advertisement


Chinese Quad "clones"

Tony L

Tony L

Administrator
This "Quad 34" is most odd! I can't read the front panel text but I have a feeling they haven't understood how the 'Tilt' and 'Bass Step' controls work, plus the phono stage and balance controls seem to have fallen off... (eBay). It also looks entirely different inside to my eyes too, a real one has far more 'stuff' in it. I don't know enough about copyright on electronics/audio kit to know where this sort of thing sits legally, but I'd be pretty damn annoyed if I was Quad/IAG.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Looks quite nice though. The Chinese cases are pretty solid. I ran one of the reel to reel audio 405 clones with the Chinese LJM 405 mk1 copy boards and it sounded great to me. (no connection) And that's speaking as someone who owns 33 34 405s and a 303. Does seem ironic though that there is a Chinese copy of of an IAG item..

If it encourages more people to dive into the Quad/ retro hifi world then can only be a good thing.
 
Probably illegal to sell in the UK. How anyone would enforce that for an eBay sale from China, I have no idea. That said IAG in China may be able to send a few boys around to 'discuss' the matter.
 
I'm curious as to how this stuff actually works as I only (probably quite vaguely) understand copyright from a music perspective. 'Quad' will obviously be a registered trade mark (I have one of those for 'pink fish media') so I'd have thought that would be sufficient to prevent use of the name in the markets the trade mark applies, but the thing with this "34" is it is very clearly not a Quad 34, every detail of the design and construction is different visually to some degree (how much if anything of the electronics is copied I have no idea). In musc this would be well into grey areas, i.e. if you change a few notes, put different words to it etc it is no longer a rip-off of someone else's song. Much music is clearly not very original and clearly influenced by what went before, so what aspects with this preamp could actually be enforced given it is not really a direct copy of a Quad 34?
 
regafan said:
Looks quite nice though. The Chinese cases are pretty solid. I ran one of the reel to reel audio 405 clones with the Chinese LJM 405 mk1 copy boards and it sounded great to me. (no connection) And that's speaking as someone who owns 33 34 405s and a 303. Does seem ironic though that there is a Chinese copy of of an IAG item..

If it encourages more people to dive into the Quad/ retro hifi world then can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

dont give some one ideas next will be Audiolab 8300cdq clones ;)
 
Looks like they've copied the latter part of the phono stage design, but there's no cutout for the MM or MC module! Greeaatttt copy!
 
And what the hell is going on with the Bass Step which should both cut and boost? Looks like the control has only one direction of travel. Also the balance settings are marked on the front panel but no balance knob! It is like the father who very amusingly turned his kid's drawings into Photoshop reality (BoredPanda).
 
I don't see a phono module or circuit, so assuming they've copied the 34 circuit that would account for some missing circuitry.

Cheeky bstards though!
 
You could only patent a novel circuit, not copyright it. Copyright applies to soft items such as films, stories etc. Trademarks have no life unless allowed to lapse and apply to pretty obvious things. Patents and copyright both have lives.

I very much doubt that the Quad circuit was novel, or patentable, even when new, but you'd need a patent attorney to check that out, let alone if any patent was still live.
 
So there is also a 'Huntingdon England' in China where these are made :confused:

s-l1600.png
 
There is very little legal protection to a circuit diagram or PCB design. The name QUAD and logos are protected by trademark law and the case design could have been protected by a design patent.
 
Vinny said:
You could only patent a novel circuit, not copyright it. Copyright applies to soft items such as films, stories etc. Trademarks have no life unless allowed to lapse and apply to pretty obvious things. Patents and copyright both have lives.
Click to expand...


However the appearance and presentation, use of known trade name, etc, can be a breach of IPR. Here 'design' can be in the sense of what it looks like, and ergonomic, not just the electronics or function.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top