[Music Alchemist]

All sorts of products are "clones" of other products, produced by the same manufacturer, and then branded and marketed by various companies.

 

[cel4145]

I never said that. Read my edit to get what I meant.

Yes. But my response applies based on what you said. It's why it's important to understand the distinction between the original thing and a clone. A clone is always a copy of the original. In this instance, there is no copying going on. To someone buying that product, the distinction is important because they will know they are getting the exact same thing. You just say, "this is a rebranded product."

So don't confuse rebranding with cloning. I'm sure there are people in your industry that can explain it to you if you don't understand the difference between the the two and why that difference is important.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Yes. But my response applies based on what you said. It's why it's important to understand the distinction between the original thing and a clone. A clone is always a copy of the original. In this instance, there is no copying going on. To someone buying that product, the distinction is important because they will know they are getting the exact same thing. You just say, "this is a rebranded product."

So don't confuse rebranding with cloning. I'm sure there are people in your industry that can explain it to you if you don't understand the difference between the the two and why that difference is important.

 
Rebranding is cloning, and whether there are no or just small differences. I know what I'm talking about.
 
You talk about these headphones like they are identical, but there are differences between them, anyway. It's just the drivers that are the same. Same goes for the Sennheiser HD 5XX series and the STAX Lambda series, though those are just similar products in product lines made and marketed by the same company (so they shouldn't be thought of as clones) instead of similar products made by the same company but marketed by different companies (which is why they are called clones).

 

[cel4145]

Rebranding is cloning, and whether there are no or just small differences. I know what I'm talking about.

Not useful to conflate those two. Cloning and rebranding are two different things. One is about labeling a product and (sometimes) who is selling it. The other is about design and production. The nuances should be important to you.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Not useful to conflate those two. Cloning and rebranding are two different things. One is about labeling a product and (sometimes) who is selling it. The other is about design and production. The nuances should be important to you.

 
You reply so fast you don't end up seeing my edits. Look at my post again. lol
 
The design and production are related to the labeling and selling.
 
There isn't any instance I can think of where a product is a clone (as in a very similar product marketed by a different company), yet is not rebranded.

 

[cel4145]

The design and production are related to the labeling and selling.

Yes. Related, but not the same.

There isn't any instance I can think of where a product is a clone (as in a very similar product marketed by a different company), yet is not rebranded.

Now you have the definition right

Right. Clones are rebranded, but not all rebrands are clones. And in fact, sometimes companies rebrand products without redesigning or changing the product at all, only the labeling and the packaging. That is not cloning. That is rebranding.

You talk about these headphones like they are identical, but there are differences between them, anyway.

This has all been discussed at length in the HM5 and FA-003 threads. According to people who have owned more than one, they are exactly the same headphone except for the branding on the outside. Look at them:


fischer


brainwavz


lindy


jaycars

They may come in different retail packaging with different accessories, but the headphones are the same. Yoga is said to make them:



The same.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Yes. Related, but not the same.
Now you have the definition right

Right. Clones are rebranded, but not all rebrands are clones. And in fact, sometimes companies rebrand products without redesigning or changing the product at all, only the labeling and the packaging. That is not cloning. That is rebranding.
This has all been discussed at length in the HM5 and FA-003 threads. According to people who have owned more than one, they are exactly the same headphone except for the branding on the outside. Look at them:

fischer

brainwavz

lindy

jaycars

They may come in different retail packaging with different accessories, but the headphones are the same. Yoga is said to make them:

The same.

 
I should have mentioned that when I was talking about rebranding, I was referring to a company rebranding another company's product; not a company rebranding their own product. (I think that is usually called something else, but I don't recall the terminology.)
 
So we may have already had the same understanding and were just not communicating it as well as we could. (How ironic!)
 
I also read about how there are small differences in the design (aside from the drivers) and sound between those various models. (Or perhaps it was just the XPT100, which at the least looks different, since it's all black and has a different headband and ear pads, including angled ones.)

