Members chrispsullivan Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's not that I'm not educated enough. At all. It's just that Bugera seem to get a bad rap for doing what lots of other companies do. It's more prevalent in pedals, with so many Tubescreamer, Big Muff and Fuzz Face clones out there. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just struggle to understand why other companies don't get called out on it when Bugera do. It's different when you're basing your circuit around a classic design that has been around for 40+ years. Bugera isn't loosely basing their design on a classic circuit, they're directly cloning amps that are currently in production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChuckNorris1982 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 Big Muffs, Fuzz Faces and Tubescreamers are all still currently in production. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Cloning a 5150 and adding digital reverb to it is really no different to cloning a Tubescreamer and including a footswitchable boost circuit in there. Yet one is fine, and the other apparently is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's not that I'm not educated enough. At all. It's just that Bugera seem to get a bad rap for doing what lots of other companies do. It's more prevalent in pedals, with so many Tubescreamer, Big Muff and Fuzz Face clones out there. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just struggle to understand why other companies don't get called out on it when Bugera do. Most of the companies you are referring to are using circuits that have been around for years and building them with HIGHER quality components and craftsmanship, often building them by hand and using construction techniques that are no longer in use in modern production lines, not to mention adding their own tweaks to the circuit to solve issues in the original design or offer a different voicing etc. That's not what Behringer does. AT ALL. Behringer will take an existing design, reverse engineer it so there is no R&D cost, build it with the cheapest possible components and make it look almost the same, to flat out undercut the company that actually developed the product. It's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shiny_Surface Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 There seems to be a double standard where it's ok to clone/copy with higher quality components, but not vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChuckNorris1982 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 There seems to be a double standard where it's ok to clone/copy with higher quality components, but not vice versa. That's basically what I'm saying. Whether you use better components and sell for more money, or worse components and sell for cheaper.... a clone is a clone is a clone. And I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teemuk Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 Are you serious? Behringer has done near exact copies of many Mackie products. The Bugera Trirec is a Mesa Rectifier clone. The Bugera Magician is a Mesa Mark IV clone. The Bugera 6260 is a Peavey 5150 clone. The Bugera 6262 is a Peavey 5150 II clone. The Bugera 333 is a Peavey Triple XXX clone. The Bugera 333XL is a Peavey JSX clone. Adding digital reverb does not negate the obvious replicating. As I said: Cosmetical clones. Thus begs the question, have you ever seen the circuitry within to prove that those amps are actually 100% clones? So far ALL Behringer products I've seen have not been direct clones of anything despite looking very much like some classic piece of gear. Some of them are actually very, very different from the stuff they mimic look-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chrispsullivan Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 That's basically what I'm saying. Whether you use better components and sell for more money, or worse components and sell for cheaper.... a clone is a clone is a clone.And I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just the way it is. It's not the same because the one who sells cheaper is undercutting the price point of the original. The boutique version with high quality parts is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChuckNorris1982 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 So any circuit is up for grabs, so long as you always sell for more money than the original? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shiny_Surface Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's not the same because the one who sells cheaper is undercutting the price point of the original. The boutique version with high quality parts is not. Both are serving different market segments above and below the original product demographic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members teemuk Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 So any circuit is up for grabs, so long as you always sell for more money than the original? No. It simply suffices if it's "boutique". Like ...say... FAB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 That's basically what I'm saying. Whether you use better components and sell for more money, or worse components and sell for cheaper.... a clone is a clone is a clone.And I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just the way it is. oh what a total {censored}ing idiot. Thats ALL you understood from what was explained here?? Whatever. Im not going in circles with you on this, I cant fix stupid. Go ahead and play your Bugeras. it serves your {censored}ty band well. What a {censored}ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChuckNorris1982 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 