Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Any music gear discussions that don't fit into one of the other forums.

Moderators: lisa, luketeaford, Kent, Joe.

Post Reply
User avatar
StillNotWorking
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by StillNotWorking » Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:39 pm

SynthBaron wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:04 pm
...You essentially have the choice of building a digital hardware module or releasing a VCV Rack plugin, and the latter seems to be a better investment of your creative time and effort.
More than a year ago when rubbing my crystal ball I saw the fall of hardware synth interest in general partly due to marked become oversaturated with gear and cool factor diminish. With music industry go full circle back to the computers again. Starting with small screens on small cheap digital synths and eurorack modules just to annoy the heck out of users until they realize the synth module is a computer with a horrible screen.

The meaningness read fits well with this. And with your divination as to why this change might come around faster then my crystal predicted we better shut down our internet and stop being influenced and just go hard core.

Please read all above with irony.

User avatar
StillNotWorking
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by StillNotWorking » Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:12 pm

KL1982 wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:13 am
StillNotWorking wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:44 am
Thing is history is repeating itself. Last time we saw B move into new market shops closed
This is possibly a misattribution. The high street landscape across all sectors has been in flux for years - not due to Behringer, but due to a change in shopping habits i.e online shopping.
We need to go back much longer than this for my historical reference. This thread points to a problem that occured back then too, but long before digital mixers and modern daws where a thing.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=227379
KL1982 wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:13 am
Therefore shouldn't Uli be applauded for his understanding of market trends/direction, and capitalizing on this at an early stage by developing a model that could/likely would have been developed by a rival?
Cloning gear is what he's been doing since he was a youth. If you read the link KSS postet most of find it easy to place Uli's and his company into one of the category layed out for us — creators, fanatics, geeks, mops and sociopaths.

With regards why I think it impossible to compete with with B buying OEM from China it should be obvious that intermediaries will add to the cost that B doesn't have — so looking for ways to mach price something has to give.

mat1
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 6:57 am

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by mat1 » Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:19 pm

KSS wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:26 am
To bring it back personal, it's a reason I'm still holding onto that vintage synth IP I referred to earlier. Because now that Behringer is in the room, the middle ground is much more sensitive than it was. So do I go full-on boutique Knifonium style, or go with something more affordable? Knowing full well that if I do a good job -at either price point, at least one of my units will be purchased by Behringer, and copied. I have to move with this as a potential reality. The Dfish-Behr exchange proves it. I know B is working on at least one product related to this. Was actually hoping they'd reveal at NAMM. But they didn't. Yet.
Tough decision. You probably don't want to wait too long on things like this especially if 20 Behringer synth divisions are potentially going to be looking in that area.

I've made the mistake before of being too protective of music when I knew I was onto a sound early. Before I knew it the sound had become played out and the music everyone was excited about is now worth literally zero :doh:

If it was me I would make it a priority to monetize that IP while you still can. Create a great brand and if it gets cloned just iterate on the design or features. You can always do standard range and ltd edition pricing so you hit both markets.


I bet Make Noise will have a new version of Maths by the time Behringer releases a clone

miminashi
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:14 pm
Location: SLC, Utah

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by miminashi » Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:57 pm

mat1 wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:19 pm
I've made the mistake before of being too protective of music when I knew I was onto a sound early. Before I knew it the sound had become played out and the music everyone was excited about is now worth literally zero :doh:
If I'm reading this correctly, you are the grandfather of the donk? It's an honor to finally meet you!

tenembre
Common Wiggler
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:22 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by tenembre » Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:05 pm

strettara wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:29 am


You know, I hadn't ever really given Behringer any thought before this thread cropped up, but it seems to me that if anyone is serving the "community" by making their tools available at a reasonable price point, it is Behringer. I have yet to see any convincing argument against that point of view in this thread.
tenembre wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:21 am
When a collection of electronic components is turned into a synth through human labor, its use-value as a musical instrument is clear and, as product, the synth remains tied to its material use. However, as soon as the synth emerges as a commodity, it changes into a thing which transcends sensuousness...[p]eople in a capitalist society thus begin to treat synthesizers as if value inhered in the synths themselves, rather than in the amount of real labor expended to produce the synth. This fetishization of the synthesizer shields us from alienation.
Ahhh, the golden words! :yay: :yay: :yay: Nicely done.
Thank you! (bows)