 

[cel4145]

I should have mentioned that when I was talking about rebranding, I was referring to a company rebranding another company's product; not a company rebranding their own product. (I think that is usually called something else, but I don't recall the terminology.)

So we may have already had the same understanding and were just not communicating it as well as we could. (How ironic!)

I'm not sure we agree unless you see how this is rebranding, but not cloning.

I also read about how there are small differences in the design (aside from the drivers) and sound between those various models. (Or perhaps it was just the XPT100, which at the least looks different, since it's all black and has a different headband and ear pads, including angled ones.)

Everything I read suggested that there was no reliable evidence that there was any difference. Without ABX testing, since we know the headphones are coming from the same manufacturing plant, it seems best to guess that those who find that they sound the same

Yes. The XPT100 comes with a different headband and two sets of pads, but still apparently manufactured by Yoga with same cup design and drivers. So a different model, not a clone.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I'm not sure we agree unless you see how this is rebranding, but not cloning.
Everything I read suggested that there was no reliable evidence that there was any difference. Without ABX testing, since we know the headphones are coming from the same manufacturing plant, it seems best to guess that those who find that they sound the same

Yes. The XPT100 comes with a different headband and two sets of pads, but still apparently manufactured by Yoga with same cup design and drivers. So a different model, not a clone.

 
How is the XPT100 not a clone? It has the same drivers, but slightly different design, and is marketed by a different company. (That last part is what is most important in this context. Many companies use the same company for manufacturing, but that is beside the point.)
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/585281/review-brainwavz-hm5-a-new-neutral-champ
http://www.head-fi.org/t/624729/review-nvx-xpt100-a-direct-brainwavz-hm5-competitor
 
They sounded a little different to that reviewer.

 

[DeeCee]

im not an expert, but it seems you are mistaking clones with twins, twins all are originals, clone is something made by copying existing original
 
003 and co are twins - all are originals, but have different names

 

[Music Alchemist]

  im not an expert, but it seems you are mistaking clones with twins, twins all are originals, clone is something made by copying existing original
 
003 and co are twins - all are originals, but have different names

 
This new "twin" terminology further confuses things. As far as I am concerned, in this case, rebrand, twin, and clone are different words referring to the same thing. Nearly everyone just refers to these as clones. But I don't know why you are saying they are original when they are derived from the same original product and are thus just copies, clones, pale shadows, revisions, or whatever other words you want to use to refer to it. Discussion of terminology is pointless, because everyone has their own definition.

 

[cel4145]

How is the XPT100 not a clone? It has the same drivers, but slightly different design ...

It's an intentional design modification from the original manufacturer, a slightly different model. Do you call the HD558 a clone of the HD598?

 

[Music Alchemist]

It's an intentional design modification from the original manufacturer, a slightly different model. Do you call the HD558 a clone of the HD598?

It is marketed by a different company! That's why it can be called a clone.
 
You are actually the first person I ever found who insisted on not calling it that.

 

[cel4145]

It is marketed by a different company! That's why it can be called a clone.

Well, you can keep insisting on that, but as I pointed out already, the distinguishing part of the definition of a clone is not that it's marketed by a different company. It's just a misuse of the term that ignores the nuances of what a clone is.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Well, you can keep insisting on that, but as I pointed out already, the distinguishing part of the definition of a clone is not that it's marketed by a different company. It's just a misuse of the term that ignores the nuances of what a clone is.

 
Oh, the perils of analogies and metaphors.
 
Nuances? lol... In a general sense, a clone just means something that is similar or identical to something else. In a more specific sense, it refers to something that is copied from another -- another company, in this context. The fact that these various companies who rebrand and market the headphones happen to use the same manufacturer is irrelevant. What matters is that they are all marketing a headphone that is similar or identical, and is therefore a clone. Very few people care about these nuances, and the simple fact is, 99.9% of the people who talk about these headphones refer to them as clones.
 
By the way, I'm a clone.

 

Spoiler: Me and my twin sister chillin' in the studio.