Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Poopedi Kwena]

Hello once more

In my field of expertise we have what is called a generic product, which means it is manufactured according to the same standard as the original branded product. Generic must attain the same quality and has the same equivalence.

Now the question: are Berrys generics or fakes? I observed they build their amps copying other brands and they make specs the same as those original products, QSC is usually the victim.

[Tom Young]

Hello once more

In my field of expertise we have what is called a generic product, which means it is manufactured according to the same standard as the original branded product. Generic must attain the same quality and has the same equivalence.

Now the question: are Berrys generics or fakes? I observed they build their amps copying other brands and they make specs the same as those original products, QSC is usually the victim.

I don't know the legal definition of "generic" but my understanding of this term is that it is a product that is a functional copy of an existing product where the patent has expired. Pharmaceutical drugs are the most prevalent example of generics, at least in my experience. Most often the generic version makes no attempt to look like the original. They also cost less because they do not have exclusive rights to the previously patented formula and they want to compete with the original and other generic versions. But this is a well-regulated industry held to higher standards than pro audio and MI gear. When you buy a generic you can have reasonably high expectations that it does the same thing.

Behringer has a history of stealing others' intellectual property plus the entire look of the product. I suppose the intent is to fool people into thinking they are getting the original. So I do not see these as "generic" versions but I do see them as cheaply made copies. If they happen to also look alot like the previous/original device, then I suppose you could call them "fake".

FWIW

[David Parker]

Mackie was one of the first victims of the chinese cloners, they sued, they lost. I call them clones.

[Ivan Beaver]

Hello once more

In my field of expertise we have what is called a generic product, which means it is manufactured according to the same standard as the original branded product. Generic must attain the same quality and has the same equivalence.

Now the question: are Berrys generics or fakes? I observed they build their amps copying other brands and they make specs the same as those original products, QSC is usually the victim.

I hear it all the time that the Behringer amps are simply copies of QSC.  But if you look inside (at least from the photos I have seen) they are not even close.  Yes the power supply is on the left side and the flow through heatsink is on the right.  The knobs on the front panel are int he same place and the rear panel has the same features.

But the circuit boards are not not even close to being the same.

So I would not call it a copy.  But others may.  It depends on how you define "copy". 

If you call that a copy, then a lot of auto manufacturers are also copies-because the location of important stuff is the same (steering wheel) and they have the same features (wheels-windhields-wipers-enigne and so forth)

Now Behringer may sell a lot of units to people who "believe" they are buying a cheap QSC, and that is not right. 

I have no experience with the Behringer amps-so have no opinion on the performance-only that the "real guts" are not the same-from what I have seen.

[Frank DeWitt]

I don't know if it is fake generic, or just cheep, but I knew Behringers reputation, and my greed got the better of me and I bought 5 ADA8000s  Big mistake,  They earned there reputation.  Behringer is on my NO BUY list I am replacing my Behringer cable tester just because I no longer want the name around.

BTW  The Behringer CT100 Cable Tester is a exact copy of the Ebtech Tester except the paint color.

I am trying to say that Behringer is a wast of money

[Spenser Hamilton]

I don't know if it is fake generic, or just cheep, but I knew Behringers reputation, and my greed got the better of me and I bought 5 ADA8000s  Big mistake,  They earned there reputation.  Behringer is on my NO BUY list I am replacing my Behringer cable tester just because I no longer want the name around.

BTW  The Behringer CT100 Cable Tester is a exact copy of the Ebtech Tester except the paint color.

I am trying to say that Behringer is a wast of money

I don't know if I am just extremely lucky, but I personally have yet to have a Behringer product fail on me, we never send out Behringer in an A-Rig but it does get a lot of use in B-Rigs and DJ Rigs. We have a small stock of PMP1280's that hav been getting dry rented every weekend for well over 3 years now and have yet to see a failure, I even have an old bass head that was purchased back in 2004 that is still running great.

From a business perspective, Behringer never goes out for large scale production, but for smaller gigs and dry rentals has been great and has produced an excellent ROI. If a piece of gear were to ever fail, replacement cost is much lower than the Soundcraft and JBL gear we also rent, but we've yet to have to replace anything sooo....

As far as Behringer being clones, I don't recall Behringer ever losing a lawsuit although I do believe they have settled on some cases. The QSC comparison is IMHO ridiculous.