In the market of vintage analog, the commodity value has diverged wildly (upward) from the use value, because of scarcity combined with the fetishization of these objects. (People say these things have "soul" or "mojo" - textbook fetishization). Behringer's clones are a market correction, back to the street prices of the late 80s - early 90s. In other words, we've been here before. But, even if they go out of production, it will take longer for scarcity to set in and for commodity prices of the clones to rise because of the availability of alternatives and because of the efforts of some to depress the commodity value with various debatable appeals to economic justice, build quality, aesthetic taste and so on. The tools will remain available and affordable for some time to come.

KSS
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by KSS » Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:47 pm

StillNotWorking wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:12 pm
With regards why I think it impossible to compete with with B buying OEM from China it should be obvious that intermediaries will add to the cost that B doesn't have — so looking for ways to mach price something has to give.
Yes. Going head to head with Uli B on price is a fools errand. Very few have all the ducks in a row to pull that off. One who might is Dreadbox, as seen in their Chromatic modules. They have a strong distributor behind them, and they've made a good name prior to the Chromatic offering with well-portioned, rather simple synths with nice 'optics' and embracing 'complex' simplicity. Doing a great job of finding the sweet spot in a relatively simple set of parts and carving out a unique set of names.

A better example -or maybe better said as more widely applicable example- of how to compete with Behringer is what Superlative is doing with their SH101-ish box. They've gone into areas Uli won't touch in any significant way. And they're surely not trying to compete on price. No, features and 'optics' are what they're about.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the reason the "Murdered Out" B Box is painted tone on tone dark grey is to pick up on what was revealed in the comments around the Superlative launch. And wanting to add the Dfish mods are likely a bit of that also. Now they can say, "Hey, we hear you. We're hip to the new vibe on color and features too!"

The way to compete in the present market is focus on more than the box. Moog knows this, and has done it for years. They've built up a passionate user base who will forgive their recent slips and decay. They're in danger of losing this hard fought and long won advantage though if they don't start doing a better job taking care of the newly faithful. Radial electroytics awkwardly mounted on PCBs made for axial in expensive supposedly identical modules,and with cheap pots at a premium price may be forgiven in the desire and brand. But they best not count on that brand currency going forward without upping their overall game.

And I'd caution anyone in the middle of the market to drift upward to be within the upper third. Behringer's not going away anytime soon. Both cheap and expensive always sell. Middle is what gets squeezed out. Poorly supported upper can also lose, but that's not the market's fault.

KL1982
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:26 am
Location: UK

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by KL1982 » Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:19 pm

Hi StillNotWorking. I don't think we are in disagreement; I'm simply adopting a stance.
StillNotWorking wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:12 pm
Cloning gear is what he's been doing since he was a youth.
It could be argued that most other synth companies have been doing this.
Most simply spend more time in creating an original-looking front-end, rather than a direct reference to a former product.

The difficulty with the subjective measurement of 'originality' is that it can be stripped back to the atomic level i.e an expectation for companies to reinvent every aspect of a synth. Therefore, I personally don't see it as a useful metric for measuring sector appeal/traction. If anything, the opposite is the case.



StillNotWorking wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:12 pm
With regards why I think it impossible to compete with with B buying OEM from China it should be obvious that intermediaries will add to the cost that B doesn't have — so looking for ways to mach price something has to give.


Again, I agree. Perhaps something will give. Perhaps many companies will collapse.


Perhaps many companies should collapse.


The working business model of many synth companies is, I'm sorry to say, poor. Profitability is not necessarily an indicator of traction, and the focus of many is profit at the expense of traction i.e the primary metric often used in determining success is quarterly profit figures. Whilst important to investors, it is not the only metric that should be considered.

Market penetration via placement on review sites etc will only go so far if, in the instance of synth companies, something as simple as valid content creation is lacking.

And many synth companies would do well to leave politics/personal views at the door. Harnessing a platform to promote a political agenda will only serve to isolate a large portion of the potential market. This is very naive, and I'm not surprised RE current management changes at a number of companies.


