Bugera Veyron 1001 series "2000W" amps

[stevie]

'Shamelessly copy' is a bit strong in this particular case, IMO. They've just taken a few style cues from another product. Every designer does that.

 

Shameless copying is this:

 

 

[andy67]

8 minutes ago, stevie said:

'Shamelessly copy' is a bit strong in this particular case, IMO. They've just taken a few style cues from another product. Every designer does that.

 

Shameless copying is this:

 

 

Ha ha yes! My comment was meat to be tongue in cheek.

Edited May 20, 2022 by andy67

[agedhorse]

On 18/05/2022 at 23:21, andy67 said:

 

GB Streamliner 900 released 2011 discontinued 2013, Bugera Veyron released 2015. I guess 2 years isn't much but I think Music Tribe have a habit of buying discontinued IP.

The Veyron was introduced long before 2015, I don't remember exactly when it started shipping, but the introduction, the pictures and the price swayed dealers not to buy an already successful product when there would be competition coming at less than 1/2 the price. This is one way that damage is done (and the basis of Mackie's claims for damage valuation).

On 20/05/2022 at 03:13, andy67 said:

I think we all need to come to consensus on IP. IP is there to protect an individual's creativity and endeavours to ensure a quality product gets into the market place of which, we as bass players, reap the benefits of and we need to recognise this as necessary. However, Music Tribe, have found away round this by seemingly buying up discontinued product IP that has enabled them to shamelessly copy deleted products and related equipment now benefitting the bass player enormously and again, we need to recognise that this is good thing. 

 

So in essence, no crime has been committed, it is of great benefit to our community and perhaps, we could view the IP copy as tribute to the original manufacturer? It's all good folks.

There is a difference between buying discontinued IP and simply taking current IP as their own. They did not buy anything, and there are numerous examples of this going back decades. For the most part, they appear to stay on the "legal" side of the line, though it doesn't make things any less painful for those of us who have seen our work used in ways we didn't intended.

 

I was hoping that folks here might better appreciate the effort and cost that goes into developing new and innovative products and how appropriating work that was done by others does hurt those doing the work. The saddest part of this IMO is that they are fully capable of developing any level of technology and creativity in-house. They are a very capable, resourceful company, as capable as any company out there, yet their business model doesn't showcase their ability in that way. Some of their other business groups (like Midas, KT, TC) have in fact done considerable development (both creative and technological), and they seem to have avoided most of this.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=iQ4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=behringer+copying+mackie&source=bl&ots=tjIVlmIe82&sig=ACfU3U24ffjkT8_3AXtgoR8EA9tCFUe0XQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw2uDsye_3AhX5lI4IHSVVDigQ6AF6BAgcEAM#v=onepage&q=behringer copying mackie&f=false

 

https://cdm.link/2009/09/on-behringers-track-record-value-and-copies/

 

https://musictech.com/news/gear/behringer-swing-controversy/

 

https://macprovideo.com/article/audio-hardware/curtis-family-speaks-out-against-behringer-synth-clone-plans-using-cem3340

 

https://www.svconline.com/proav-today/behringer-launches-td-3-clone-of-roland-tb-303

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by agedhorse

[andy67]

I don't disagree with you at all and I do appreciate the time, development and costs factored in when designing new products. IP is extremely important and to see it violated is never good. Perhaps the loophole that enables this to happen needs tightened? 20 years for IP but when a product is discontinued, the IP freed up and is then released into the public domain - that is major loophole. The links you put up were a great read.

 

Re the Bugera Veyron:

 

https://www.ravepubs.com/bugera-debuts-2000-watt-veyron-bass-amps/

 

https://www.pressebox.com/pressrelease/music-group-macao-commercial-offshore-limited-philippines-rohq/NAMM-2015-Bugera-Releases-2-000-Watt-VEYRON-Bass-Amps-and-New-Speaker-Cabinets/boxid/722708

 

The complex nature of IP:

 

https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/ip-issues-for-artists-and-authors-the-often-blurry-line-between-copying-and-inspiration/

 

Response from Behringer:

 

https://cdm.link/2018/06/behringer-responds-to-reports-defends-reverse-engineering/

Edited June 2, 2022 by andy67

[agedhorse]

7 hours ago, andy67 said:

I don't disagree with you at all and I do appreciate the time, development and costs factored in when designing new products. IP is extremely important and to see it violated in never good. Perhaps the loophole that enables this to happen needs tightened? 20 years for IP but when a product is discontinued, the IP freed up and is then released into the public domain - that is major loophole. The links you put up were a great read.