I don't play Bugeras, I play Laneys. I wouldn't buy a Bugera. Just playing devil's advocate is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChuckNorris1982 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's funny that you think you 'explained' stuff to me, though. You're so wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MetalHed Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 I'm pretty certain that the Recto, 5150, XXX and JSX are ALL based on a Soldano SLO 100 anyway. If Bugera add digital reverb and whatever the Infinium technology actually is... surely it then becomes at least as different as a 5150 is to an SLO 100. The Recto is based on the SLO, if you look at the schematic you'll notice that there are differences but that the lead circuits are very similar. The 5150 is NOT based on the SLO, despite the fact that it's commonly referred to as a poor mans SLO, and the fact that Eddie was playing an SLO when he signed with Peavey. If you look at the schematics for the 5150 and the SLO, there are MAJOR differences. For one thing, the EQ section of the SLO is cathode driven, whereas the EQ section of the 5150 is plate driven. In fact, the SLO has multiple cathode followers, the 5150 has none. As for the XXX & JSX, those circuits are nothing like the SLO. If you look at the schematic for the SLO and those for the XXX and JSX, you'll be hard pressed to find any similarities in the circuits. The EQ on the SLO is completely different than the EQ section on the XXX & JSX, as are the gain stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GREC Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 : I am in the country of copying so I see it a lot, but the way bugera do it just rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Personal thing I guess. Funny you say that - My 1st guitar in the mid 70's was a Japanese Aria Les Paul Black Beauty. It was an almost exact replica of the Black Beauty except the logo. -I think Gibson had a lawsuit against them.Felt humiliated in the 80s for playing a copy & got rid of it. It was really a fantastic playing guitar and looked good -but that Aria logo....Now I'm kicking myself because it's accepted to rip off a Les Paul these days. Hundred of them out there.Maybe in the future when half the Bugeras blow up, the remaining will be expensive collectors items. Happened to Silvertones. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 Most of the companies you are referring to are using circuits that have been around for years and building them with HIGHER quality components and craftsmanship, often building them by hand and using construction techniques that are no longer in use in modern production lines, not to mention adding their own tweaks to the circuit to solve issues in the original design or offer a different voicing etc. That's not what Behringer does. AT ALL. Behringer will take an existing design, reverse engineer it so there is no R&D cost, build it with the cheapest possible components and make it look almost the same, to flat out undercut the company that actually developed the product. It's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT business model. I'm not the biggest Behringer fan either, but I've worked on their units for over 12 years. They mostly copied or try to resemble another unit cosmetically or in layouts. B2031A monitors were supposedly direct copies of 824 Mackies. They are not, and in some benchmarks were even better which pissed Mackie off. Mackie ran their bull{censored} too and are even worse under Loud Technology. Xenyx mixers were supposed to be direct copies of Mackie Onyx or VLZ's. Not really even though they resemble them to a degree. MX series boards for Behringer were copied BY Alesis and Phonic. Some have direct replacement boards. When it comes to mixers and {censored} like that.. what's to copy besides cosmetics. Its just multiple channel strips and busses. Companies that make the faders and pots are the same every vendor is sourcing. Some of the older rack {censored} it was the same thing. They made a unit look similar, but internally they were different. Oddly enough many Behringer compressors, EQ's and Headphone amps are found in tons of sound rigs and even studios. They are not copies of DBX and in many cases used even better quality low noise op amps throughout. Uli was using 4580's and 5532's in most gear that were using up remaining stock of 4558's and 4560's. I think it was 10 years ago there was bru haha over the fact Uli and Co bought up a {censored}load of faders, pots, opamps etc. Mackie and other companies had to await new production from Alps, Bourns, TI, JVC, NEC, etc. The most blatant I saw of them was the attempt at stomp pedals. The Boss and EH replicas however were not even close to the same circuit or components used. The switches especially are as budget as it gets. 20 bucks for a pedal? Danelectro I think was the first to copy (or modify slightly) orig designs, build them over seas but use a new cosmetic design or name. Some said Behringer copied the Korg rack tuner, not even close except for the scanning leds. My old band mate bought a {censored}load of BTR's and we changed the Led's to different colors. He re-sold a {censored}load of those with UV leds in them several years ago. FWIW in most Chinese gear made today, many of the low end side are copies, replicas of circuits, etc. Servicing the low end market gear is a bitch since its more a disposable market (think cds and dvd players). Minimal parts are supplied, even with Mackie boards and Loud Technology.. it's a bitch to acquire service parts, boards etc that are made in a production line and discontinued within a year. That's why Behringer has a five year