Charging an extreme mark-up on a product in such a small industry sector is placing a band-aid on a wound requiring stitches - especially so if the company has no traction. Long-term it is unsustainable, as it doesn't add anything RE market/sector penetration. Given the mark-up, I've yet to see smaller companies re-investing part of their profit into marketing/penetration. At the simplest level, even the very basics RE product presentation are severely lacking (e.g the staging/lack of shown by a number of companies at the most recent NAMM. Buchla charging 3k for a synth presented to the general public on top of a flight case with no logo/poster etc positioned within shot? This simply isn't good enough RE company image (irrespective of sales targets), and demonstrates a casual approach/general oversight at the upper level of the company. It is one of a number of reasons I have personally held back from investing - which I was considering doing, prior to NAMM/their most recent YT videos).

I've been quite surprised in talking to a number of synth companies when the subject of marketing is raised. It is often met with blank stares. Focus on market penetration would certainly help, as the majority of the synth companies we know haven't broken through the traction barrier. And for good reason.


They'll likely soon vanish if they continue operating under their current model - and the blame certainly can't be placed solely on Uli's doorstep.

KSS
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by KSS » Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:32 pm

tenembre wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:05 pm
In the market of vintage analog, the commodity value has diverged wildly (upward) from the use value, because of scarcity combined with the fetishization of these objects. (People say these things have "soul" or "mojo" - textbook fetishization).
True. At least partially. You're completely leaving out the inflation corrected value. When look at through this accurate lens, there is little actual upward value in nearly all vintage synths. Truth be told, Vintage synth are an extremely poor investment.
Behringer's clones are a market correction, back to the street prices of the late 80s - early 90s. In other words, we've been here before.
Huh? Behringer's clones are correcting which market? They are simply the commoditization of their ancestors. And their price has little in common with street prices of late 80s-early 90s. The new B clones are *much* less expensive. And this comes at a use cost. I've played a full size moog model D, and B's version. I've played a full size vintage 2600 with 3/4 o.c. spacing, a TTSH with 5/8 o.c. and a 5U rack version with .500 o.c. Without *any* consideration for "soul" or "mojo" the smaller sizes do not play the same.
Apparently others agree. There have been more than a few reports of perfect comfort with the sound of a Boog D, and yet still have abandoned it due to hitting tuning knobs while switching waveforms. I can play all the different size 2600's reasonably equally, and without using sound, mojo, or soul as a parameter, can still acknowledge the truth of their physical differences in actual use.

Musical instruments have always been about BOTH form AND function. The ability to make the electronics smaller and therefore reduce prices due to smaller overall size, fewer materials and lowered costs has costs besides price.
But, even if they go out of production, it will take longer for scarcity to set in and for commodity prices of the clones to rise because of the availability of alternatives and because of the efforts of some to depress the commodity value with various debatable appeals to economic justice, build quality, aesthetic taste and so on.
Scarcity of vintage is not going to change. Except to increase over time. What *will* change is the emotional attachment of living users as one generation follows another in death. Those of us with firsthand memory of these synths as part of our formative years are growing older fast. When we're gone, only 2nd hand emotional response to the synths of our youth will remain. I've already watched the completely expected rise in price for synths of the generation ofter me. And now even see the beginnings of the third wave. This has less to do with "debatable appeals" and more to do with the mechanics and psychology of growing older, and generational relationships.
The tools will remain available and affordable for some time to come.
On this we agree. Especially since "affordable" has variable meaning. I'm not sure what you mean when you say it, and you cannot be sure what it means to me either. "Affordable" is a moving target, set by individuals. One of the biggest mistakes easily found online is arguments about who is correct about a given pricing''s "affordability."

KSS
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by KSS » Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:44 pm

KL1982 wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:19 pm
Perhaps many companies should collapse.
<snip>
They'll likely soon vanish if they continue operating under their current model - and the blame certainly can't be placed solely on Uli's doorstep.
There is much to agree and to disagree with in the snipped portion. But first, Can you share an example of a -preferably- synth company who is doing it right by your metrics? If none, then some non-synth company as close to similar in market size, type, style?

