Sennheiser Cracks Down on Counterfeits

[Alex H.]

This article was in the most recent TV Technology. Though they specifically address various models of Sennheiser headphones, there was a flood of counterfeit G2 wireless systems around eBay, and you'll probably still find them. Just remember: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

http://tvtechnology.com/article/125170

Sennheiser has posted a short FAQ on counterfeit Sennheiser gear:

http://www.sennheiserusa.com/serviceandsupport_counterfeitalert

 

[Doc Bernard]

Good for them. Get 'em Sennheiser.

 

[John Willett]

Both Sennheiser and Shure are very active against counterfeiters.

You have to be very careful when buying popular products on-line.

 

[davefisk]

You have to be very careful when buying popular products on-line.

I couldn't agree with this more. So many manufacturers encounter this (I've even run across it at K-Tek, believe it or not). If you are buying new, and buying online, only buy from authorized re-sellers. Most manufacturers have a list of their re-sellers on their website. If you see something online selling for new at a really low price, chances are it's not the real deal. If you get a funny feeling about something you see, e-mail the link to the manufacturer to see if the seller is an authorized re-seller.

 

[Allan Black]

Shure mics have counterfeit warning signs displayed in audio shops here.

The Chinese counterfeiters are not worried about copying Boeing or Airbus just yet, they want to corner the worlds market in shoe laces, then the worlds aero designers will have to walk to work in bare feet.

Cheers.

 

[TERRA Operative]

Don't forget the original innovators loosing out in the end due to the undercutting of their original R&D process.

It is happening now, with companies in the modified and performance car parts industries. ARC (a manufacturer of very high quality radiators and intercoolers) has gone bust due to Chinese knockoffs copying their products and undercutting their R&D costs. Products have been pulled off the market too, an American company pulled a carbon fibre bonnet off the market after it was copied due to fears that the copies would be mistaken for the real deal and damage the original companies reputation. The counterfeit part was a direct copy by another American manufacturer but made with inferior processes (wet lay carbon as opposed to autoclaved dry lay carbon). The original company ended up having to absorb the R&D costs including strength testing, approval processes for street legality and even wind tunnel testing for placement of vents etc. All this was wasted with a copied part.

Then there is Works Bell, a manufacturer of very high quality steering wheels and quick releases. They were at SEMA in the US, and were shocked (to say the least) when another company won the 'Innovator of the year' award, for a product they blatantly copied from works bell, the only difference being the colour and build quality. WB puts massive amounts of R&D to ensure their product is the best on the market, and for another company to win an innovation award for a copied product was a big blow, made worse when the award stood even after WB protested to SEMA officials.
At a race meet, a driver actually had a steering wheel come off in his hands due to the use of a copy of a WB quick release. The inferior quality alloy used in the construction wore away around the locking mechanism, allowing it to come free at a critical moment.
Both car and driver survived, and the team vowed never to use a fake part again.

I have even seen a counterfeit of a counterfeit of a genuine part! (a HKS blow off valve for use on turbocharged vehicles FWIW) the part was horribly produced and has the potential to cause costly damage to a vehicle, in order of magnitudes above the price difference of just buying the genuine part to start with.


Cheap parts sure appear to benefit the consumer in the short term, who doesn't love cheap prices? But what happens when the original innovators stop producing products when it becomes no longer financially viable to spend the money on developing a new product if it will just be copied and sold for a fraction of the cost anyway?
What happens when the innovative and original companies based in your home country go out of business due to the counterfeits coming out of China etc?

What happens to your scene when the only parts available start being copies of copies because no one is dreaming up the next great thing? It's already started and well under way in the aftermarket car parts scene. Only the consumer can stop it from happening by buying genuine and refusing fakes.


Counterfeits only serve to kill innovation, originality and companies.

 

[Alex H.]

Not sure it's really a counterfeit if it's manufactured and sold under a different name. At that point, it's just a cheap knock-off. Counterfeits pose themselves as the originals, under the original names. Opteka now has a knock-off of the RØDE VideoMic that's priced at $50 less. It doesn't have a RØDE label on it, and it doesn't have the trademark gold dot. It has Opteka's label on it. It's also known to be of inferior quality. It's a blatant copy, but it isn't a counterfeit.

You bring up a good point, though, in that the cheaper quality has some crappy end-results. Folks who were swindled for the fake G2 wireless systems found themselves with a very poor-performing wireless system that just didn't hold up. That's one very good reason to avoid them.

And yes, the folks who poured their resources into R&D get screwed by counterfeitting. Just know your seller before you buy, and don't jump on the unreasonably low prices. They're that low for a reason...

 

[John Willett]

The Chinese counterfeiters are not worried about copying Boeing or Airbus just yet, they want to corner the worlds market in shoe laces, then the worlds aero designers will have to walk to work in bare feet.

