Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Mini Pro clone of Hi-Pro 2 or not a clone

This topic is closed.

11 replies6.1k viewsLast reply

Link to this topic

Let’s start with pictures of an older USB 1.1 Hi-Pro (original or not, it doesn’t matter for this comparison). NOTE that the four LED lights at the bottom are to the right of the 6-pin mini-DIN connectors. On all Hi-Pros that I know of (including this one in this picture, including the Hi-Pro 2) the LED lights are right of the 6-pin mini-DIN connectors.

Here’s a view outside the case, see the LED lights are right of the 6-pin mini-DIN connectors.

Now scroll down to look at the four LED lights on the mini Pro below
Mini Pro LED1 is to the left of 6-pin mini-DIN connector (COM2)
Mini Pro LED2 is to the left of 6-pin mini-DIN connector (COM3)
–In other words the lights are on the left side of the 6-pin mini-DIN connectors
FYI Mini Pro LED3 is the light for PC connection
FYI Mini Pro LED4 (not shown) is the light for power

On the case you can see the clear plastic inserts that carry light to the top of the case.

Now if you go scroll down on this link >>Hi-Pro 253<< to find a picture of an original Hi-Pro 2, (I don’t want to post a picture here) then you will see that the LED lights are to the right of the mini-DIN connectors just like all other Hi Pros.

I believe the mini Pro is a different board, not a clone.

3 people in this conversation4 min readJump to latest

If you ever try to sell a mini Pro don’t list it for sale as a Hi Pro! That’s Trademark infringement and Trademark infringement violations are currently being flagged and removed from the Internet.

Are you delusional, pvc? Of course the mini Pro is a clone of the Hi-Pro. It uses the Hi-Pro firmware (illegally) to make itself appear as a fully functioning Hi-Pro. That’s the ONLY reason it works with fitting software. Quit being such a chump, or are you trying to rationalize your purchase of counterfeit goods?

You purport that the firmware is a clone. Not sure how you can be so sure. Early IBM PCs were using stolen firmware. It was later cloned using a clean room. The device in question is an order of magnitude simpler and could easily be cloned in such a manner. Most of the control/handshaking is a function of the programming software on the PC. All this device does is change the stream from USB (formerly serial) to the wires passing from it to the aids. That’s a dead simple bit of conversion. It wouldn’t likely need a special chip. It could easily be done with discrete parts. Although, if the quantity sold/needed, a chip could be run to replace the discrete parts.

What is apparent is they violate the registered name in earlier versions and that not showing on the box pictured.

Edited

Uh-huh. I’m sure those law abiding Chinese counterfeiters set up a “clean room” and meticulously duplicated the Hi-Pro firmware from scratch while taking extraordinary measures to avoid any copyright infringement. Can I interest you in a bridge? For the record, the Hi-Pro has upgradeable firmware, so it’s not a simple passthrough device as you incorrectly speculated.

@cszoom1 said:

Uh-huh. I’m sure those law abiding Chinese counterfeiters set up a “clean room” and meticulously duplicated the Hi-Pro firmware from scratch while taking extraordinary measures to avoid any copyright infringement. Can I interest you in a bridge? For the record, the Hi-Pro has upgradeable firmware, so it’s not a simple passthrough device as you incorrectly speculated.

Upgradeable firmware, now there’s a hoot. Upgrade for what? :rolleyes:

You think maybe someone will change the basis of binary data to something other that 0 or 1, and as a result you might need to upgrade the firmware? Then I should look into upgrading the firmware on my collection of SanDisk Cruzer Glide USB Flash Drives, right?

The objection raised was they used the registered name. As to firmware, most devices use upgrades. It only means that an eprom is used which allows the manufacturer to change component initialization etc. It allows using a generic eprom and inserting the code necessary to configure a device.

You seem to offer opinion and unsupported "facts. Just what is your expertise/degree?

As for a clean room setup, why won’t a Chinese manufacturer do this? For this device – a pass thru device, creating the necessary code is butt simple. It is a simple cost of doing business. There is a history of product being denied entry if stolen code is proven. That the product can be imported seems to indicate that the firmware isn’t from the original manufacturer.

You depend on guessing and we have to do the same. It’s a stupid exercise. It is as devoid of importance other than to serve your self-importance.

He’s a GN hired gun. Has to be. Probably under 25yo.

The only tool he has for Internet sales takedowns
(except for himself because he is a tool :rolleyes:)
is Trademark infringement.

Pretty weak, eh? :o Just don’t call it a Hi-Pro.

All of his >>Axe grinding posts9<< are about discrediting the mini Pro. Why? Because they have no success with takedown of mini Pro Internet sales, and they have no hope of future success because the mini Pro is not a clone.

I’m not surprised that a GN hired gun arrives here to spout bullshit about the mini Pro.
Jeez, couldn’t you try being a little more subtle?
Or, take the time to make a sensible argument?

Edited

Pretty weak attempt at deflection, pvc. Go ahead and keep telling yourself the mini Pro is not a clone if it helps you feel less guilty about buying a counterfeit product, but deep down you know it’s a cheap, unauthorized imitation of the Hi-Pro.

Related discussions