Bugera 1990?

[Ascension]

Re: Bugera 1990?

Is it me, or is this a copy of a Carvin Valvemaster???

http://www.bugera-amps.com/EN/products/1990.aspx

Nope JCM 900 Dual reverb. A series II Carvin Valvemaster will kill it DEAD in tone!!
Not bad rigs for the $$ though.

 

[Christopher Caruana]

Re: Bugera 1990?

YEP I OWN A 2501 1/12 COMBO AND IT ROCKS!!
I like the JCM 900 Dual Masters better than any thing Marshall has out right now mine is a Lil tone monster!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hVVMU7Ombg

you like thst better than the VM?!

you're crazy. haha :friday:

 

[eschoendorff]

Re: Bugera 1990?

Maybe that's true, and maybe it's not. And even though I've probably posted about a dozen times concerning my feeling for Bugera, I haven't been able to change anyone's mind. I don't know whether or not Marshall's R&D department is hurting or not, but based on the fact that they purchased Swedish technology for the JDM:1 and farmed out an existing design to Vietnam, I'm guessing it's not all that profitable on its own.

And the difference here is that Bogner partnered with Line6. It was a design he chose to sell under his name. You think he'd be happy with the Bugera Xtasy? (Or Chiva for stoner rock? Boo... I couldn't resist.)



Me neither. But I prefer it in terms of Jet City or Blackstar. Those guys didn't rip off any designs. The Blackstar guys are ex-Marshall employees, and they took a design they came up with that Marshall didn't really dig and started their own company. They build the amps and pedals in Korea, and they don't cost a lot of money. They're not legendary amps, but for the price, they sound pretty good. And they didn't steal anything.

Then you have Mike Soldano going into business with a couple guys in Seattle to mass produce designs that he came up with. Again, he's part of the deal, so there's no theft involved. It's when you get things like the Bugera Beluxe Beberb or Duel Wrecktifier that I have a problem. If they were to come to Randall Smith and say, "Hey, we want to build your amps at a quarter of the cost," and he said okay, I'd own three of them. But they didn't, and I don't.

It's not about bang for the buck. It's like taking a couple of steaks from the meat department because some of them are going to go bad anyway.

Right there with ya Mr. Whizzy.

 

[Ascension]

Re: Bugera 1990?

you like thst better than the VM?!

you're crazy. haha :friday:

The VM sounds flat and stiff with no dynamics in comparison to the JCM 900 MK III Dual Masters. Most know about the JCM 900 dual reverbs and the tones of those amps. However the lesser known and MUCH MUCH better sounding JCM 900 Dual masters have no cleans no reverb and are a totally different pure tone animal. Until you spend some time with one of these beasties that are set up and tubed out right don't underestimate them. IMO these JCM 900 MK III Dual Master amps are some of the best sounding pure rock amps of all time to come from Marshall.
Here is my little 1990 JCM 900 2501 1/12 50 MK III in a LOUD church running unmiced.

That is just running the internal 12 with no mic! You really need to hear this thing pushing a full 4/12 some time!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OybnG7f3d4M

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Bugera 1990?

I'll agree that the Dual Master 900's are one of Marshall's best amps. NOT the dual reverb!

The Bugeras really aren't bad. I've plugged into most of them, and they've done about the same job of copying amps as the Behringer audio gear has done copying Mackie. Not bad at all....but we'll see over time if they hold up.

As for the Tone King reviews. He's a worthless idiot. His comparisons are terrible because he doesn't know tone, doesn't dial anything in to sound good, and his playing is worse than most beginners.

 

[MattPete]

Re: Bugera 1990?

But, if the company charges twice as much and calls itself boutique it's ok then?

Metropoulos
Ceriatone
Soultone
Reinhardt
......And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Dude, you are so missing the point. Those 4 companies offer hand-wired amps that, try pretty damned hard, to be reproductions of amps that are no longer made. Even Marshall's "reissues" don't try be as genuine as these amps. In otherwords, there is no real competition from the original companies, as they have more-or-less given up on the design.

