AES and the clones were everywhere

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

pucho812

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
14,832
Location
third stone from the sun
Good god, I have never seen so many clones in my life at an AES show. Even worse is how some of them are nominated for tec awards and sound on sound awards.

I get it, the LA2A and other items like a u-87 or 1176 are old designs and we can sretch what their  IP owners can control, but come on, at lest do something  a little different with it as opposed to just having a complete copy down to the look.  It's disheartening to see some company spring up over night and be hailed as being great when their entire catalog is copies of existing designs. Meanwhile there are  companies, with real designers making new and unique designs and they  have a more tough time because  to do new designs takes R&D money.  Which in turn means a higher price tag on the street.
It makes it hard to compete.  I don't know when it became acceptable to sell clones when there are reissues on the market as technically it would be a design in the market place but man, talk about depressing.

Now the DIY community is one thing because,  you build it for you and do your thing. Might even learn a thing or two. But selling finished units on a mass scale is just undercutting new ideas because companies can't compete with the less expensive  copies...

 
I wonder if it's because "the market" -- you know, the GearSlutz readers -- are told that only those classic designs are usable for their precious recordings, thus clones of those designs are pushed out with the intent of making a few quick bucks.

The professionals are using real gear and are probably not interested in Yet Another 1176 clone.

Speaking of clones, how many summing boxes were there?
 
I have no love for clones but the free market should sort this out, too.

The critical aspect of this is price discovery, or what is the XYZ clone worth? Arguably a re-issue using modern technology could perform better on the test bench, but perhaps the legacy performance is what was desirable.

Respect for the original IP is situational. How the parentage of these designs are represented for sale could be interesting.

A modern re-issue is probably a better bang for the buck than buying an original unless you are buying it as an investment and not to use.

If a cluster of clones is the notable thing about an AES show I am glad I did not attend.

JR

PS: How long before absolutely everything is mixed inside the box? Smart money should be working on legacy plug-ins, but they probably already exist.  8)
 
<I wonder if it's because "the market" -- you know, the GearSlutz readers -- are told that only those classic designs are usable for their precious recordings, thus clones of those designs are pushed out with the intent of making a few quick bucks.>

Those designs became classics for good reason, like Strats and Marshalls and Rhodes. It could be argued since we all know what it costs to build a proper 1176 or LA-2A repro, perhaps UA left themselves open to low cost clones by pricing themselves out of reach for many users. Now let me say I really like making money and hate leaving margin on the table. But when setting the price of a product, both points of view have to be balanced. The successful product will exceed expectations, maybe do things you didn't even know you needed, all at a price you can't say no to. Is that tough? Yes.

<The professionals are using real gear and are probably not interested in Yet Another 1176 clone.> Agreed. They also likely already have their original units and thus aren't viable customers.

Isn't the ugly fact that audio hardware is pretty evolved and it's pretty tough to find something new to do? Seems that way or I think more people would be doing it.

<clones of those designs are pushed out with the intent of making a few quick bucks.>

When did making bucks (even quickly) become a bad thing? I don't really see a moral dilemma. If the design is now public domain (patents expired, etc) then what's wrong with making repros? Even if they are not as good as the originals? Remember what Frank Zappa said - "don't get mad a people who make crappy music, get mad a people who buy crappy music. Without them a market would not exist for crappy music". The same thinking applies here.
 
Lot of suming mixers at the show, I hate saying it as it is redundant but hey that's what the masses call them.  I saw one with 16 channels, no pan or gain control except master volume on the stero buss. Had inserts on every channel and the stero buss. The inserts per channel seems moot....  Even more moot was 20 x discrete opamps running it. Either they are an input buffer or insert buffer but seems moot to me... I get the inserts in the stereo buss and such but per channel can be done without all the extra junk.

Other clone talk, when this company was showing me an la2a clone which was the original 1950's design. The look of confusion when I explained la2a history and how the first units were not available  until the 1960's...
 
AusTex64 said:
<I wonder if it's because "the market" -- you know, the GearSlutz readers -- are told that only those classic designs are usable for their precious recordings, thus clones of those designs are pushed out with the intent of making a few quick bucks.>

Those designs became classics for good reason, like Strats and Marshalls and Rhodes. It could be argued since we all know what it costs to build a proper 1176 or LA-2A repro, perhaps UA left themselves open to low cost clones by pricing themselves out of reach for many users. Now let me say I really like making money and hate leaving margin on the table. But when setting the price of a product, both points of view have to be balanced. The successful product will exceed expectations, maybe do things you didn't even know you needed, all at a price you can't say no to. Is that tough? Yes.

