Behringer UltraPar

[RoyF18]

I know that a parcan is just a parcan in realistic terms but obviously there's a bit more to the Parnell/Source 4 Par type lanterns - the behringer version here is considerably cheaper. Anyone reckon it'd be worth buying a whole bunch of them into stock?

[Stu]

I've been looking into the very same ones myself recently - I presume you've seen the nice price on Thomann? £45 for a S4 copy isn't bad at all, and even better when you think you get the 4 lenses chucked in (hopefully not literally) in the RRP too.

 

The only problem I've had so far is the confusion over which lamps they take. The Behringer site (not always known for its accuracy, has to be said) says 575w G9.5 lamps (so HPL575s I'm presuming here) but Thomann tries to flog you GKV600s with them. When you look at the pic of the lamp on the Behringer site it does look like a GKV600 copy, just labeled 575w. Not that 25w makes much of a difference here, it's the filament heights I'd have thought would be the issue - i.e. having the right lamp to get the correct light output.

 

Can't comment on the quality of the beasts, but I've used similar copies (Showtec, PR) and they aren't as good quality compared to a ETC S4 Par. But perhaps a play with the Behringer version might be in order.

 

The cost savings are good tho

 

DTS Par 64 with Parsafe - £25, 3x Par Lamps (CP60,61,62) £60, Accesories (plug, safety, hookclamp) £10 so the initial outlay is £95.

Behringer UP1000 - £45, GKV £15, Accessories £10. Initial outlay £70.

 

Makes them a good deal, proof will be in the eating of the pudding tho. Next time I order with Thomann I might buy two to see what they are like.

 

Stu

[elarsen]

I've been looking into the very same ones myself recently - I presume you've seen the nice price on Thomann? £45 for a S4 copy isn't bad at all, and even better when you think you get the 4 lenses chucked in (hopefully not literally) in the RRP too.

 

The only problem I've had so far is the confusion over which lamps they take. The Behringer site (not always known for its accuracy, has to be said) says 575w G9.5 lamps (so HPL575s I'm presuming here) but Thomann tries to flog you GKV600s with them. When you look at the pic of the lamp on the Behringer site it does look like a GKV600 copy, just labeled 575w. Not that 25w makes much of a difference here, it's the filament heights I'd have thought would be the issue - i.e. having the right lamp to get the correct light output.

 

Can't comment on the quality of the beasts, but I've used similar copies (Showtec, PR) and they aren't as good quality compared to a ETC S4 Par. But perhaps a play with the Behringer version might be in order.

 

The cost savings are good tho

 

DTS Par 64 with Parsafe - £25, 3x Par Lamps (CP60,61,62) £60, Accesories (plug, safety, hookclamp) £10 so the initial outlay is £95.

Behringer UP1000 - £45, GKV £15, Accessories £10. Initial outlay £70.

 

Makes them a good deal, proof will be in the eating of the pudding tho. Next time I order with Thomann I might buy two to see what they are like.

 

Stu

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

;) You will get what you pay for, won't you ?

 

Go get the real and genuine Source Four PAR that will last and provide you with real performance using HPL 375W/575W or 750W lamp of your choice.

 

Regards

 

Erik Larsen

Market Manager

ETC Europe

[James]

Erik

 

You will get what you pay for, won't you ?

 

I've noticed the Showtec versions getting used recently with increasing quantity for am-dram groups where they will only come out of a cupboard half a dozen times a year (I know of one group that returns all lanterns to their original plastic bags inside their original boxes after every show - they are imaculate with no signs of wear or dust!) and I'm sure the Behringer version will as well.

 

Are there any plans for ETC to adress this portion of the market place where longevity isn't neccisarily an issue and the price often gets looked at first where there is no obvious difference in features bettween "an original" and "a similar looking product"?

 

Alternitavly if ETC have no interest in this end of the market place are these "copies" missing something that the S4 par has and is the difference worth the difference in price, have these other manafacturers copies your designs and stolen your copyright in any way?

 

Just curious because I see a number of people who think - "that looks similar to the other therefore it must do a similar job" so it would be nice to know what discernable differences there are between the products and what extra do you get for the extra money you pay.

 

It's just when there is one product on the market for £180 and another that looks very similar for £45 what would you buy the £180 one or four of the £45 ones?

 

Curiously

 

James

[martinw]

You will get what you pay for, won't you ?

 

Absolutely, much better to buy products from a company like ETC who actually spend money on R&D than a company like Behringer, who have a somewhat checkered past when it comes to ripping off other people's products. This contains quite an interesting interview with Donn Werrbach, Chief Engineer at Aphex, who describes how the German Federal Court found Behringer guilty of copying his products.

 

Martin

[Stu]

;)  You will get what you pay for, won't you ?

 

Of course you do get what you pay for - I'm not disputing that at all. However I can see a market for the 'S4 Par copies', namly amateur groups and small schools who appreciate the low cost of the unit (pretty much as James said). People in these situations will always be out to make a cost saving (so buying 2nd hand is a regular occurance to some) so I suppose the cost of the ETC S4 Par might just be too much for them.

