Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

[Voltcontrol]

When I saw this photo, our thread title came to mind
Behringer: legitimacy.

[StillNotWorking]

When I saw this photo, our thread title came to mind

Funny. But not so sure Uli actually aim for membership. He is intelligent enough to understand he need to make original products to be able to apply.

[ricko]

The great thing about Behringer making cheap clones of famous historical products is if it will force smaller vendors to do something more than just endlessly clone ladder filters or ADSRs etc with no value-adds to the designs. Force inovation. Yes please.

(And how difficult is it? I (see fricko.home.blog) put out a polymoog vox humana filter, as a DIY pcb/panel for Eurorack. But it goes beyond the original design by having some formant tweaking. If every smaller vendor made sure each module had at least one little extra distinguishing feature, not just vanilla box-tick re-hashes, they might be less threatened by Behringer's attack of the clones. )

[äggmedskägg]

Not only does it force innovation, with their synth ventures they do what the big companies refuse to do: Re-release classic gear. Roland's TR-08 and TR-09 are extra good examples of simply just tricking customers with shallow nostalgia, but not giving them anything. The TR-08 and TR-09 are just Rolands digital recreation of the 808 and 909, in a small box with tiny knobs but a nostalgic design. At the same time, the TR-8 offered the EXACT SAME EMULATIONS, but with modern features and big knobs, for only like a hundred dollars extra. They've since replaced the TR-8 with the TR-8S which is more expensive, but it's still clearly so much better value for money. (And let's not even talk about the abominable disappointment that is the JP-08.)
And the vast amount of 303 clones that have existed the last 20 years show that making a TB-303 totally is profitable. But Roland just didn't.

While the Behringer RD-8 not only is a real analog implementation of the 808 sound, and has modern live features AND it's cheaper than the TR-08. Roland should have released something like the RD-8 years and years ago. But they didn't, probably because they no longer have a single employee that understand analog electronics. So although I understand that people dislike their cloning practices in general, when it comes to vintage synth things, they are pretty much heroes, finally giving people what they have wanted for 30 years.

[22tape]

I'm not sure that creatives, or anyone who is passionate about their craft, suddenly become innovative/inspired because someone stole their work. Personally, I'm inspired by original ideas rather than copy cats.

[paranoidmoonduck]

I think I'd prefer if Behringer spurred innovation by using their considerable resources to...um...innovate.

Pretending like their business behavior has positive second order effects when they could just be doing that themselves is a very weird stance to take.

[flashheart]

I think I'd prefer if Behringer spurred innovation by using their considerable resources to...um...innovate.

Pretending like their business behavior has positive second order effects when they could just be doing that themselves is a very weird stance to take.

[KSS]

It's unfair to characterize what they've done so far as non-innovative. And I'm not talking about the Neutron or Deep Mind. Or even the PolyD. Calling their small clones non-innovative misses the very reality that they are in fact quite innovative. Those who think a cloner simply recreates the schematic on a new PCB and uses 'same' parts will never understand this. But if we pay attention to how often such clones are unsatisfying, and how some do eventually get closer or even hit the mark they're shooting for; then we can see that true innovation was required.

I don't mind that they're doing a bunch of cheap clones. I continue to hope they will do a better and better job of it, even as I understand they actually don't have much reason to do so. I've written the reasons before so won't repeat.

What I'm waiting to see is whether they actually make a top notch effort on their flagships. Like the UBXa, which I suspect we'll see at what was going to be Superbooth time, based on what Uli's been posting. And likely at least one other skunkworks project they've hinted between the lines about but not clearly announced. We'll probably see the DS-80 soon too. These all need to be exceptional, and not appear just a bigger version of the little modules.
Unfortunately what I'm seeing instead is modularity of pieces-of-synth across their range -which by the way *is* innovative- so we get the same sequencer and synthtool for many different units. Other parts like EGs seem to be re-used code. This makes sense from where Uli's standing, it's both an economic and support managament favoring decision. And at the lower end, it's even acceptable to some degree. But it's like a manufacturing version of autotune or too much reverb in the music.

So if they either make their upper end too cheap in price or result; or keep the cheap reality in a higher price based on -false- price/value perception using what the market will bear concepts, then that's the kind of non-innovation I'd find hard to support.

Because the problem is not that they're doing this. The problem is when they don't do it well. Innovative or not. A good example we've already seen is the decision to use sliding nuts in the EuroGo! case. I don't mind sliding nuts as much as many who do, but this was huge miss step and should be corrected ASAP. Uli said the difference was 50USD to have nutstrips. And at retail buying 8 84HP nutstrips for 5USd its close. But he was disingenuous about their true cost and he knows it.

If he takes that same stance with the higher level Synths, we all lose. Not to mention what that says for Music Tribe's other 'recently' aquired high end brands.

[KSS]

Personally, I'm inspired by original ideas rather than copy cats.

Do you own a Maths module? If not, can you see that although it is a copy cat mashup of Serge and Buchla, it *is* innovative?

[22tape]

Personally, I'm inspired by original ideas rather than copy cats.

Do you own a Maths module? If not, can you see that although it is a copy cat mashup of Serge and Buchla, it *is* innovative?

I don't own Maths. And I don't think I'd call it a copy cat because it does indeed put an original spin on the Serge and Buchla designs. I think there's a pretty big difference between a "copy cat," and a "copy cat mashup," because those "mashup" bits are original contributions. It expands upon a design rather than trying to replicate it exactly, like a copy cat does.

[22tape]

Also, is anyone else mildly obsessed with listening to music and trying to identify the song's influences? I love doing that!

I'm fascinated by creative folks who can give a proper nod to their influences in their work, while having a style all their own, and that style is usually their own because they are combing specific influences to create something wholly original. Not unlike Maths.