User avatar
electricfence
Common Wiggler
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 10:11 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by electricfence » Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:03 pm

I tuned out on this thread a while ago, but I recently stumbled upon this gem:
everydaycurry wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:39 pm

$10k to make ambient dronescapes
I'm going to clone that nugget of awesomeness on the title of my next "album," which I will call $10k Ambient Dronescapes and which will only be available on limited-edition 8-track cassette. :sb:

User avatar
red
Common Wiggler
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:21 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by red » Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:10 pm

Image
red

User avatar
3hands
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:36 pm
Location: Ottawa Ontario

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by 3hands » Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:44 pm

electricfence wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:03 pm
I tuned out on this thread a while ago, but I recently stumbled upon this gem:
everydaycurry wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:39 pm

$10k to make ambient dronescapes
I'm going to clone that nugget of awesomeness on the title of my next "album," which I will call $10k Ambient Dronescapes and which will only be available on limited-edition 8-track cassette. :sb:

And I shall buy that drone tape for 200 dollars.
Gum is fun, but not on a cat.

My minds an art gallery.

User avatar
StillNotWorking
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by StillNotWorking » Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:03 pm

When I said Uli has cloned gear since youth I understand I where arguing silly. What I rather should have said is the way I see it is his approach to cloning gear are very different than most manufacturer making products with similar functionality as existing gear.

While we tradisjonally think of someone having an brilliant ide and then work their ass off for years to have it come to marked clone factories are thinking more in lines of "We now have beaten this thing to dead, it's not selling anymore even after three price cuts. Anyone have an idea what to put on the production line to keep us busy next year?

The diversity of companies we are talking about are 1 man or woman operations. Doepher being big in many of us mind has only 3 people on staff + the man himself. I do not wish any of them to part with the scene. But if they where doing production runs of 100 units at a given cost we might see them having to reduce to 50 pcs at a higher cost with lower margins and still having to upper price to end users hurting sales even more.

KL1982
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:26 am
Location: UK

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by KL1982 » Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:06 pm

KSS wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:44 pm
There is much to agree and to disagree with in the snipped portion. But first, Can you share an example of a -preferably- synth company who is doing it right by your metrics? If none, then some non-synth company as close to similar in market size, type, style?
RE my post: I'm intentionally picking companies operating at disparate levels of the market spectrum to illustrate there are many very basic oversights that cannot be blamed on the likes of Behringer.

And some of these companies should know that investment/growth could be gained - were they to pick up their game. As it stands, presently I see a small-minded mentality that doesn't merit anything resembling serious support, therefore serious support won't be given.

Currently, I'd rather have a nice painting hanging on the wall. Less hassle and more pleasure to be gotten from it.



Companies fail all the time; blaming 'the big guys' is an all-too-easy (and very frequent) way of refusing to face up to one's own failures/oversights. Whilst sometimes major companies can be the source of problems, it isn't always necessarily the case.

Creativity in music/instrument design is to be applauded. However, creativity equals passion - which often translates to volatility in the world of business/dealings. Ego/lack of mediation/objectivity has been the downfall of many now-deceased synth companies.



RE companies in the synth sector: most could improve - many considerably so. But in terms of smaller-scale companies, Make Noise are doing reasonably well RE market penetration/traction (PS I generally don't like to mention companies specifically, as this can create problems - not to mention a company acting differently as it believes something is in the pipeline. I'm sure you'll understand this position RE not mentioning specific companies).

But most could try harder - at little to no extra cost. In general, there is a casual approach in the synth world/mindset that is very destructive to potential - and often freezes a company at the parochial level whilst larger companies capitalize on this lack of breadth/vision.




(RE the 303 issue of earlier: I have spoken privately to both Robin and Uli, and have said all there is to say on that particular subject. Also, this thread isn't about my personal contribution or otherwise, therefore I'll opt out from here.)


All best
Kris

User avatar
3hands
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 552
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:36 pm
Location: Ottawa Ontario

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by 3hands » Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:20 pm

I would love to say...


Thank you to the mods for bringing this back to civility. It’s now a pleasure to read through these messages as opposed to being terrified I’m diving into a shitshow.


Thanks so much to all of you.
Gum is fun, but not on a cat.

My minds an art gallery.

