Behringer drops new vintage stuff!!!

[interceptör]

Ibut let's stop, as a guitar community, calling these things 'clones' (vocally or subconsciously) maybe and start calling out what almost all 'new' behringer products actually are: counterfeits.

I'm not defending Behringer because I know nothing about him/them, but these pedals are 100% not counterfeits because that'd mean they bore protected brand and product names which these don't do. So if some forumite somewhere called him a counterfeiter, he'd have every right to sue them.

[JSett]

I'm not going to argue semantics with you on this, you know what I mean. Some of them are exactly the same apart from the brand name on the front. They're not clones, or 'inspired by'...they're fucking ripoffs.



If people are going to (rightly) rag on someone like Josh Scott for stealing designs and profiting off other's hard work then Behringer deserve it 10x seeing as they are 100% trying to pretend they are the same just by how they present them.

But whatever, your dollar, your conscience.

I've said my piece.

(This is all personal opinion, obviously. I don't want Uli trying to sue me )

[B.T.]

Ibut let's stop, as a guitar community, calling these things 'clones' (vocally or subconsciously) maybe and start calling out what almost all 'new' behringer products actually are: counterfeits.

I'm not defending Behringer because I know nothing about him/them, but these pedals are 100% not counterfeits because that'd mean they bore protected brand and product names which these don't do. So if some forumite somewhere called him a counterfeiter, he'd have every right to sue them.

There’s a laundry list of products they’ve cloned up to the omission of the brand name. Yes it’s not technically a counterfeit but damn close. And I’m not talking old IP or expired patients.

[JSett]

There’s a laundry list of products they’ve cloned up to the omission of the brand name. Yes it’s not technically a counterfeit but damn close. And I’m not talking old IP or expired patients.

Exactly. See: MOOG

[BearBoy]

A lot of these tools are becoming more accessible now which is amazing

On the pro audio side, Audioscape is making some alarmingly good cheap copies

It’s getting so that in many cases, the main reason to spend for the vintage items is either vanity or inspiration (if you’re a person who finds old gear inspiring)

I'm not really familiar with the pro audio space but I took a look at Audioscape's website to see whether they might have anything that I could use at home. TBH even though they're likely cheap by pro-audio standards, they're probably still more money than I could reasonably justify for my hamfisted home recordings.

What I did notice though was that they sell a "trainwrecked" series. i.e. basically relic'd rack gear. Is that really a thing?

[øøøøøøø]

TBH even though they're likely cheap by pro-audio standards, they're probably still more money than I could reasonably justify for my hamfisted home recordings.

What I did notice though was that they sell a "trainwrecked" series. i.e. basically relic'd rack gear. Is that really a thing?

I think you’ve got it right—most of this stuff has transformers etc inside (and they use intelligently-selected premium parts), so there’s kind of a floor on how cheap it can possibly be.

The experience is a lot like buying the generic breakfast cereal as opposed to the name brand, really—less snob-appeal but it’s broadly-comparable and makes the branded stuff feel overpriced.

For example: their MEQ-5 copy is almost exactly 25% the cost of the name-brand reproduction and about 15% the cost of a vintage original. But it performs comparably, which I think is impressive. A $949 channel of EQ isn’t “cheap,” but it’s broadly accessible to the working professional (a $3800 or $7k channel of EQ isn’t always)

As for the relic’d rack gear… I’ve never seen evidence of demand for that. I think it may be something they’re trying to make “a thing” but frankly I doubt it will catch on.

[GilmourD]

(This is all personal opinion, obviously. I don't want Uli trying to sue me )

I have a lawyer in the family who's also a guitarist (he's more of an alternative/indie-rock guy, not a blues lawyer), but I think he can only technically practice here in the US, so I couldn't offer you his services.

[Larry Mal]

Well, counterfeit would not be accurate here, since counterfeit implies an intent to deceive and there's no intent here. You know you are buying a Behringer clone of something.

The morality of it I can see both sides of, although in some cases there simply is no current thing in production, Behringer is bringing back a dead product that has cult appeal and I don't know if I really see the problem there.

Some people on this forum are seemingly upset that Behringer is cloning older stuff and not coming up with new designs or something? Seems there is a criticism of JHS for making recreations of old stuff.

But, shit, we're all guitar players here, if you want a forward looking industry dedicated to innovation man did you ever pick wrong.

[Dr Tony Balls]

I dont really have a problem with Behringer. Most of what they're doing nowadays is making direct, and amazing sounding, clones of vintage synths and pedals. Everyone knows their build quality is shit, and this is the agreement you make with yourself when you buy one. If you treat it gingerly it will probably be great for a decent amount of time. If you dont/cant do that, well then you're just creating garbage. Its Harbor Freight Tools like that.