 

Re the Bugera Veyron:

 

https://www.ravepubs.com/bugera-debuts-2000-watt-veyron-bass-amps/

 

https://www.pressebox.com/pressrelease/music-group-macao-commercial-offshore-limited-philippines-rohq/NAMM-2015-Bugera-Releases-2-000-Watt-VEYRON-Bass-Amps-and-New-Speaker-Cabinets/boxid/722708

 

The complex nature of IP:

 

https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/ip-issues-for-artists-and-authors-the-often-blurry-line-between-copying-and-inspiration/

 

Response from Behringer:

 

https://cdm.link/2018/06/behringer-responds-to-reports-defends-reverse-engineering/

Agreed, once a product is discontinued that is different.

 

One challenge is that in today’s modern world, an existing successful product’s future success can be severely hampered merely by a press release and renderings promising something “similar” for much lower cost. This is the premise for some companies releasing vapor ware products (a promise of a competing product with no intention of ever releasing it).

 

I was hoping to stimulate some discussion and appreciation for what designers and companies developing new products often struggle with, and why pushing the state of the art can be so costly.

[Steve Browning]

49 minutes ago, agedhorse said:

Agreed, once a product is discontinued that is different.

 

One challenge is that in today’s modern world, an existing successful product’s future success can be severely hampered merely by a press release and renderings promising something “similar” for much lower cost. This is the premise for some companies releasing vapor ware products (a promise of a competing product with no intention of ever releasing it).

 

I was hoping to stimulate some discussion and appreciation for what designers and companies developing new products often struggle with, and why pushing the state of the art can be so costly.

 

It couldn't be more appreciated here, I can assure you.

[MacDaddy]

On 20/05/2022 at 11:13, andy67 said:

I think we all need to come to consensus on IP. IP is there to protect an individual's creativity and endeavours to ensure a quality product gets into the market place of which, we as bass players, reap the benefits of and we need to recognise this as necessary. However, Music Tribe, have found away round this by seemingly buying up discontinued product IP that has enabled them to shamelessly copy deleted products and related equipment now benefitting the bass player enormously and again, we need to recognise that this is good thing. 

 

So in essence, no crime has been committed, it is of great benefit to our community and perhaps, we could view the IP copy as tribute to the original manufacturer? It's all good folks.

 

On 21/05/2022 at 07:40, andy67 said:

I don't disagree with you at all and I do appreciate the time, development and costs factored in when designing new products. IP is extremely important and to see it violated in never good. Perhaps the loophole that enables this to happen needs tightened? 20 years for IP but when a product is discontinued, the IP freed up and is then released into the public domain - that is major loophole. The links you put up were a great read.

 

Re the Bugera Veyron:

 

https://www.ravepubs.com/bugera-debuts-2000-watt-veyron-bass-amps/

 

https://www.pressebox.com/pressrelease/music-group-macao-commercial-offshore-limited-philippines-rohq/NAMM-2015-Bugera-Releases-2-000-Watt-VEYRON-Bass-Amps-and-New-Speaker-Cabinets/boxid/722708

 

The complex nature of IP:

 

https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/ip-issues-for-artists-and-authors-the-often-blurry-line-between-copying-and-inspiration/

 

Response from Behringer:

 

https://cdm.link/2018/06/behringer-responds-to-reports-defends-reverse-engineering/

 

 

yet nobody complains about amp modellers and there is no IP for the 'sound' of a modelled amp.

Edited May 24, 2022 by MacDaddy

[agedhorse]

1 hour ago, MacDaddy said:

 

 

 

yet nobody complains about amp modellers and there is no IP for the 'sound' of a modelled amp.

This is a good point. Copying a response doesn’t appear to be protected because there’s generally no illusion or confusion as to buying a copy of the original circuit or a copy of the original physical amp (a “clone”) and the original amp.