User avatar
UltraViolet
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:10 pm
Location: Edinburg, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by UltraViolet » Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:22 pm

Thanks to KSS and KL1982 for a fair discussion of this. Good points well said. Many among us get very emotional about the threat of Behringer. However, love them or hate them, they are not going away.

tenembre
Common Wiggler
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:22 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by tenembre » Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:13 pm

KSS wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:32 pm
tenembre wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:05 pm
In the market of vintage analog, the commodity value has diverged wildly (upward) from the use value, because of scarcity combined with the fetishization of these objects. (People say these things have "soul" or "mojo" - textbook fetishization).
True. At least partially. You're completely leaving out the inflation corrected value. When look at through this accurate lens, there is little actual upward value in nearly all vintage synths. Truth be told, Vintage synth are an extremely poor investment.
I think we're talking about two different things. Inflation is a feature of commodity value only. Also you could stand to be less arrogant in your wording.
Behringer's clones are a market correction, back to the street prices of the late 80s - early 90s. In other words, we've been here before.
Huh? Behringer's clones are correcting which market? They are simply the commoditization of their ancestors.
And the originals aren't commodities? Hello?
And their price has little in common with street prices of late 80s-early 90s. The new B clones are *much* less expensive. And this comes at a use cost. I've played a full size moog model D, and B's version. I've played a full size vintage 2600 with 3/4 o.c. spacing, a TTSH with 5/8 o.c. and a 5U rack version with .500 o.c. Without *any* consideration for "soul" or "mojo" the smaller sizes do not play the same.
Apparently others agree. There have been more than a few reports of perfect comfort with the sound of a Boog D, and yet still have abandoned it due to hitting tuning knobs while switching waveforms. I can play all the different size 2600's reasonably equally, and without using sound, mojo, or soul as a parameter, can still acknowledge the truth of their physical differences in actual use.

Musical instruments have always been about BOTH form AND function. The ability to make the electronics smaller and therefore reduce prices due to smaller overall size, fewer materials and lowered costs has costs besides price.
Yeah, some of the clones are not identical in form, and some will prefer larger. I was mostly thinking of things like the 303 or 808 clones which are similar in size and layout, not the Boog. The point is that the prices will be somewhere at the level where students, urban youth etc can pick them up- not where they are limited to collectors. Like in the late 80s when 303s and 101s could be purchased quite cheaply.

You're not the only person who can "acknowledge the truth" and again you could stand to shed some of your arrogance.
But, even if they go out of production, it will take longer for scarcity to set in and for commodity prices of the clones to rise because of the availability of alternatives and because of the efforts of some to depress the commodity value with various debatable appeals to economic justice, build quality, aesthetic taste and so on.
Scarcity of vintage is not going to change. Except to increase over time. What *will* change is the emotional attachment of living users as one generation follows another in death. Those of us with firsthand memory of these synths as part of our formative years are growing older fast. When we're gone, only 2nd hand emotional response to the synths of our youth will remain. I've already watched the completely expected rise in price for synths of the generation ofter me. And now even see the beginnings of the third wave. This has less to do with "debatable appeals" and more to do with the mechanics and psychology of growing older, and generational relationships.
I wasn't talking about things that are vintage now; I was talking about Behringer clones becoming vintage with the passage of time. Your remarks here are interesting, but not responsive to my point. The debatable appeals are a reference to the current clones; the point is that the constant criticism being lobbed at Behringer will act to depress the used price (though to what degree I couldn't say).
The tools will remain available and affordable for some time to come.
On this we agree. Especially since "affordable" has variable meaning. I'm not sure what you mean when you say it, and you cannot be sure what it means to me either. "Affordable" is a moving target, set by individuals. One of the biggest mistakes easily found online is arguments about who is correct about a given pricing''s "affordability."
I am not saying anything about "correct" affordability. Why put that in bold? Again, it is not responsive to my point.

KSS
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 875
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by KSS » Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:02 am