 

Regards,

Stu

[James]

Absolutely, much better to buy products from a company like ETC who actually spend money on R&D than a company like Behringer, who have a somewhat checkered past when it comes to ripping off other people's products. This contains quite an interesting interview with Donn Werrbach, Chief Engineer at Aphex, who describes how the German Federal Court found Behringer guilty of copying his products.

 

Martin

 

Martin,

 

remind me - what happened to court? the inovative manafacturer of PA equipment?

 

On the subject or Behringer, we live in a society where we believe in inocence until proven guilty. Therefore cannot be guilty of copying the S4 Par unless ETC proves it in a court of law. I'm interested to see how ETC see this rash of cheep units from a number of manafacturers that all look similar, are they doing the same thing cheeper, have they stolen any copywriten technology, are they similar on the outside but differ in performance or are they simply not as durable.

 

James

[jexjexjex]

I've been looking at the Eurolite site, at their identical copy of the Behringer/ETC Multi PAR.

 

Their manual says the lamp is the GKV 600W item (Without the huge heatsink used in Source Four's 575W lamp), but the picure in the manual seems to show a big heatsink built into the lamp holder.

 

Would the extra 25 Watts make all that much difference?

 

They also seem to do a rather natty copy of the PARNEL. Thomann quoted me 99 Euros for those, even though they don't list them on their site.

 

Given that, as we've already discussed, the originals cost around the £200 mark, I would have though that both models would worth serious consideration for the light user/fixed install market.

 

Must admit that I bought one of the Terralec items (Lite Works was the brand), which DO take the 575W Heatsinked lamp, last year just for a comparison against the local halls ETC's.

 

The ETC's were brighter, but not by that much, and even less so with the medium and wide lenses fitted.

 

What let the Terralec unit down was the quality of both the cable gland and the lamp adjuster, but as neither the Eurolite or Behringer have this last facility, both bieng direct copies oft the ETC item, this shouldn't be a problem.

 

On the subject or Behringer, we live in a society where we believe in inocence until proven guilty. Therefore cannot be guilty of copying the S4 Par unless ETC proves it in a court of law. I'm interested to see how ETC see this rash of cheep units from a number of manafacturers that all look similar, are they doing the same thing cheeper, have they stolen any copywriten technology, are they similar on the outside but differ in performance or are they simply not as durable.

 

Would that be why the use a different lamp? That way they're not an "exact" copy. It's also worth pointing out that Behringer have had their unit on their website for over a year, with the "Available from..." tag changing from "1st quarter 2004" to "2nd" and now "3rd".

 

A possible court case perhaps?

[Just Some Bloke]

The cost savings are good tho

 

DTS Par 64 with Parsafe - £25, 3x Par Lamps (CP60,61,62) £60, Accesories (plug, safety, hookclamp) £10 so the initial outlay is £95.

Behringer UP1000 - £45, GKV £15, Accessories £10. Initial outlay £70.

 

 

Stu

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't forget that the cost savings are only good if you actually intend to use all the lenses. Small venues with low flying may find they only ever use the CP62 equivalent lens. In this case it would have been cheaper to buy the traditional Par 64 with one lamp (at Stu's prices £55 though you can get the lamps cheaper if you shop around!) than the Behringer UltraPar (£70).

 

Also, remember that the S4 Par and equivalents are, in fact, a completely different beast to the Par 64 from an LD's point of view. The output looks quite different ('softer texture' for want of a better description) and it's very much a case of "horses for courses".

[martinw]

remind me - what happened to court? the inovative manafacturer of PA equipment?

The details are at the bottom of THIS page - do a text search for 'Behringer' - it does sound quite blatent.

 

Regarding the HPL lamp, I think there is something in David Cunningham's patents for the source 4 which mean only ETC can use the lamp - there is a list of his patents HERE, the ones with 'Lighting Fixture' in the title being related to the source 4. There was an incident at PLASA a few years ago, where a certain chinese manufacturer turned up at the show with a source 4 clone, however it dissappeared very quickly when ETC pointed out that it infringed their patent. I think this was primarily due to its use of the HPL.

 

Martin

[Thirdtap]

From what I remember from a PLASA show a while ago Pearl River had to take down their profiles because they infringed ETCs patent namely the 575w lamp. This maybe the answer to the 'not 575w' lamp that Behringer include in their lantern.

 

Sorry was chatting and didn't read the post fully above

[Guest lightnix]

On the subject or Behringer, we live in a society where we believe in inocence until proven guilty...

True, although it is only in criminal cases where guilt must be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". Civil cases (AFAIK) only have to demonstrate a "balance of probability".

 

For those who haven't read the whole article, here are a couple of (edited) quotes...

 

Can you tell us about Mr Behringer, who copied your products without licence?