You must be joking!

Have you not heard about counterfeit aircraft parts that have been turning up and inadvertently installed in passenger aircraft - it's frightening. rogar-Angry(DBG):

 

[Framerate]

Not sure it's really a counterfeit if it's manufactured and sold under a different name. At that point, it's just a cheap knock-off.

Well, quite (and that overlooks the fact that the konck-offs can sound virtually the same as the original.

However, even if they didn't sound as good, if a Chinese manufacturer copies a top brand product and sells it as 'The Happy Sunshine Condenser Mic' at a small fraction of the price of the genuine article, then it will be more than good enough for 90% of purchasers - who will take their Happy Sunshine, pocket the (often stupendous) difference in price, and go happily on their way.

Digital has been a huge egalitarian influence - what once cost a small fortune invested in Revox decks and Shure mics, etc, to attain, can now be had by anyone with the price of a modest mic and a digital recorder.

Of course, the 'high end' has moved on even more (with commensurate price increases) but 'good is still good' - and the fact is that people can get results that surpass those obtained from really expensive kit inthe 8-0s and 90's for next to nothing., and that is probably more than good enough for many.

 

[Framerate]

Only the consumer can stop it from happening by buying genuine

The brand manufacturers could do their bit by cutting their obscene profits.

I read (in another thread) some claim that Rode had poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into R&D for a particular mic.

Sorry - I just don't believe that.

It's been nearly 140 years since Emile Berliner produced the first viable microphone - are we expected to believe that companies like Rode and Sennheiser are *still* learning how to make mics???

Have the principles of sound transmission changed in that time?, is it a constantly shifting physical law that requires continual re-evaluation and research?

What they didn't learn in the first 70 years is, imo, not worth learning - so all this guff about 'R&D' costs is (again, imo) a smokescreen to justify vast profit margins.

As far as 'rip-offs' go - how many of the brand manufacturers are paying royalties to Emile Berliner's descendants?....

 

[davefisk]

The brand manufacturers could do their bit by cutting their obscene profits.

I read (in another thread) some claim that Rode had poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into R&D for a particular mic.

Sorry - I just don't believe that.

It's been nearly 140 years since Emile Berliner produced the first viable microphone - are we expected to believe that companies like Rode and Sennheiser are *still* learning how to make mics???

Have the principles of sound transmission changed in that time?, is it a constantly shifting physical law that requires continual re-evaluation and research?

What they didn't learn in the first 70 years is, imo, not worth learning - so all this guff about 'R&D' costs is (again, imo) a smokescreen to justify vast profit margins.

As far as 'rip-offs' go - how many of the brand manufacturers are paying royalties to Emile Berliner's descendants?....

There is a lot more that goes into manufacturing, whether it be microphones, boom poles, mixers..or whatever, than most people think. There is a lot of R&D. We are making something new that I thought would be a no brainer, but the more we dive into it, the more we come across design obstacles and things to refine. Often times products go through several iterations before the final product is release. So, I can easily see it costing well into the 6 figures to come up with a new microphone. Yes, the principles of how a mic work haven't changed, but there are lots of other things to consider, like components, price point, type of mic, versatility, build materials...the list goes on.

 

[Greg Smith]

Would you want to be driving around in a 1987 model car, created 70 years after Henry Ford introduced the Model T?

Surely, aircraft had reached the pinnacle of their development by 1973 or so, 70 years after the Wright Brothers!

Maybe you should shoot your movies with a 1940s model Mitchell, made 70 years after Eastman and Edison designed their first movie camera.

Or perhaps you'd be satisfied if we stopped alll R&D in the computer field next year, on the 70th anniversary of ENIAC. In 2017, we can shut down all the semiconductor labs too, since that's the 70th birthday of the transistor.

Everything continues to change, evolve and hopefully improve.

What a strange post.

- Greg

 

[TERRA Operative]

The brand manufacturers could do their bit by cutting their obscene profits.

I read (in another thread) some claim that Rode had poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into R&D for a particular mic.

Sorry - I just don't believe that.

It's been nearly 140 years since Emile Berliner produced the first viable microphone - are we expected to believe that companies like Rode and Sennheiser are *still* learning how to make mics???

Have the principles of sound transmission changed in that time?, is it a constantly shifting physical law that requires continual re-evaluation and research?

What they didn't learn in the first 70 years is, imo, not worth learning - so all this guff about 'R&D' costs is (again, imo) a smokescreen to justify vast profit margins.

As far as 'rip-offs' go - how many of the brand manufacturers are paying royalties to Emile Berliner's descendants?....

Hmmm. You obviously have never worked in R&D or product development.......