tenembre wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:13 pm
I think we're talking about two different things.
Fair enough. I wondered if that might be the case.
Also you could stand to be less arrogant in your wording.
Nothing arrogant in stating a financial reality. were you offended it was highlighted? Historically synths are a *very* poor investment. Whether you -or I!-think so or not. It's not dependent upon what we want to believe; the numbers don't lie. And synths suck as investements compared to many other *far* beter investment options. It's not arrangant to state and amplify this fact. Especially since it appears not too well known or understood. Based on what I've seen people write online.
And the originals aren't commodities? Hello?
Both the originals AND the clones are commodities. That doesn't change the point.
The point is that the prices will be somewhere at the level where students, urban youth etc can pick them up- not where they are limited to collectors. Like in the late 80s when 303s and 101s could be purchased quite cheaply.
We see this argument all the time on synth forums. Having lived through the first golden age of synths and all ages since, I don't buy it. In the 70s these now classic synths were the price of a new car. In the early 80s they were the price of a new luxury car. Yet somehow, musicians icluding the young and disadvantaged -who were just as poor then as now- made sometimes very hard life choices to enable and purchase them. Hence the joke about musicians needing a mate with car for their transport needs. :lol: Good musical instruments have always been expensive. And synths have mostly cost *far* less than other musical instruments. This has remained true for at least the last 50 years. And I expect it will continue and remain true another fifty.
As an example, compare the price of an organ, piano, bassoon, sax, flute, violin, cello, -the list goes on and on- with synths at any time. Back when synths cost as much as a car, these other instruments might easily cost as much as a small house. This is speaking about professional grade instruments; both synth and otherwise. If we want to talk instead abot the cheap beat boxes and their impact, we should look at thngs like cigar box guitars and other at the time and in their environment 'cheap' solutions pressed into use by those who truly could not afford 'better'. jug bands, washboards, saws, even scat singing.
People find ways to pursue and attain according to their values. If synths -or any other instrument- are considered essential, one does what it takes to get it. We've all made the false claim that something we "want" cant be obtained, when the truth is we're not enough committed to make it happen. I include myself in this.

We can accept the edge case that out-of-favor instruments can for a time cost less and skew the results temporarily. But that is not -has not- been a long term reality. Analog synths in the peak of digital being the prime example.
You're not the only person who can "acknowledge the truth" and again you could stand to shed some of your arrogance.
Agreed, everyone and anyone can discern and "acknowledge the truth" that a smaller synth has features closer together. Where is the arrogance in saying physical size is a truth which matters?
I am not saying anything about "correct" affordability. Why put that in bold? Again, it is not responsive to my point.
This is a public conversation among more than you and me. We may have the current focus, but it's not as if we're having a private conversation. It's more that we've been handed the mike, and will say our part and move the mike to the next speaker-responder. Therefore a point was bolded that I'd like to stand out for everybody watching or participating.

User avatar
RickKleffel
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:39 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by RickKleffel » Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:02 am

https://improbable.com/airchives/papera ... ls-7-3.htm

We derive upper bounds for the density of angels dancing on the point of a pin. It is dependent on the assumed mass of the angels, with a maximum number of 8.6766*10exp49 angels at the critical angel mass (3.8807*10exp-34 kg).

Ancient Question, Modern Physics

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" has been a major theological question since the Middle Ages.[5]

everydaycurry
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:36 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by everydaycurry » Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:11 pm

bitflip wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:14 am
As a friendly reminder, Lamborghini is part of Volkswagen Auto Group (VAG), a big tent under which you'll find VW, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti, Ducati, Seat, Skoda... and a few others. VAG is well diversified and adaptive, with a revenue of over 230 billion Euro. Worlds apart, but perhaps B is working a long game to stretch its branding across the cost spectrum like VAG? Time will tell, but it seems that the most successful global business ventures do indeed aim to serve every market niche, including those that are borderline breakeven, even in the long game.

In any case, i'm enjoying this discussion now that some whiners have been dismissed :yay:
One difference is that most of those brands had a strong identity before getting pulled under the umbrella. Hyundai/Kia had a Behringer-like level of respect, have done a lot to up their game over the last decade - but the attempts to introduce a luxury 'brand' have been somewhere between rocky and a disaster for the most part.

User avatar
Blairio
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1692
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Blairio » Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:39 pm

There are 4 points of view repeated ad nauseam in this thread:

Folk who consider brand X ( insert brand as appropriate) immoral, and won't buy their stuff.

Folk who consider brand X ( insert brand as appropriate) immoral, and will buy their stuff.

Folk who do not consider brand X ( insert brand as appropriate) immoral, and won't buy their stuff.

Folk who do not consider brand X ( insert brand as appropriate) immoral, and will buy their stuff.

Add to that a smattering of copyright, trade-mark, trade-dress and other litigious variants, and you have what? 33 pages of verbiage? Good grief.