 

Regarding modelers, I have mixed feelings on this because the process and resulting products do exploit the work and costs associated with developing the original products, but on the flip side, reputable, honorable modelers often license (at a cost) the IP from the original product being modeled so the original designers and company are compensated for their work.

[andy67]

1 hour ago, MacDaddy said:

 

 

 

yet nobody complains about amp modellers and there is no IP for the 'sound' of a modelled amp.

It could be that modellers can't fully or faithfully recreate the entirety of the original sound? Just a guess but betcha in IP/Copyright law it is significant.

Edited May 24, 2022 by andy67

[tauzero]

On 24/05/2022 at 15:57, agedhorse said:

This is a good point. Copying a response doesn’t appear to be protected because there’s generally no illusion or confusion as to buying a copy of the original circuit or a copy of the original physical amp (a “clone”) and the original amp.

 

Regarding modelers, I have mixed feelings on this because the process and resulting products do exploit the work and costs associated with developing the original products, but on the flip side, reputable, honorable modelers often license (at a cost) the IP from the original product being modeled so the original designers and company are compensated for their work.

 

By the time that an amp, cab, bass, or guitar has become so well established that modelling it is worthwhile, it should have recouped the R&D costs several times over. Also, there's plenty of people who can tell (or at least think they can tell) digital modelling, so they'll want the Real Thing.

[agedhorse]

3 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

By the time that an amp, cab, bass, or guitar has become so well established that modelling it is worthwhile, it should have recouped the R&D costs several times over. Also, there's plenty of people who can tell (or at least think they can tell) digital modelling, so they'll want the Real Thing.

Sales of ongoing models pay for the R&D costs of new products. Perhaps after say 20 years it could become public domain, that would offer some protection?
 

It doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t really belong to them, it a justification of a behavior.

Edited June 2, 2022 by agedhorse

[Woodinblack]

6 hours ago, agedhorse said:

Sales of ongoing models pay for the R&D costs of new products. Perhaps after say 20 years it could become public domain, that would offer some protection?
 

It doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t really belong to them, it a justification of a behavior.

 

I think there probably appears to be a difference in opinion between companies that make things and get ripped off, and companies that dont or are just admin sorts. It is really galling to see something you put effort into making being just taken and sold by other people. 

And no, it is never a compliment to see something you did being ripped off by other people.

[ReeV0]

I just picked up the Mosfet version from the Gear4Music sale, pretty impressed so far. Comparing it against a GK Legacy 800 and TC RH750.

 

One question - does anyone else experience slight distortion when using the onboard compressor? I can hear some slight distortion right at the start of a note...

[telehack]

49 minutes ago, ReeV0 said:

I just picked up the Mosfet version from the Gear4Music sale, pretty impressed so far. Comparing it against a GK Legacy 800 and TC RH750.

 

One question - does anyone else experience slight distortion when using the onboard compressor? I can hear some slight distortion right at the start of a note...

Same here - a slight click at the leading edge of the note. 

[telehack]

Does anyone else have this issue with the compressor? It kind of renders it useless…

[Chienmortbb]

13 hours ago, telehack said:

Does anyone else have this issue with the compressor? It kind of renders it useless…

Yes, but then I have never found an onboard compressor that works well since my 1973 HH VS.

[Sparky Mark]

14 hours ago, telehack said:

Does anyone else have this issue with the compressor? It kind of renders it useless…

This, and the scratchy pots may very well be why this amp is being offloaded for £149. At this price most purchasers will still see it as a good deal and an acceptable compromise. At the original full price most would reject it. 

[BigRedX]

On 02/06/2022 at 04:24, agedhorse said:

Sales of ongoing models pay for the R&D costs of new products. Perhaps after say 20 years it could become public domain, that would offer some protection?
 

It doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t really belong to them, it a justification of a behavior.

 

I would suspect that very few people buy a modelling system just so they can have the sound of one particular amp and not have to use the "real thing", but like me the bought one because it offers a multitude of sound shaping facilities in a single box. As I've said before I don't care how "authentic" any of the models are, and TBH I don't have enough experience of any of the amp models provided to even be able to know. All that matters to me is whether they help produce the sound(s) that is in my head.