 

[Framerate]

Would you want to be driving around in a 1987 model car, created 70 years after Henry Ford introduced the Model T?

Surely, aircraft had reached the pinnacle of their development by 1973 or so, 70 years after the Wright Brothers!

Maybe you should shoot your movies with a 1940s model Mitchell, made 70 years after Eastman and Edison designed their first movie camera.

Or perhaps you'd be satisfied if we stopped alll R&D in the computer field next year, on the 70th anniversary of ENIAC. In 2017, we can shut down all the semiconductor labs too, since that's the 70th birthday of the transistor.

Everything continues to change, evolve and hopefully improve.

What a strange post.

- Greg

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I don't think that your 'car' analogy is particularly valid - - in the UK cars seem to have taken more steps backwards than forwards since the late 80's/90's. They are now stuffed with technology designed to improve mpg and cut emissions - to the point where they become uneconomic to repair after five or six years.

Take a new diesel VW as an example. Cost new (today) say, £21,000. Warranty period 3 years. After that, you're on your own - and the repair costs are staggering. £850 each for fuel injectors (each one has its own fuel pump built in) - when one goes (and they do) the others are not far behind, so that's a bill of around £3400 plus fitting (not a simple job as the camshaft assembly has to be dismantled) and VAT. Failed injectors can also affect associated sensor and wiring, so best keep a bit of money back to fix those...

Then we have, dual mass flywheels (around £2,000), DPF 'filter' (a misnomer, as it's a big chunk of the exhaust) £1500, turbo bearing £2500 - £3,000) and more, much much more.....and they all start failing around 40,000 - 60,000 miles.

None of these things were fitted to mainstream cars 20 years ago - and they were just as much fun to drive, more reliable, and (mostly) easily fixable by the home mechanic.

None of which has anything to do with microphones - except to point out that, whereas cars (for good or ill) have 'advanced' technologically, microphones appear to be the same.

I'd love to know what huge advances have been incorporated in the modern day equivalent of a mic from 20 years ago. [/FONT]

 

[Steve House]

The brand manufacturers could do their bit by cutting their obscene profits.

I read (in another thread) some claim that Rode had poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into R&D for a particular mic.

Sorry - I just don't believe that.

It's been nearly 140 years since Emile Berliner produced the first viable microphone - are we expected to believe that companies like Rode and Sennheiser are *still* learning how to make mics???

Have the principles of sound transmission changed in that time?, is it a constantly shifting physical law that requires continual re-evaluation and research?

What they didn't learn in the first 70 years is, imo, not worth learning - so all this guff about 'R&D' costs is (again, imo) a smokescreen to justify vast profit margins.

As far as 'rip-offs' go - how many of the brand manufacturers are paying royalties to Emile Berliner's descendants?....

It's said in the microchip industry that the first chip off of the line costs you 50 million dollars while each subsequent chip only costs a nickel. So it is with mics and other audio (and video) products. Yes, it's well known how to make a mic. But how to make a mic with specific characterisitcs, a specific acoustic signature, with specific specs, at a specific price point, that's durable and field usable, etc, etc takes a lot more than just knowing the basic principles of how a mic is constructed. And that has got to be paid for in the price.

 

[Framerate]

It's said in the microchip industry that the first chip off of the line costs you 50 million dollars while each subsequent chip only costs a nickel. So it is with mics and other audio (and video) products. Yes, it's well known how to make a mic. But how to make a mic with specific characterisitcs, a specific acoustic signature, with specific specs, at a specific price point, that's durable and field usable, etc, etc takes a lot more than just knowing the basic principles of how a mic is constructed. And that has got to be paid for in the price.

Surely that's the whole point? - it's been a very long time since the first '$50 million' mic came off the line - since then, it's all been pretty much the same thing, with tweaks here, and refinements there. Have there been any *really* radical and innovative developments in recent decades?

Take a 'bread & butter' mic like the ME66 - it's what?, more than 15 years since that mic was first made?, it's hardly stuffed with esoteric tehnology - yet Sennheiser still want between £350 -£400 for an Me66/K6 combo.

I'd be amazed if that mic cost more than £10 to make and ship.

One thing that the Chinese have revealed is the low actual cost of making these things (not the design and development - which, in the case the ME66, is long ago and far away) but the true cost of producing and assembling the compnents.

OK - we don't want people to work for low Chinese wages - but even after factoring in an increased cost to cover a decent wage rate, the ME66 is still mostly pure gravy for Sennheiser.

I refer again to the Rode M3. I think that it has to be one of the best value mics available today - even including the China-mics. I really like mine - and the build quality is second to none (in fact, it's so rugged that one could alost be arrested for carrying an offensive weapon It has a really nice sound (to my uncultured ears, anyway) and comes with a 10 year warranty.