exchange on most products IIRC. Service dealers basically get an RMA and customer gets new piece of gear. The only things we have seen stocked are power supply boards. The pay rate to swap under warranty is dismal.... if you ever repaired speakers under warranty you'll be familiar with the rates. IOW, its not worth it to become an authorized servicer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChuckNorris1982 Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 The Recto is based on the SLO, if you look at the schematic you'll notice that there are differences but that the lead circuits are very similar. The 5150 is NOT based on the SLO, despite the fact that it's commonly referred to as a poor mans SLO, and the fact that Eddie was playing an SLO when he signed with Peavey. If you look at the schematics for the 5150 and the SLO, there are MAJOR differences. For one thing, the EQ section of the SLO is cathode driven, whereas the EQ section of the 5150 is plate driven. In fact, the SLO has multiple cathode followers, the 5150 has none. As for the XXX & JSX, those circuits are nothing like the SLO. If you look at the schematic for the SLO and those for the XXX and JSX, you'll be hard pressed to find any similarities in the circuits. The EQ on the SLO is completely different than the EQ section on the XXX & JSX, as are the gain stages. Now this is an interesting post. Fair enough if what I'd heard RE the Peaveys is not correct, I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. I'll happily take facts on the chin, but opinions are something we're all entitled to. Billy's posts were just his opinion on the ethics of it, and it's fine to disagree with that. If we all had the same opinions, it'd be a pretty boring world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CaViTaTioN Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 Both are serving different market segments above and below the original product demographic. Bingo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CaViTaTioN Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 No. It simply suffices if it's "boutique". Like ...say... FAB. ...and Bingo Bugera business practices may suck, but when you are on a budget; that's the way it goes. Grumpy old Bugera haters be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chrispsullivan Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 ...and Bingo Bugera business practices may suck, but when you are on a budget; that's the way it goes. Grumpy old Bugera haters be damned. When you're on a budget, why wouldn't you just buy a used amp from a reputable company rather than a new Bugera? I don't see the appeal at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CaViTaTioN Posted July 10, 2012 Members Share Posted July 10, 2012 Ehh to be honest, if I lived where there was a better used gear market, I would be more apt to look in a different direction than Bugera. I wanted a 5150ii and my budget was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted July 11, 2012 Members Share Posted July 11, 2012 Ehh to be honest, if I lived where there was a better used gear market, I would be more apt to look in a different direction than Bugera. I wanted a 5150ii and my budget was I totally respect that. If it was all you could afford and you couldn't find used gear in your area, good for you. What pisses me off is the Bugera/Agile/GFS crowd that like to say "omg they're SUCH a great value!! They're SO reliable!! They're just doing what everybody else is doing!! Better than Gibson/Marshall etc" um, no... they're not. Enjoy the sweet cock of denial up your ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chromatica17 Posted July 11, 2012 Members Share Posted July 11, 2012 Hasn't anyone here ever bought the store brand cereal? How about soda? Or any other store brand item for less $$.I really dont see any difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CaViTaTioN Posted July 11, 2012 Members Share Posted July 11, 2012 I totally respect that. If it was all you could afford and you couldn't find used gear in your area, good for you. What pisses me off is the Bugera/Agile/GFS crowd that like to say "omg they're SUCH a great value!! They're SO reliable!! They're just doing what everybody else is doing!! Better than Gibson/Marshall etc" um, no... they're not. Enjoy the sweet cock of denial up your ass People against Bugera get completely bent out of shape by any display of fanboy-ism or (gasp!) pride of ownership On my end, it gets tiring hearing the complete explosion of Bugera hate. Yeah, they are thieves; I do get that. I will never say Bugera is the world's most reliable (or ethical) amp manufacturer (LOLOLOLLLOOOLLLLOOOL); but I like them for what they are. And what I can get with another $300 on top for that matter. I can only comment on my personal experience. I think each side of the argument has good points and can see both viewpoints. Its more the extremities of each side that kind of push buttons. As far as Agile guitars go, I think they are way overpriced for what they are. Back when they were $200-300, they were a decent buy. Now that the decent models are $699, not so much. Now in the Agile thread I saw people comparing them to Gibson's high end guitars which is absurd. That being said, I will be dead before I own a $5000 Les Paul. Never going to happen. So in kind of the same way Bugera provokes controversy, so does Agile. If they were still on the "affordable for what they are" side of things, I would own a few and probably be defending them in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CaViTaTioN Posted July 11, 2012 Members Share Posted July 11, 2012 ^SWEET COCK OF DENIAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.