The German Federal Court found him guilty... He copied so exactly those products... used the same arguments in his brochures... we started pursuits in 1987. And he put on so many arguments to the Court that it took until 1992 to find him finally guilty. In the meantime, he kept on using and using our technology. Then the next product he copied... everything so exactly, but from an earlier version, that he even copied the mistakes we had made! ...we went to Court because he had copied our manual, page for page, illustration for illustration... He's an unbelievable thief, and then he says that he developed all this on his own... but all he is a copyist. Each product is a copy.

 

Did he copy products from other manufacturers ?

Among others dbx, Bristow, Rockon, Mackie... So he's a very dangerous person... he plays with rules under the table: he has no morality, he laughs, he makes a mockery of business ethics... what he's doing is confusing the market by telling them "Oh, that product is perfect, it works great", but when you analyse the product it's a bad copy. But he's that kind to make great advertising: that's easy for him, because he has no engineering expense...

 

Is that the kind of business with whom you want to spend your money ?

 

The problem with companies who illegally copy other companies' products is that they reduce / remove the incentive for genuine inventors to create new products, thus slowing the pace of innovation. By selling cheap copies, they seriously reduce the return on the often heavy investments made by the true originators of the product.

 

Ask yourselves: if there were no such thing as a Source 4 Par, would there be any such thing as the Behringer Ultrapar? Personally I think not.

 

I have the same problem, albeit on a different level. A (merciful) few of the products sold by Wavicleâ„¢ have been ripped off to the micrometre by Chinese manufacturers, who then sell them for less than I can get the legit products at trade. What can I do, other than reduce the price of the originals (reducing the return on my investment in the process) and drop them from the range when they sell out, hoping that I'll make a better choice next time? Believe me, there's no point in trying to explain to the Great Unwashed Public that we sell a more reliable product and that the copies are sh :( te. They just laugh, say it's all sour grapes and that it serves you right for "trying to rip them off" ;)

 

Oscar Wilde may well have said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I just can't see it from where I'm standing.

 

About a year ago, I had an idea (without giving too much away) for a multifunctional portable LED light and christened it with a cute, catchy name. I produced a few sketches and basic proof-of concept models in 3D and began to research the patenting and Intellectual Property minefield.

 

After about a month I shelved it, because I realised that even if I did set up a new company, put money into it, found a backer, gave them 49% of the company, R&D'd the unit into production, marketed it and by some chance saw it become a success, it would only be a matter of time before the knock-offs started flooding out of the Far East and that we would spend a large chunk of the next few years engaged in litigation, rather than coming up with new ideas.

 

So just bear in mind exactly what it is you are doing, the next time you buy the cheap copy as opposed to the more expensive original. It's a hell of a lot more than saving yourself a few quid...

[slim_mcslim]

my twopence....

 

Well as far as I am aware Thoman is the only company selling the Behringer par's and at a very attractive price.

 

Personally I would buy 4 behringers for the price of 1 ETC, but I as an A/V user will only use them about 15 times in a year, and they will make very good low profile floor cans. My only concern with them is the lamp life of the 575 lamps compared with those of par's.

 

If I ran a lighting hire company, then I would purchase the ETC versions, as I feel they will be a lot more robust and stand the test of time for dry hire use, as my customers would expect to hire a S4 par, and actually get one, not just a box that looks like one.

 

I think that the cheap foreign imports have their place in this world, they do detract from the R&D of genuine products, but I do believe that there are enough people out there to support the genuine products, and because of our inquisitive human nature we will always want new and different products so people will keep on developing them. So roll on the thomas pixel-line clones....

 

paul...

[Stu]

The cost savings are good tho

 

DTS Par 64 with Parsafe - initial outlay is £95.

Behringer UP1000 - Initial outlay £70.

Don't forget that the cost savings are only good if you actually intend to use all the lenses. Small venues with low flying may find they only ever use the CP62 equivalent lens. In this case it would have been cheaper to buy the traditional Par 64 with one lamp (at Stu's prices £55 though you can get the lamps cheaper if you shop around!) than the Behringer UltraPar (£70).

 

JSB, you raise a good point, and to be honest, one I hadn't thought off. I suppose I was thinking more of rental shops in working out the costing to 1 each of CP60,61 and 62. My local hire company have 12 (I think) of the S4 Par copies (in complement to their Par 64s) and they seem to be out quite often, so in this instance the different choices of lenses is useful.

 

As you say horses for courses - some people may find the lower wattage S4 Pars (or copies) more useful, the fact they have a lense wider than a CP62, and some people will prefer having bog standard traditional Par 64s.

 

Stu

[James]

remind me - what happened to court? the inovative manafacturer of PA equipment?

The details are at the bottom of THIS page - do a text search for 'Behringer' - it does sound quite blatent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Martin,

 

I think you missed my point,

 

I was not talking about Behringer and Aphex - and I've read that story more times than I can count, Or Behringer and Mackie, Or Behringer and anyone else,

 

Sorry for confusing you.

 

James