User avatar
Sinamsis
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4128
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:36 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Sinamsis » Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:43 pm

Blairio wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:39 pm
There are 4 points of view repeated ad nauseam in this thread:

Folk who consider brand X ( insert brand as appropriate) immoral, and won't buy their stuff.

Folk who consider brand X ( insert brand as appropriate) immoral, and will buy their stuff.

Folk who do not consider brand X ( insert brand as appropriate) immoral, and won't buy their stuff.

Folk who do not consider brand X ( insert brand as appropriate) immoral, and will buy their stuff.

Add to that a smattering of copyright, trade-mark, trade-dress and other litigious variants, and you have what? 33 pages of verbiage? Good grief.
You forgot the fifth point of view:

Folk who don't care but interject intermittently to derail the thread and break balls (ha I'm in that group now too). It's just as easy to ignore the thread and allow those that want to discuss this get it all out. Again, the point of the thread is to get this bullshit out of all other threads. Not to accomplish anything else. Seems to be working well as far as I can tell. Thanks mods.

Be Sandy?
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 432
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:04 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by Be Sandy? » Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:22 pm

I'd like to thank everybody who took the time to PM me their thoughts and ideas relating to this thread. I appreciated all the input and was honestly surprised by the general consensus to keep the thread open. I expected lots of "close it now" replies.

For now It's going to stay as is. This may change if circumstances dictate it in time.

A couple of things to make clear - I've updated the first post with these too.

People signing up to just to stir shit in this thread will not be tolerated. If you believe someone is doing this please use the report thread feature rather than engaging them.

Behaviour expectations and rules in this thread are the same as the rest of the forum.

If you don't like the thread just don't read it!

colb
Common Wiggler
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:06 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by colb » Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:37 pm

KSS wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:32 pm
...Apparently others agree. There have been more than a few reports of perfect comfort with the sound of a Boog D, and yet still have abandoned it due to hitting tuning knobs while switching waveforms. I can play all the different size 2600's reasonably equally, and without using sound, mojo, or soul as a parameter, can still acknowledge the truth of their physical differences in actual use.

Musical instruments have always been about BOTH form AND function. The ability to make the electronics smaller and therefore reduce prices due to smaller overall size, fewer materials and lowered costs has costs besides price.
People who have the resources to have a large room dedicated to music production will probably be able to afford the luxury of full sized high end hardware. Folk who's only choice for financial reasons is a cheap clone, are also likely to have limited space for their 'studio'. For them, the small footprint might be the best compromise even if there was a choice. Horses for courses.
It would be great to be able to afford not to compromise, but the lucky few in that position are not Behringer's target market.

tenembre
Common Wiggler
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:22 pm

Re: Behringer: practices, ethics, morals and legitimacy.

Post by tenembre » Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:39 pm

KSS wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:02 am
tenembre wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:13 pm
I think we're talking about two different things.
Fair enough. I wondered if that might be the case.

Also you could stand to be less arrogant in your wording.
Nothing arrogant in stating a financial reality. were you offended it was highlighted? Historically synths are a *very* poor investment. Whether you -or I!-think so or not. It's not dependent upon what we want to believe; the numbers don't lie. And synths suck as investements compared to many other *far* beter investment options. It's not arrangant to state and amplify this fact. Especially since it appears not too well known or understood. Based on what I've seen people write online.
The arrogance is in things like this - "You're completely leaving out the inflation corrected value. When look at through this accurate lens, there is little actual upward value in nearly all vintage synths." Implying that my lens was inaccurate, when in fact I was not talking about investment value at all.
The point is that the prices will be somewhere at the level where students, urban youth etc can pick them up- not where they are limited to collectors. Like in the late 80s when 303s and 101s could be purchased quite cheaply.
We see this argument all the time on synth forums. Having lived through the first golden age of synths and all ages since, I don't buy it. In the 70s these now classic synths were the price of a new car. In the early 80s they were the price of a new luxury car. Yet somehow, musicians icluding the young and disadvantaged -who were just as poor then as now- made sometimes very hard life choices to enable and purchase them.
Judging from this Boomer Steve lecture I "somehow" suspect you have little idea what the financial reality of young people today is.

tenembre wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:13 pm
I think we're talking about two different things.
Fair enough. I wondered if that might be the case.

Post Reply

Return to “General Gear”