[John Roberts {JR}]

Hello once more

In my field of expertise we have what is called a generic product, which means it is manufactured according to the same standard as the original branded product. Generic must attain the same quality and has the same equivalence.

Is your field of expertise drugs?

Now the question: are Berrys generics or fakes? I observed they build their amps copying other brands and they make specs the same as those original products, QSC is usually the victim.

They are neither and both.. While there are many false rumors that the products are built in the same factories using the same internals, simple inspection demonstrates they are not. They are not really fakes, since they don't pretend to be QSCs and are clearly a Behringer amp, while they do try to cosmetically suggest and resemble the other companies successful product. They aren't a clone either, since that suggests an identical copy with the same DNA.

The kindest way to describe them is as a derivative product that borrows liberally, often testing the limits of legality, from the design of QSCs successful RMX series. They even borrow text from the owners manual, spec sheets, etc. Even their marketing is borrowed mostly from Mackie who pioneered the use of hyperbolic ad copy in the MI market.

The (amp) product has been around long enough to demonstrate a track record of it's own, with many reporting good value. Most professionals object more to the corporate and engineering behavior than the products, which mainly aims to be as cheap as possible and often succeeds, with the compromises associated with such a target. 

Note: It is standard behavior for the major audio companies to study the engineering advancements made by competitors and use anything that is not protected and of value. However this engineering exercise is more digesting and incorporating a new technology into a different novel design and not just making a simple copy of somebody else's original work.  All of the major amp makers use similar power devices and technology. Some lead and expand the body of technology and knowledge, some follow by copying and parasitically feed off the work of others.

JR

PS: QSC is only one of the competitors so honored by their attention, but they have made a few products here and there that don't appear to be obvious copies of somebody else.

[duane massey]

As far as I know they were nailed for non-compliance issues in the past 3-5 years. Like almost all MI-category companies they have some useful products and some junk, and mostly disposable. If you're on a budget the stuff can be useable (at least two very respected studios here in town have several of the Composer Pros for secondary use), and some of their products are quite useful.

Definitely not rider-friendly stuff, but definitley not "fake" copies either. There are far worse products out there.
JR pretty well summed it up.

[Frank DeWitt]

From wikipedia  (Below)

Note  wikipedia has a separate Behringer page discussing how they are handling the
Legal reports    My own opinion is only based on 5 ADA8000 bought a year ago.  3 failed.

I bought them like so many people thinking well there is a lot of anti Behringer talk out there but a lot of people saying "This model is different, it works great."  My opinion,  Behringers  quality and moral standards are right ion the edge.  Maybe it will work, maybe it won't Maybe legal maybe not. 

Try it, you might get lucky, or it might ruin your gig.  On second thought don't try it.

Frank

--------------------------------------------------------

Legal cases

In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages[18][19] but such claims were later rejected by the court. In their suit, Mackie said that Behringer had a history of copying products by other manufacturers and selling them as their own.[20] The Mackie suit detailed an instance in which Behringer was sued by Aphex Systems for copying the Aural Exciter Type F—in that case Aphex Systems won 690,000 Deutsche Marks.[20] The Mackie suit also mentioned similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer.[20] On November 30, 1999, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that circuit board layout was not covered by U.S. copyright laws.[21][22]

In 2005, Roland Corporation sued to enforce Roland's trade dress, trademark, and other intellectual property rights with regard to Behringer's recently released guitar pedals.[23] The two companies came to a confidential settlement in 2006 after Behringer changed their designs.[24]

In 2009 Peavey Electronics Corp. filed two lawsuits against various companies under Behringer/Music Group umbrella for patent infringement, federal and common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution and unfair competition.[25] In 2011 The Music Group filed a lawsuit against Peavey for "false advertising, false patent marking and unfair competition". Basically, the lawsuit was about Peavey also failing to comply with the same FCC regulations Behringer had troubles with, which was felt to create unfair competitive adavantage.[26]

[John Roberts {JR}]

The 2009 lawsuit is about my FLS invention (EQ with blinky lights to indicate potential feedback). The patent was assigned to Peavey since i was a full time employee at the time and it came from my work effort.

I believe there is more lawsuit activity since then related to other products.

I obviously have strong opinions about this but it's fair to say I am more than a little biased so I won't rant any more than usual for me. 

JR

[ProSoundWeb Community]