Yet I bought it brand new for £62.50! I doubt if Rode employees are working for the proverbial 'bowl of rice', and I also assume that Rode make a decent profit on the cost of making tthe M3. Then we have shipping, handling, retailer mark-up - and, in the UK a whopping 20% contribution to the Treasury. Yet still only £62.50, all in.

Which shows that, if manufacturers drop the pretence of vast amounts of money and man-hours invested in 'research', they can turn out high quality produts at low prices.

 

[recordingwhiz]

The beauty of an open market is that you get to vote with your wallet. If you feel that an Senn 66 is too much?.. well don't buy it if you don't see the value...
if dont appreciate the sound and advantages of a better built more expensive mic... dont buy it..its that simple

You are overlooking a ton of costs involved in the operations of a manufacturer. that mic pays not only for the engineering department (better engineers make more money)
also not so obvious salaries such as janitors, security guards, accident insurance, secretaries, lawyers, graphic departments, packaging engineers, manufacturing engineers, even parking lot costs... can you phathom the electric bill at the Sennheiser factory? the water and sewage costs? compare all these costs in Germany versus the same costs in China which are all government subsidised. and that is just the stuff that pops to mind with a hangover...lol

but seriously... if you dont see the added value in something more expensive, then simply dont buy it... but there are sure a ton off 66 and 416 that are even more expensive out there.. guess why? because some one DOES see and or hear the difference and is willing to pay the price for it. one of the most popular mics in recording History is the Neumann U87, which run from $1500 used to right under $3k new with shock mount... and guess what.. same argument can be had for these guys.. however there are TONS of U87s out in the studios recording all your favorite hits... because they are worth the money to a lot of people.

Same reason why some people will spend $80 for a Snap-On spanner but wouldnt pay over $20 for a Husky version.. same metal, same shiny chrome, same dimensions. but in some ways just not quite the same. however I am willing to bet the Snap on didnt cost that much more to make...

some food for thought.

 

[arroway]

The Chinese counterfeiters are not worried about copying Boeing or Airbus just yet

The Chinese have been counterfeiting aeronautical components for years.

As a practice, counterfeiting is absurdly prolific. You wouldn't believe how many people are taking fake cancer drugs (that do absolutely nothing) every single day.

 

[Allan Black]

The Chinese have been counterfeiting aeronautical components for years.

I'm saying .. full size 1:1 scale Airbus and Boeing Jumbos, but they will get to them.

Cheers.

 

[Doc Bernard]

The brand manufacturers could do their bit by cutting their obscene profits.

I read (in another thread) some claim that Rode had poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into R&D for a particular mic.

Sorry - I just don't believe that.

It's been nearly 140 years since Emile Berliner produced the first viable microphone - are we expected to believe that companies like Rode and Sennheiser are *still* learning how to make mics???

Have the principles of sound transmission changed in that time?, is it a constantly shifting physical law that requires continual re-evaluation and research?

What they didn't learn in the first 70 years is, imo, not worth learning - so all this guff about 'R&D' costs is (again, imo) a smokescreen to justify vast profit margins.

As far as 'rip-offs' go - how many of the brand manufacturers are paying royalties to Emile Berliner's descendants?....

Reading the replies since this post, it sounds like we have some people who understand how business works here. Especially audio gear manufacturing.....:happy:

FrameRate, business and manufacturing isn't about charity and making products for nothing. I ask if you have a day job, and do you want to be paid for your work? If you are experienced/trained/have a good rep in your field of work, do you ask for a higher rate, or do you ask for entry level wages?

It is no different. A product is designed, and the price set is what it supports. If they asked 5000 dollars for it, no one would buy it. And the manufacturer would either discontinue it or lower the price until a balance is achieved between demand and supply. A few people complaining that the "price is too high" means nothing, sadly. Other people are willing to pay for the privilege of using what is perceived as a product of good value. Whether it is or not. Your biggest complaint, if you do not like the price of something, should not be directed at the person selling it. You should be taking the issue up with those that are willing to pay that price, as they set the market price. And if they feel it is worth that cost, then you will be at a loss to make a difference. An old saying comes to mind: "Like a butterfly fart in a hurricane".

But at the price point in comparison to the investment, labor, research, utilities, equipment costs, shipping, mark-ups (from manuf. to distributor to retailer) etc., gives them a profit margin that is not really exhorbitant, when you consider EVERYTHING that goes into putting out a single finished quality product from assembly line to store shelf. The more you learn about what is really involved in putting a product on the market, the more forgiving you you become of the price involved. Not saying there aren't abuses, and I know a few. But that's another story and thread.

If they did it only for cost, why do it at all? There would be no future in it, and they couldn't fund future products. Believe it or not, most profit margins up the chain are in the single digits.