<The professionals are using real gear and are probably not interested in Yet Another 1176 clone.> Agreed. They also likely already have their original units and thus aren't viable customers.

Isn't the ugly fact that audio hardware is pretty evolved and it's pretty tough to find something new to do? Seems that way or I think more people would be doing it.

<clones of those designs are pushed out with the intent of making a few quick bucks.>

When did making bucks (even quickly) become a bad thing? I don't really see a moral dilemma. If the design is now public domain (patents expired, etc) then what's wrong with making repros? Even if they are not as good as the originals? Remember what Frank Zappa said - "don't get mad a people who make crappy music, get mad a people who buy crappy music. Without them a market would not exist for crappy music". The same thinking applies here.

Marshalls are Marshalls and someone's cheap imitation is not gonna cut it because close is not the same as exact. We as professionals should be able to hear a difference, we should also expect better.
If everything has already been done  as gear design then why do  a few still push the envelope and do something unique and awesome. 

If you think ua priced itself out of the market because we know what it cost to build the. You are looking at the short side of the argument. 
To build on scale and numbers takes a lot of time, parts, man power which all equates needs money. Sure am la2a is say 500 in parts. But paying a person to build it and it's no longer 500.00,  stocking parts inventory in mass and add more costs in.  The funny thing with DIY is I have yet to hear someone say I paid myself a salary to build my DIY. It really changes perspective when you do.
So let's break down for Ua to build, stock parts, maintain inventory, pay employees  etc costs a lot.  not to mention any r and d on a new unit and those costs.  To say ua and their just over charging is over simplified and comes from not looking at the whole picture.
 
I didn't notice a ton of clones, although I might have just overlooked them. I thought the Kerwax Replica and Fix Audio modular console were cool. The biggest impression I got was that the show seemed small. It's certainly possible the clones are a result of a smaller marketplace.
 
AusTex64 said:
<I wonder if it's because "the market" -- you know, the GearSlutz readers -- are told that only those classic designs are usable for their precious recordings, thus clones of those designs are pushed out with the intent of making a few quick bucks.>

Those designs became classics for good reason, like Strats and Marshalls and Rhodes. It could be argued since we all know what it costs to build a proper 1176 or LA-2A repro, perhaps UA left themselves open to low cost clones by pricing themselves out of reach for many users. Now let me say I really like making money and hate leaving margin on the table. But when setting the price of a product, both points of view have to be balanced. The successful product will exceed expectations, maybe do things you didn't even know you needed, all at a price you can't say no to. Is that tough? Yes.

Oh, I see your points -- and I agree with them! As for UA's pricing, I think they're saying, "we're the real thing," with pricing to match.

But that said, my main point is still the majority of buyers are only buying because they are told to (in a sense, you know what I mean, see what I said above about GS). How many of these buyers have heard the real items? 

Isn't the ugly fact that audio hardware is pretty evolved and it's pretty tough to find something new to do? Seems that way or I think more people would be doing it.

Ain't that the truth! My friends occasionally ask me, "why don't you design a mic preamp/compressor/whatever?" and my response is always, "why? there are a hundred preamps and a hundred compressors out there already. Mine won't be significantly different from any of them."  All of this gear is really solving a problem that has already been solved.

I built (and am using) a monitor controller because I wanted to do it for myself. The things on the market at reasonable prices weren't what I wanted, and what I wanted was way more than I was willing to spend. I'm working on a quality ADC and DAC, just for the challenge. I suppose that scratching the itch is the raison d'être of GDIY.

<clones of those designs are pushed out with the intent of making a few quick bucks.>

When did making bucks (even quickly) become a bad thing? I don't really see a moral dilemma. If the design is now public domain (patents expired, etc) then what's wrong with making repros? Even if they are not as good as the originals? Remember what Frank Zappa said - "don't get mad a people who make crappy music, get mad a people who buy crappy music. Without them a market would not exist for crappy music". The same thinking applies here.