But if you sound too much like your influence, it seems to be a turnoff for me.

[äggmedskägg]

I think I'd prefer if Behringer spurred innovation by using their considerable resources to...um...innovate.

Making a cheaper mousetrap is as much of an innovation as making a better one.

And their synths are definitely innovation. I'm not sure any single idea is unique, but the Deepmind 12 not only sounds great, it does have a lot of depth to it, and an 808 that has a sequencer designed for live editing is a house nerds dream. And a Minimoog you with various ins and outs for using with a modular system? That's new.

Their TB-303 clone seems to only have a filter in as new feature though. Pft. Weak. :-)

[Zymos]

It’s quite innovative to make an argument for why clones are innovative!

[coolshirtdotjpg]

I'm not sure that creatives, or anyone who is passionate about their craft, suddenly become innovative/inspired because someone stole their work. Personally, I'm inspired by original ideas rather than copy cats.

Then don't ever buy anything other than vintage Buchla. Moog copied Buchla (the sequencer), Arp copied Moog (and were sued for it), Octave copied Arp (and were sued for it), Roland copied Moog and Hammond, Sequential Circuits copied PPG and Korg (even copied waveforms of the front panel of the korg), Make Noise copied Buchla and now everybody copies Mutable.

[coolshirtdotjpg]

Behringer's original spin is that these clones are in eurorack format and cost ten times less than originals.

[martimous]

...Arp copied Moog (and were sued for it)...

ARP did most certainly not copy Moog. And they were not sued by Moog. They made a copy of a Moog ladder filter to include on a synth where almost every other design decision was as different from Moog as they could make it.

[22tape]

I'm not sure that creatives, or anyone who is passionate about their craft, suddenly become innovative/inspired because someone stole their work. Personally, I'm inspired by original ideas rather than copy cats.

Then don't ever buy anything other than vintage Buchla. Moog copied Buchla (the sequencer), Arp copied Moog (and were sued for it), Octave copied Arp (and were sued for it), Roland copied Moog and Hammond, Sequential Circuits copied PPG and Korg (even copied waveforms of the front panel of the korg), Make Noise copied Buchla and now everybody copies Mutable.

Besides an SP-404 and and an MF-104, I’ve never owned anything from those companies. And to repeat, I think there’s a difference between a clone/copy cat and those makers that put an original spin/make a significant contribution to the original design, or combine elements from other designs to create something original.

[Flounderguts]

It’s quite innovative to make an argument for why clones are innovative!

It worked for the Empire.

[KSS]

...Arp copied Moog (and were sued for it)...

Yes, ARP copied the ladder filter in their 1006 module for the 2500. But you left out the fact that moog copied ARP's patented 2 voice KBD. And you fell victim to the myth that either one sued the other over this. They both recognized their own fault and turned the other cheek.

ARP did most certainly not copy Moog. And they were not sued by Moog. They made a copy of a Moog ladder filter to include on a synth where almost every other design decision was as different from Moog as they could make it.

see above.

While we at it, ARP is also claimed to have put their 4012 VCF for the 2600 in epoxy to hide that they were again using the moog patented ladder filter.
That was in 1971. However, in 1970 they released this module shown below. Do you really think that a year later -and after the 'conversation' describef above, that they would fwwl any need to hide that the 4012 was a moog circuit? No. They covered their circuits in epoxy for thermal issues and also because that was standard practice for those kind of modules at the time. You can see this in all the discrete OpAmps still found in studio racks.

Let's not keep these old myths alive any longer.

Here's the 1006 filter/VCA module. Can you see the ladder filter?
Sure looks like they made a huge effort to cover it up, and keep moog from noticing

[KSS]

I'm not sure that creatives, or anyone who is passionate about their craft, suddenly become innovative/inspired because someone stole their work.

You may want to look into what Dave Rossum -who is a poster boy for creative and innovative- and Scott Wedge did when -in the middle of betting their company's future on a very expensive thing called the Audity, received news from Dave Smith -of Prophet5 and MIDI fame- let them know he was no longer going to pay royalties on their polyphonic IP. Essentially stealing from them.

That DP Rossum's response was to go in a completely new direction and bring us the Emulator disagrees with your comment.
And he's not alone.
Many creative people "suddenly become innovative/inspired because someone stole their work." it's one of the best responses a creative person can do.
fix typos

[22tape]

I'm not sure that creatives, or anyone who is passionate about their craft, suddenly become innovative/inspired because someone stole their work.

You may want to look into what Dave Rossum -who is a poster boy for creative and innovative- and Scott Wedge did when -in the middle of betting their company's future on a very expensive thing called the Audity, received news from Dave Smith -of Prophet5 and MIDI fame- let them know he was no longer going to pay royalties on their polyphonic IP. Essentially stealing from them.

That DP Rossum's response was to go in a completely new direction and bring us the Emulator disagrees with your comment.
And he's not alone.
Many creative people "suddenly become innovative/inspired because someone stole their work." it's one of the best responses a creative person can do.
fix typos

[KSS]

[Red Electric Rainbow]

they’re all just tools for YOUR creative endeavors.

[Divinital_]

If Flying Lotus backs up Behringer even during the Kirn nonsense, I might have to convert to being a Behringer.

[coolshirtdotjpg]

...Arp copied Moog (and were sued for it)...

ARP did most certainly not copy Moog. And they were not sued by Moog. They made a copy of a Moog ladder filter to include on a synth where almost every other design decision was as different from Moog as they could make it.

This of course explains the arp clone in eurorack “The Post Lawsuit Filter” made from the redesign Arp made after they were threatened with a lawsuit.