[Chienmortbb]

5 hours ago, Sparky Mark said:

This, and the scratchy pots may very well be why this amp is being offloaded for £149. At this price most purchasers will still see it as a good deal and an acceptable compromise. At the original full price most would reject it. 

This price point is the third, I paid somewhere around £215 Inc delivery, when it was reduced from the launch price. At that price, it was a steal. I have been using it for about just over 4 years, and it has done well over 100 gigs. The noisy pot is not a problem, yes there is sometime a slight crackle when rotating the volume pot, but it does not make a noise once set. The large control knob is great, if I need to turn up quickly, it is easy.

 

As I said before, the compressor is not fantastic but in saying that, I have not played around with it as I usually use a compressor patch on my Zoom (B14 or B6 depending on the gig). I have heard of many £1000+ amps that have a MEH compressor.

[Chienmortbb]

On 02/06/2022 at 04:24, agedhorse said:

Sales of ongoing models pay for the R&D costs of new products. Perhaps after say 20 years it could become public domain, that would offer some protection?
 

It doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t really belong to them, it a justification of a behavior.

This is not a trick question, as I am torn on this. Apart from the cosmetics, what do you consider Music Tribe have copied from the Genz Benz? On another point for everyone. Did Genzler play on Mercedes Benz's reputation with his choice of company name?

[agedhorse]

2 hours ago, Chienmortbb said:

This is not a trick question, as I am torn on this. Apart from the cosmetics, what do you consider Music Tribe have copied from the Genz Benz? On another point for everyone. Did Genzler play on Mercedes Benz's reputation with his choice of company name?

Cosmetic, materials, layout plus feature set, even down to the fonts and legend on the back panel. If it wasn't intentional, it's an unbelievable coincidence... 

 

The Benz is actually a play on the word "bins", which was the term used here in the states to describe bass cabinets... bass bins, which comes from the fact that Genz Benz originally stated as a pro audio cabinet and rack company. I started out designing pro audio products for Jeff, then we branched out to bass cabinets and later amplifiers.  The Genz part is obviously from Jeff's last name, and was also a nickname.

 

What are bass bins?

The term 'bass bin' was used primarily in pro-sound before the advent of sub woofers to denote the cabs used to handle the lowest frequencies, down to 40Hz or so.Sep 6, 2012 (from Google)

[Phil Starr]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for Bugera/Behringer/Music tribe here.

 

I'm pretty sure the amplifier section of the Bugera is 'borrowed' from Behringer's class D PA amps, specifically the iNuke. I've got both here so I ought to take a look   There was a lot of online 'debate' between Uli Behringer and the designers of the Peavey IPR series PA amps about copyright so it is a moot point about how original their design is but I think they will have simply stuck a bass pre-amp onto their existing power amp to create the Bugera. 

 

Behringer have form in recycling their own designs and I've come across their 300W class D/100W A/B combination in a range of different PA speakers and monitors. Again to be fair this is common across many manufacturers who use essentially the same power amp across a whole range of active speakers throttled back to match the drive units.

 

I've also recently acquired a SansAmp to go alongside my Behringer BD121, there is a generic similarity in the sound but it just isn't the same. It's way easier to dial up a pleasing sound with the Behringer which also doesn't have the same range of adjustment the SansAmp has. I wouldn't say either is 'better' and one is definitely a tribute act to the other but it isn't a straight copy. 

 

Any commercial designer would be a fool not to look at what their competitors are doing. It would be a real arrogance not to monitor the world around them. The boutique speaker makers have stimulated the big makers to look at making their own lightweight speaker cabs and if GRBass start to take significant market share then expect a rash of 'me-too' plastic bass cabs. If I were chief designer for Behringer/Music Tribe I'd be pretty much doing the same thing, reverse engineering everything I could find, taking the best bits from everywhere then bringing them together in a design I'd hope to have maximum appeal to everyone. I'd imagine all the big manufacturers have had a look at the insides of all their competitors products and keeping a wary eye on what the market is doing. (OK maybe not Gibson  ) Ultimately if we see further it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants and we all benefit from the copying of good ideas and the dropping of poor ones. There's a problem in plagiarism if it starves the means to continue to innovate but IP is a double edged sword if it retards the spread of good ideas. Where would all us covers bands would  be if Mick Jagger had never heard the Beatles and thought 'I want a slice of that'

[agedhorse]

14 hours ago, Phil Starr said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate for Bugera/Behringer/Music tribe here.