I never miss a chance to dis GS. As if that matters. Oh, I think that if people want to spend their money, and there's a product that they "want," then by all means, let them buy. JR would note that the market abhors a vacuum.
 
Try selling kits around here that are new designs!!!! If it's not a knockoff of a neve, 1176 it's toast.

The closest we've come to any innovation are the mods to the gssl's.

 
The clone wars is probably all about covering up in the legitimacy of already-well-proven designs - not only the cosiness of knowing that your unit has historic roots, but also the safety of buying something that already produced good results for the great men before us, making your purchase somehow unquestionable. And for all the old units' limitations, they are at least limitations that someone else already proved could be creatively used.

I think a big part of this has to do with a steam-punk-like counter reaction to the flimsy feel of ownership of software tools

Jakob E.
 
Rochey said:
Try selling kits around here that are new designs!!!! If it's not a knockoff of a neve, 1176 it's toast.

The closest we've come to any innovation are the mods to the gssl's.
I bailed on the kit business back in the '80s... if anything the economics since then have only gotten worse.

If only I could come up with something original...  8)  nah

JR
 
What really annoys me is that the clone business panders to the mistaken folk myth that if only you have the right pieces of gear they will work some special magic on your material and turn it into a hit. These things are just tools and they are only as good as the hands of the workman using them.

Cheers

Ian
 
Note that in the Gun World, altho there are some new plastic designs, there are a LOT of copies of historic weapons. Colt 45 is not the most cloned gun; gotta be the AR we knew from VietNam etal. But also all the old Remingtons, from 6-shot to repeating rifles.

There's also some interest in odd vintage. Just saw an offer for cute 9mms said to have been discovered in a Polish warehouse. If they sell out, look for clones next.
 
PRR said:
Note that in the Gun World, altho there are some new plastic designs, there are a LOT of copies of historic weapons. Colt 45 is not the most cloned gun; gotta be the AR we knew from VietNam etal. But also all the old Remingtons, from 6-shot to repeating rifles.
I never understood the attraction of the AR-15, I was issued a M-16 (the real thing)  in the army and didn't much care for it. 


There's also some interest in odd vintage. Just saw an offer for cute 9mms said to have been discovered in a Polish warehouse. If they sell out, look for clones next.
Is anybody cloning old computers?  (rhetorical)  8)

JR
 
JohnRoberts said:
Is anybody cloning old computers?  (rhetorical)  8)

I'll answer anyway. The closest thing I know about is the S100 bus crowd. Apparently there is a scene. The Zuma cutting computer I use for the lathe is based on an S100 bus computer. The only PCB Zuma designed was the analog Input/Output board. The rest of the boards were all standard (with custom software).

All the things I got excited about over here were original designs. DAOC, Pico, Barry PorterEQ. I haven't seen much around here that excites me lately.
 
Gold said:
All the things I got excited about over here were original designs. DAOC, Pico, Barry PorterEQ. I haven't seen much around here that excites me lately.

I know exactly, what you mean...  I will say though that at the show there was the unfairchild. Which although is fairchildesque, having feedback and feed forward compression detection really ups it's anti. So  not really a clone but more of an enhancement  to an already existing design which is where I give a pass on.
 
Gold said:
I'll answer anyway. The closest thing I know about is the S100 bus crowd. Apparently there is a scene. The Zuma cutting computer I use for the lathe is based on an S100 bus computer. The only PCB Zuma designed was the analog Input/Output board. The rest of the boards were all standard (with custom software).

That, and there are people doing crazy stuff like implementing the 6502 in a board full of TTL chips, and various FPGA implementations of your favorite old 8-bit processor. And I saw someone was cloning an old Apollo 68000 workstation.

I suppose I shouldn't laugh too much: I'm about to implement a programmable sequencer (image sensor timing generator) that will be basically a variant on Ye Olde Am2901 and Am2910 bit slice concept.
 
I'm sure there are lots of military hardware and manufacturing systems dependent on old computer technology. I recall seeing an old paper tape reader in the Peavey factory (not in use).

I recently upgraded to a new router for my network because I didn't have a PC old enough working that I could log into the (very old) router to change settings.

But nobody is saying old computers are somehow better, while at some point all the wifi and internet connect ability will be a liability for security (perhaps already).

JR 
 

Latest posts

Back
Top