Are they repairable? No. Are they made by people making a decent wage under decent conditions? Probably not. But good luck buying a television, computer, or any other consumer electronics that fit that bill. Maybe that's a counterpoint though. Gear is one of the few areas in which we have the ability to buy proper, repairable, decently made stuff... when you can buy a 55" 4K TV for <$200 maybe translate your savings into buying *good* gear?

And re: JHS I'll chime in since I probably complained the loudest. The gear world is FULL of clones and copies and there is nothing wrong with that....its been that way for 60 years (see: Jim Marshall). Where JHS is a twat, beyond just being a twat in general, is taking credit for designs that he straight up stole, calling them all original. I've made plenty of Klon clones over the years but if I ever called them my original design, well then im a fucking shitty dum dum.

[JSett]

I don't think I'd have such an issue with it if they didn't intentionally rip products that are still on the shelf.














...and so on, and so on.

It's theft. And I fucking hate thieves.

[øøøøøøø]

I don't think I'd have such an issue with it if they didn't intentionally rip products that are still on the shelf.














...and so on, and so on.

It's theft. And I fucking hate thieves.

If we’re going to be logically-consistent, though, wouldn’t every aftermarket humbucker (that fits the Gibson/PAF footprint) also be theft?

And every Dreadnaught-dimensioned acoustic (a Martin innovation), and every Strat- or Tele- or Jazzmaster-shaped guitar (that wasn’t made by Fender?)

What about every archtop guitar with violin-style F-holes (unambiguously descended from the Gibson L-5, which is still made)?

For that matter, every solidbody 34” scale four-string electric bass guitar, as Fender still makes them?

That would be a tough world to navigate, and would seriously limit options available to people in need of lower-cost items (or those with peculiar tastes and a desire for customization).

I always kind of looked at it like: “Behringer makes cheap, generic versions of name-brand items,” which in an of itself doesn’t seem to be all that out-of-bounds (or all that unprecedented) in musical instrument trade.

I love Tokai guitars and they were even bolder in their right-up-to-the-line evocation of Fender and Gibson trade dress in the 1970s and 1980s

[JSett]

I know exactly what you're saying, but most of those are mostly just aesthetically similar or general build size/shape* characteristics.

The Behringers are even using the same fonts. It's not 'inspired by' by even the longest stretch of the imagination.

*The Tokai/Greco/etc lawsuit era are an anomaly as I think the international trade situation meaning western guitars being much harder to import into Japan bred the desire to copy mostly to satisfy a hunger, more than the desire to profit from someone else's work (which is why it took them a while to turn out some fantastic instruments).

-

All that aside, I feel I've definitely laboured my point well and truly to death now so I'm going to Mod myself and leave this at that and let the conversation continue about the new releases

[OffYourFace]

Behringer's Roland copies are analog like the vintage stuff, just made with SMT. Roland's "reissue" gear is all digital modeling that they call ACB (analog ckt behavior). Behringer sells a lot of these things because of this. Roland missed out IMO. But they're a classic Japanese company that doesn't like to work 'backwards'. Korg recreates their old stuff with modern appointments (adding midi and presets to their 70s 'reissue' synths etc).

I agree that Uli is the musical instrument biz version of Musk.

[øøøøøøø]

Behringer's Roland copies are analog like the vintage stuff, just made with SMT. Roland's "reissue" gear is all digital modeling that they call ACB (analog ckt behavior). Behringer sells a lot of these things because of this. Roland missed out IMO. But they're a classic Japanese company that doesn't like to work 'backwards'.

Neumann was like this for *decades* before they finally caved and started giving people what they wanted

All anyone wanted was a reissue U67, M49, 47FET etc… and they were trying to make us want the D-01 (a digital mic with integrated analog-to-digital converters)

Finally they caved and their vintage reissues seem to be doing a brisk business

A proper KM84 and KM86 would do great too (no hope for a tube 47, most likely, due to the unobtanium tube)

[matbard]

No, they are not simply "SMD based" copies of the original.

They share the same developing platform, use digital controlled microprocessors to ensure stability and modern features like MIDI and so on and reuse the same firmware. For the Behringer Model-D (aka "Boog") they used a Voyager-type filter and different pot values. You could certainly have that typical Moog-esque sound if you put three detuned sawtooth oscillators into a resonance enhanced screaming filter, but more you drift from this behavior, more you can taste differences from a real Minimoog. They are large scale engineered variations of the same two or three "inspired by" products, but they rely heavily on the external appearances and marketing strategy to illude the users that they have the "real deal".