100 which is basically the lowest end bass Ibanez makes. The neck on that thing is fantastic, rivaling a lot more expensive basses. Niether of these has problems like an OLP. And they're both cheaper. Yes I understand MM doesn't make OLP, but if they really cared about their image, and how a copy of their work reflects them, they would enforce some sort of quality control on a product that represents them. MM is just like everyother company since the existance of time, they want to make $. Don't kid yourself into believing their business practices are any better than anyone else. They cut corners with OLP quality control to make more profit, because OLP will still make money off the beginner looking for a MM style bass.

Ok, so they have R&D to pay for, I don't follow MM, but I haven't really noticed anything strikingly new from them in a few years. Same with Fender. Nothing that shouted to me "Hey look, we're still innovating new things over here!". If Ibanez can make a decent playing/sounding bass for under $200, I don't see why OLP can't do the same for $250. Ibanez has R&D costs too.

If SX makes a similar product to an OLP, and it's better (which wouldn't be that hard), it's MM's own fault for losing business. If you sell crap for $250, and someone sells something better for less, you lose. That's the way the business world works. Is SX ethical? Thats a matter of opinion. Are they good at making good instruments for the price? Undeniably.


*Don't reference the quality of SUBs and real MM's either. Because if someone is looking at the SX clone, I doubt they're looking to spend $700+ at the moment.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back