Rondo at it again!

I just do not see why Line6 is that much more than Behringer.

That one is easy, Mike. At leat four reasons:

1. The mechanical build quality of most Line6 (non-Variax) products is outstanding. Behringer is not nearly as gig/road worthy. But if that's not important to someone, no need to pay for it.

2. Cost of higher performance electronics: Line6 uses higher sampling rates and bit depths => wide frequency response and better dynamic ranges for processing. All more important for high quality (pro studio) recording than for live playing.

3. Very subjective, but pros seem to prefer the sounds produced by many of the Line6 products. I don't think it's purely snob appeal -- they genuinely prefer the tones, and those tones are different. OTOH, Behringer stuff is easier to use, especially for those less likely to do deep editing of tones.

4. Research money to be recouped: Line6 sinks a lot of money into R&D, and was at the cutting edge of a lot of the modeling technology. That cost $$$, as it's much more expensive to be first. Behringer is able to keep prices down by following and copying -- much easier and cheaper. Plus, they can spread any research costs they may incur across a much broader product line. This has been Behringer's business MO for years. Some of Behringer's mixers are low cost knock-offs of Mackies; Vamp is a cheaper Pod; and the new pedal line is a copy of Maxon's. Maxon pursued legal remedies against Behringer for this.

As to why Agile LPs are cheaper and of similar quality. The answers are actually pretty easy as well. Gibson pays a lot more for US labor than anyone who manufactures in Asia. Unfortunately, Gibson's quality is not any better, and sometimes worse (I have never been one to give Gibby props for quality -- IMO, they have fallen short in quality for decades. Asian manufactures, starting with Japan many years ago, then moving to Korea and now finally in mainland China have move steadily up in quality of fit and finish and assembly.) Are the Agiles nitrocellulose lacquer? My guess is not. Whether or not one believes nitro superior, it is the standard for high end guitars and costs more. Does is create a better sounding solid body guitar? Probably not by much, if at all. Hollowbodies -- could be some real differences. Acoustics? Yes. The quality of metal plating, pup construction and electronics/wiring/shielding are all intangibles to most players, and may not be obvious on new guitars where wear-and-tear is minimal. Choice of woods is another place where lower end manufacturer can save big money without really affecting the tone of a solidbody or laminated (semi-)hollow guitar. So yes, a pretty good guitar can be made and sold for a low price with the right choices of materials, finishes, less expensive electronics, very low cost labor ("Yes, Virginia, I'm talking sweatshops here.") and good quality control.

Now Epiphone is just an Asian-made guitar that's spec'ed to Gibson (possibly lower) standards and sold at Gibson-mandated margins. Except for the Elitist line, I would have a hard time arguing why one should not buy a different Asian-made guitar and do better for the money. Once again a Gibby quality/profit issue.

-G

I bought an SX 57 SST (strat copy) and it is incredible for the price. I like it better than some Fender Strats I've played. It is similar in playing to a Fender Jimmy Vaughaun Strat I played recently.
I plan on buying an Agile LP copy soon. The reviews I have seen are positive and for the price warrant my "small" investment.
I have had to make some hardware adjustments to the SX. The Agile I am looking at, I don't like the look of the Tone and Volume Knobs, So for a small amount of $ I can replace those, simple. If the tuners on guitars don't satisfy, then, again, for a small pittance, they can be replaced.