 

I'm pretty sure the amplifier section of the Bugera is 'borrowed' from Behringer's class D PA amps, specifically the iNuke. I've got both here so I ought to take a look   There was a lot of online 'debate' between Uli Behringer and the designers of the Peavey IPR series PA amps about copyright so it is a moot point about how original their design is but I think they will have simply stuck a bass pre-amp onto their existing power amp to create the Bugera. 

 

Behringer have form in recycling their own designs and I've come across their 300W class D/100W A/B combination in a range of different PA speakers and monitors. Again to be fair this is common across many manufacturers who use essentially the same power amp across a whole range of active speakers throttled back to match the drive units.

 

I've also recently acquired a SansAmp to go alongside my Behringer BD121, there is a generic similarity in the sound but it just isn't the same. It's way easier to dial up a pleasing sound with the Behringer which also doesn't have the same range of adjustment the SansAmp has. I wouldn't say either is 'better' and one is definitely a tribute act to the other but it isn't a straight copy. 

 

Any commercial designer would be a fool not to look at what their competitors are doing. It would be a real arrogance not to monitor the world around them. The boutique speaker makers have stimulated the big makers to look at making their own lightweight speaker cabs and if GRBass start to take significant market share then expect a rash of 'me-too' plastic bass cabs. If I were chief designer for Behringer/Music Tribe I'd be pretty much doing the same thing, reverse engineering everything I could find, taking the best bits from everywhere then bringing them together in a design I'd hope to have maximum appeal to everyone. I'd imagine all the big manufacturers have had a look at the insides of all their competitors products and keeping a wary eye on what the market is doing. (OK maybe not Gibson  ) Ultimately if we see further it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants and we all benefit from the copying of good ideas and the dropping of poor ones. There's a problem in plagiarism if it starves the means to continue to innovate but IP is a double edged sword if it retards the spread of good ideas. Where would all us covers bands would  be if Mick Jagger had never heard the Beatles and thought 'I want a slice of that'

You make some good points, yes we do stand on the shoulders of those earlier designers but while we are doing so, most of us are careful (respectful) not to stomp on their heads.

 

I have talked with other designers (including one who was responsible for some of the Peavey class D designs) about the ethics of (and the differences between) learning from other designers and simply copying. Most designers have surprisingly high morals and take pride in developing new approaches while refining long standing circuits to improve performance and reliability.

 

There's general agreement among designers that the customer will accept a "cheap copy" if the price is low enough. The pedal world is a good example of blatant copying (including PCBs). If there's enough of this, it will affect those companies that are currently bringing new approaches and new ideas to the players, ultimately the investment required to develop innovative new products will dry up and many new ideas simply won't make it to market.

[andy67]

4 hours ago, agedhorse said:

You make some good points, yes we do stand on the shoulders of those earlier designers but while we are doing so, most of us are careful (respectful) not to stomp on their heads.

 

I have talked with other designers (including one who was responsible for some of the Peavey class D designs) about the ethics of (and the differences between) learning from other designers and simply copying. Most designers have surprisingly high morals and take pride in developing new approaches while refining long standing circuits to improve performance and reliability.

 

There's general agreement among designers that the customer will accept a "cheap copy" if the price is low enough. The pedal world is a good example of blatant copying (including PCBs). If there's enough of this, it will affect those companies that are currently bringing new approaches and new ideas to the players, ultimately the investment required to develop innovative new products will dry up and many new ideas simply won't make it to market.

 

It is a real shame because, Behringer and many others for that reason, have unlimited access to cheap Chinese manufacturing, electronic designers and factories that enable them to hoover up any patents that are no longer protected, while churning out much cheap equipment from massive Chinese manufacturing plants. Although expensive, I love UK made HiFi and US Ampegs etc! However, most of this is now owned by groups such as Behringer and IAG, then massed produced in China. Castle, Wharfedale, Ruark, Cyrus, Tannoy, Ampeg and the list goes on. I guess luckily, Ampeg are now owned by Yamaha.

Edited December 12, 2022 by andy67