Bugera amps

[thetroy]

They show up from time to time and thats why I said before to be patient and look around. We DO NOT have to depend on cheap gear from china. Craigslist has great deals on amps and stuff but ya have to be patient.

My biggest issue with Behringer is the way they "reverse engineer" other peoples stuff and go to china to get it made cheaper. Where is the innovation in that?

I think what Behringer does is what Republicans call Capitalism.

[yard dawg]

I think what Behringer does is what Republicans call Capitalism.

Nahh its what china calls capitalism. Most Republicans as well as most democrats support copyright and trademark laws. Its your right to buy whatever you want dude im just pointing out why Behringer stuff is poorly made.

[slo100]

I don't think these are intended to compete at the pro-level. They might do the job and work well for some folks in some pro-situations, but their reliability and staying power will only be uncovered after time. If they sound ok and have the features users want, that's great...worth the money at the time of purchase. If a gigging musician is going to take it on the road, it is certainly more of a gamble than an alternate, proven make/model of amp. Plastic, detatchable input jacks are certainly not a good sign...

FWIW, a band I was in tried the single 18" subs and neither worked out of the box on the first try. However, I have been using a Behringer crossover in my PA rack for about 4 years now so that has been a good experience.

[thetroy]

Nahh its what china calls capitalism. Most Republicans as well as most democrats support copyright and trademark laws. Its your right to buy whatever you want dude im just pointing out why Behringer stuff is poorly made.

Riiiiight that's why almost every single US company either makes things in China, buys things made in China, sells things to China, or some combination of the above.

Most people in this country do NOT support that stuff, they might say they support it but if you look at their actions it is clear that they do not.

[Newc]

Fascinating


As for R&D, that's not an investment that you have to make back before seeing profits, it's a fee that you pay for developing new product. It's an expense you have to incur, much like gasoline for your car or bread for your ham sandwich.

[Rupe]

Fascinating


As for R&D, that's not an investment that you have to make back before seeing profits, it's a fee that you pay for developing new product. It's an expense you have to incur, much like gasoline for your car or bread for your ham sandwich.

Bullshit. It all effects the bottom line. You can look at the books any way that you want (in this case taking development costs out of the cost of the product) but in the end it all has to be accounted for. If you look at R&D as a separate balance sheet item (not everyone does BTW) then you make the product manager look better but the cost is still there.

A company that reverse engineers others designs does not incur that same cost to anywhere near the degree of those who are truly designing unique circuits/products.

You can rationalize buying a POS amp any way that you want, but at the end of the day, you still have a POS amp that the manufacturer (Behringer) should not be allowed to make.

[Bengal]

Rupe,
Why shouldn't they be allowed to make them? Are they direct rip-offs of other amps? Do they look just like them?

I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just asking.

Like I said in an ESP thread, everyone copies Gibson and Fender in the guitar world. Besides a few incidents, it's gone pretty smoothly. I guess I equate these like I would an ESP EC1000 to a Gibson Les Paul.

[Rupe]

I'm speaking specifically to reverse engineered clones. When that happens, the "cloner" has the benefit of using a circuit that the "clonee" most likely had a large investment tied up in during the research and development phase of the product. Part of the cost of an innovative, high end, mass produced amp (or most any other manufactured product) is the R&D that went into it. In the case of a 5150, you also have the cost of EVH's naming rights.

I've only heard hearsay about the Bugera amps so I personally don't know if they are exact clones...I am assuming so from what I've heard but I could be wrong. Several years back though, Behringer was making EXACT clones of Mackie sound equipment and actually hurt the company by doing so. In some of those cases, they weren't even using cheaper components so the Mackie quality was there, but since Behringer didn't have to incur the development costs, their overhead was lower and thus so was their price.

I'm not an attorney but I am a Marketing exec with experience in Product Management so I have an understanding of how these things work. What I don't understand is how Behringer can continue to get away with their practice of "stealing" designs while remaining a viable US company. I know they got shut down on the Mackie clones but if these amps are truly Peavey designs, I question how they even make it to market. Perhaps they are making some small tweaks to the circuit but even then I don't consider it fair business.

[Bengal]

So it's really no different than ESP ripping off Gibson with the EC line, right? Same basic principal but with a few minor tweaks here and there to get by the lawyers.

Companies have been doing this for years and years and getting away with it. Something popluar will always have clones. How many bike builders are making Harley clones?

[Rupe]

You're right to a degree, but I am talking about a complete reverse engineering of a complex item. Aside from a few specialty pieces, not a whole lot of R&D money is being spent on Gibson guitars...they did that many years ago to arrive at the design they have today. Even then, there's not a whole lot of R&D that goes into a standard guitar as it is not nearly as complex as a 3 channel amp.