Bugera takes someone's IP, that is often still in production, and makes cheap nasty copies made by slave labor.

It's the difference between a company that tries to handmake an exact replica, down to the material used to seal the carburetors, of a 240z, or a Cobra, or a Maserati Birdcage, etc, vs. a Chinese company that copies a Vord Daurus and uses cardboard for brake disks.

 

[kherman]

Re: Bugera 1990?

Unlicensed copy is still an unlicensed copy.
If you're going to diss one company for it,
you can't justify the other.
It's still unlicensed.

And Marshall still has the Vintage line in production.
JCM800
JCM900
JTM45
Etc...


So, by your definition ESP should "not" be allowed to sell the
Edwards LPs in the states because it's a cost effective production line copy.

But, "should" be able to sell the Navigator because it's a hand made high end boutique LP that's closer in specs to a real 59' than a Gibby RI is.

That makes no sense to me.
It's either all or nothing.

 

[cronnin]

Re: Bugera 1990?

OK, but what about this.
I decide to make a new brand of amplifiers.

It has to have a gain stage, cathode follower, PI, push pull, and a transformer.
It's something you have in every electronic book, way before Marshalls were made.

And whatever design I try to pull out, it already exists.
Fender and Marshall have already covered all possible basic circuits, patented or not.
There simply are no more possible solutions you can apply there.
Whatever you make, it's a copy of something.

They could have only voiced the amp different with different values of capacitors/resistors.
And even if they started from scratch, and called guitar players to help 'em, during couple of exhausting months of exploration, eventually, they would have come to very similar values which JCM900 already has.
So why not use to use a recipe that works?

It's not like a new brand of mobile phones is gonna put the keyboard in different order : 1-3-6-2-7-9-4-8-5.
Nobody pays patent rights for a 3x3 keyboard number order.
You take it for granted, and use it, because people like it. Nobody cares who invented it.

 

[misterwhizzy]

Re: Bugera 1990?

I guess you're one of those guys that thinks every guitar riff possible has already been invented.

 

[joelap]

Re: Bugera 1990?

some people don't get it. Very few people actually give a sh!t that Behringer is cloning amps and calling them Bugera and selling them for cheap. As was mentioned before, "well if Bugera is not ok why isn't Metroamp, etc.?" ... although I get the argument, my only logical rebuttal is that when I call metroamp I get George Metropolous on the phone who personally sees to it that if theres an issue with even an amp he sold as a kit and didn't put together he at least TRIES to help you out.

The PROBLEM with Bugera is they are lasting 2 years of bedroom use before they end up on my bench due to the shoddy construction. One of their biggest problems are in the connectors between their circuit boards... you know, the stuff you need a special tool (sometimes 80+ dollars for the tool alone) to repair. Only in the music industry are these issues even issues. When an engineer working for another industry needs a circuit, he opens an electronics book or looks to see how others are doing it and then implements it. Sh!t, I worked for a fortune 500 company that had an entire lab dedicated to reverse engineering the competition's product to see what they were doing better than us, and then adopting that or improving upon it. THAT'S BUSINESS PEOPLE. You can't copyright a circuit. All you can copyright is the layout (IE circuit board).

The Bugera issue is tired. If you want to buy an amp that needs repairing in 2 years of never leaving your bedroom, be my guest. It supplements my income nicely here in central CT.

 

[Red_Label]

Re: Bugera 1990?

[yawn] Is this thing still goin?

 

[MattPete]

Re: Bugera 1990?

Fender and Marshall have already covered all possible basic circuits, patented or not...

Try RCA.

and, no, they have not done every possible circuit. I think groups like AX84 or the various DC-coupled amplifiers are proof of that.

You obviously have no concept of IP or plagiarism.

 

[cronnin]

Re: Bugera 1990?

I guess you're one of those guys that thinks every guitar riff possible has already been invented.

Nope... this has got nothing to do with it.

The PROBLEM with Bugera is they are lasting 2 years of bedroom use before they end up on my bench due to the shoddy construction.
The Bugera issue is tired. If you want to buy an amp that needs repairing in 2 years of never leaving your bedroom, be my guest. It supplements my income nicely here in central CT.

Longevity is not an issue why people have a problem with Bugera, as I see it. Maybe I'm wrong though....
It's expected you won't have the same quality with $300 and $3000 product.
Nobody goes diving with $5 watch, because it says it an go 50m down.
Every serious diver gets professional equipment, and if one is professional musician he will also do the same.
If you're using countdown timer to measure for how much time it takes you for a 1 mile morning run, that you'll be served with any watch.
Same with Bugera. If you play it for fun, hobby, keep it in your basement (as stated) you'll probably be satisfied.
Otherwise, it'll probably end up on Joes workbench

Try RCA.

and, no, they have not done every possible circuit. I think groups like AX84 or the various DC-coupled amplifiers are proof of that.

You obviously have no concept of IP or plagiarism.

I never said that they have done every possible circuit. Where did you get that.

Well Joe says that a circuit can't be patented, just a layout.
Or I misunderstood something?

 

[MattPete]

Re: Bugera 1990?

I never said that they have done every possible circuit. Where did you get that.

"every" is synonymous with "all".

So "every possible" == "all possible".

As in this statement:

Fender and Marshall have already covered all possible basic circuits, patented or not.

 

[cronnin]

Re: Bugera 1990?

"every" is synonymous with "all".

So "every possible" == "all possible".

As in this statement:

Ok, we have a disagreement here, and before we go any further let's just settle this:

John had tried all possible basic sex positions with his girlfriend.
John had tried every possible sex position with his girlfriend.

Do you find these too equal?

 

[joelap]

Re: Bugera 1990?

Its true you cannot copyright or patent a circuit. At BEST you could argue your particular combination of gain stages with specific frequency responses all add up to a "signature sound" and try and protect it as what is called a trade secret. A good example is Coca-cola... the recipe to make coca-cola cannot be patented or copyrighted ... however, the US government at least has a special provision called "trade secret" in that keeping the exact "formula" a secret is crucial to your continued business. If someone knew the exact formula and source for all of coca-cola's ingredients, they can mass market the exact thing. Claiming something as a trade secret provides the company the legal ground to stand on if a disgruntled employee was to sell the exact recipe or to start producing the same thing under a separate name.

The problem with a trade secret, however, is that you need to have legal proof that you have done everything within your power to protect that information. Unfortunately, even a layer of epoxy over a circuit isn't permanent protection and wouldn't qualify. So there's very little chance of a Trade Secret holding weight in court.

The long and short of it: Bugera is doing nothing illegal whatsoever. Unethical, maybe but probably not. As I've said before, the big difference between Bugera and a small boutique builder is that the boutique guy resurrecting the designs from the past are using painstaking measures that the big guys won't bother with, and they generally do not try to disguise what the amp is that they are copying. Bugera may lead you on to notice similarities but never comes out and says "Marshall JCM 900-inspired" or anything like that. Then again, maybe they can't because it would invoke some legal issues that Marshall doesn't bother going after the little guys about? It's probably not worth the trouble to fight the Metroamp's of the world because, in reality, anyone buying a Metroamp likely either wouldn't buy a current Marshall because they are after something specific or they will buy a Marshall on top of it.

Maybe the issue for everyone else may not be longevity of the amps, but that's mine. Because the usual people buying these amps want a tube amp but likely can't afford a real Marshall or what-have-you and work for a while to afford one and then it breaks and it's "sorry about your luck kid" because they either can't afford a replacement or can't even afford to repair it. Bugera obviously will not outwardly demonstrate that their amps are mass produced cheaply in Asia using substandard components. But to the young guy who wants to gig with his band and has little money or experience, they are ignorant to these issues.