On the other hand, your Harley example is one of a very complex machine that took great amounts of R&D resources. The difference here is that although other makers are building "clones", these are primarily in appearance only. If you get into the "nuts and bolts", you'll find that the V-twins in a Victory, Honda, or Kawasaki are completely different animals than those in a Harley. They aren't reverse engineering a Harley, they are simply putting their spin on a classic look (much like ESP) while still incurring a great deal of R&D investment.

It can be a fine line for sure. For final clarification, I am not against cheap/budget amps (I've personally gotten some killer tones from solid state Crate amps in a pinch)...they certainly fill a much needed place in the market. I am against companies who essentially "pirate" other company's engineering designs.

[Newc]

From what I've heard (primarily about the weaker jacks on the Bugera), they're not "clones". "Copies" maybe, but not "clones".

And yes, R&D affects the company bottom line, just like employee salaries. It's also an expense of doing business, just like employee salaries.

While the company has to make a profit to pay those salaries (effectively getting back the money that was paid out to the employees so they can continue to pay the employees), the cost of R&D (beyond the employees' pay) i.e. the cost of materials used in the journey to reach the final product are not "must recover" funds.

That money was a means to an end, not the end itself.

While Peavey, Mesa, and Fender have spent their R&D dollars on developing a product that is merely copied by a late-comer, the laws are very specific on what is and is not allowed. Many companies try their luck at illegal cloning, but once their name is out there and they have a foundation for return business, they can easily switch to the legal copies and maintain a large percentage of that customer base.

It's bad morality, but good business.

And in this day, who can cast stones at another over morality?

[VitaminG]

isn't that basically what the boutique amp manufacturers are doing though? Marshall & Fender designs with a few tweaks. Then they position it that they are building amps the 'right' way, with point-to-point wiring, etc. in a world full of mass-produced pcb boards & plastic inputs, and charge you a high premium for it.

"Don't buy a crappy new Marshall - we build them how they used to be"

Obviously all of that takes quality components, time, effort & experience that warrants the prices that are charged, but aren't they doing basically the same thing that folks are taking issue with Behringer about?

although, all of this is speculation because no one here seems to know for sure that this is what Behringer has done with the Bugeras. They may have come up with their own (or bought someone else's) design for 3 new amps that "sound just like" those 3 Peaveys

[Newc]

Exactly. If Pete builds exact copies of '59 Fender Bassmans, and Behringer does the same thing in a Chinese sweatshop, is Pete any less guilty than Behringer?

[Rupe]

I knew someone would bring that up and I almost addressed it so as to preempt that discussion. Original Fenders used generic circuit designs from the General Electric tube manual...very little R&D went into those amps and anybody was permitted to use those circuits, they were not proprietary. Marshall then took these same design types and tweaked them a bit...a Plexi Marshall is essentially the same circuit as a Tweed Bassman. When the boutique amp craze started, the amps that were being copied were no longer being manufactured, thus no substantial amount business was really being diverted (that's arguable to a degree I suppose) to the boutique builder. The success of these boutique companies then led to many of the original manufacturers (or the parent company that now owned the name of the original manufacturer) to rerelease some of their classic designs. Very few of the boutique amps are exact copies anyway (although some are) and I don't know of any that are cheaper than a reissue so it's not like they are stealing customers away with lower quality rip-offs. I do believe companies like Marshall or Fender should be able to receive royalties when their look is copied in addition to the circuit by a boutique builder...maybe in a perfect world

And yes, R&D affects the company bottom line, just like employee salaries. It's also an expense of doing business, just like employee salaries.

While the company has to make a profit to pay those salaries (effectively getting back the money that was paid out to the employees so they can continue to pay the employees), the cost of R&D (beyond the employees' pay) i.e. the cost of materials used in the journey to reach the final product are not "must recover" funds.

Like I said, different companies view that in different ways. Speaking as a former Executive of a Berkshire Hathaway company, I have been in many boardrooms where these exact costs were part of the equation when it came to pricing strategy and cost recovery of certain products and programs. In fact, I was ultimately outplaced for that very reason...increase the ROI of our customer service organization by putting effective programs in place and then hiring monkeys to administer them.

[yard dawg]

Behringer was sued by Mackie. They took Mackies consoles and duplicated them. They didnt even change the colors of the knobs. It was a Mackie console with Behringers name on it. If you look at Behringer stuff such as their modelers you'll see they look almost exactly like Line6 stuff. Behringer is a bad company.


Many guitar makers make similar stuff. I dont have an issue with taking an existing product and improving it or tweaking it to be different than the original. Behringer doesnt do this. They take an existing product,copy it and then make it cheaper with cheaper components.