The thing to try and remember is that we, as interwebs-forum-user musicians, are in tune to MUCH more information than the casual Guitar Center shopper is. So while we know that Bugera's are obviously unreliable and can make the argument that its obvious they are a cheap knockoff, many average guitarists may be unable to distinguish or be aware these issues.

 

[cronnin]

Re: Bugera 1990?

Thank you for explaining this legal stuff.
I had something like that in my head, but was never sure what was right.



As for Bugera quality, I've also heard that 90% of malfunctions were caused by that poorly designed board connector.
People say that Bugera worked that up, and that new amps have that issue solved.
I don't know if it's right, we'd need some tech input on that. That was somewhere around 1960/1990 series coming out?

There were also reports on ground wires and jacks loose.
Someone said that checking the wirings and bias, gluing that connector and tightening screws makes that old Bugeras quite good amps.

They have new models like Trirec and Magician now, but priced around $700-900.
Maybe those went through serious quality control, but can't be really called a beginners or bargain amps.

 

[joelap]

Re: Bugera 1990?

^ I think the market they are after are individuals without the funds to buy a Mesa off the shelf at GC. I also strongly believe their prices are pegged to a certain percentage of the "real thing". IE Trirec costs $800 and the real deal is $1800, 800/1800=44.4% of the real thing. Peavey 6505+ = $1200, Bugera 6262=$550, 550/1200=45.83% of the real thing. Its marketing man, the price increase has nothing to do with increased quality. They figured out the price drop it would take to make people buy their product, and they are sticking with the formula. Why price a TriRec at $550 when its already a great discount at $800?

I don't doubt that 90% of the failures are connectors, because really what else is there to fail? If the caps and resistors are rating to the appropriate voltage / power ratings, and everything is connected properly, the electronics will be fairly reliable. Mechanical connectors will be far less forgiving. Grounding issues are a rather substantial problem, loose jacks can generally be dealt with but if they are PC mounted may cause problems at the base of the jacks/pcb connection point.

They are "bargain" amps in the sense that they are cheap knockoffs of popular amps at 45% of the price. You're right, at 800 dollars I dont consider anything a "bargain" But yes for a beginner who wants a Triple Rectifier but is 15 and mommy wont spring for the real thing, the TriRec is an appealing option. In that sense, they are bargain amps.

 

[cronnin]

Re: Bugera 1990?

^ I think the market they are after are individuals without the funds to buy a Mesa off the shelf at GC. I also strongly believe their prices are pegged to a certain percentage of the "real thing". IE Trirec costs $800 and the real deal is $1800, 800/1800=44.4% of the real thing. Peavey 6505+ = $1200, Bugera 6262=$550, 550/1200=45.83% of the real thing. Its marketing man, the price increase has nothing to do with increased quality. They figured out the price drop it would take to make people buy their product, and they are sticking with the formula. Why price a TriRec at $550 when its already a great discount at $800?

Interesting percentage count. Makes sense I'll pay attention to it.

I don't doubt that 90% of the failures are connectors, because really what else is there to fail?

That was the story about one particular large board connector that gets loose, heats up, melts and causes other parts to 'blow up' ( tubes, transformers, whole board...)

Here it is:

Mr. 'Sloan' (Cleveland, TN) from Music Electronics Forum (applied the solution to his 333XL):

"This is common anywhere your sending high voltage/current through a molex, it's just not a good idea.
Your best bet is to cut off the connector, unsolder the pins from the board and solder the wires in their respective places on the board.
Be careful, all the heat generated when the molex failed can cause the tracings on the board to lift up a bit."

 

[joelap]

Bugera 1990?

That's exactly the connector that is the issue in the bugera amps that I've seen. Unfortunately, the amps I've worked on were less obvious and didn't have nearly as big of a carbon deposit on them as that picture shows.

His solution of removing the molex connector from the equation is probably the best answer. Thanks for those pics.