MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

It's not just Behringer...
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next [all]
Author It's not just Behringer...
SteeVtheRipper
As we all know, one of the hot button conversations as of late in the synthesist community is the impending flood of Behringer clones and the ethics of it all. This is not a thread about the ethics of what they're doing. But to recap some of the main arguments I've heard:

"The patents have run out, so it's fair game."

"Cloning is not a new thing, why is it blasphemy for Behringer to do it but not for others? People have been cloning Strats for ages. Software clones are still clones, why aren't we bitching about that?"

"We've been begging these manufacturers to remake these synths, but they won't, they aren't listening to their consumer base. It was only a matter of time before someone did."

"Vintage synths are way over priced and they're all in various states of disrepare and inevitably are working their way towards failure. Who can afford that?

"New synths are too expensive, and they don't sound as good as the old ones. Rubbish! Why can't these manufacturers get it right? Some of them made good sounding synths in the past, have they forgotten their own secret sauce recipies?"

----

Fall where you may on these various discussion points. Here I want to focus on us, the consumer, the real reason we are where we are.

The one argument on this whole cloning issue that really fires me up is this fixation on manufacturers not giving the people what they want. The question I have is why should they? Of course I understand that a business that makes products for people to buy needs to keep making products its customer base enjoys and will purchase in order to stay in business. But why do they have to be slaves to their previous work? Why should they keep reissuing things? And if they do why should it be for cheap?

We demand it, like whiny children, I WANT I WANT I WANT!!!!! And because we want we believe we should have and those who do not give are bad. That's what it sounds like to me.

Sure the Minimoog is a great instrument, legendary, blah blah, everyone wants one. But they are expensive, vintage or new. Why do we feel that it shouldn't be? Because there is a way for someone to make it cheaply, so they should? Suddenly we are all experts on componet costs or manufacturing procedures, we do a little googling and fire off. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should, or that it can be done by everyone. Some companies don't have the resources to make things cheaply, so they price accordingly. Some companies may not want to own over seas manufacturing plants, or can't afford to. Or maybe they want to support other local businesses and keep a closer eye on their production.

Why do people feel like they deserve to have everything and have it cheaply? Why do people feel they are owed these vintage synths?

Who do we think we are? It's such an arrogant stance to take. A lot goes into the pricing of a product. At the end of the day you have to decide if what you'd be getting is worth the price. If it's not they you need to choose something else, not demand that someone else should make that same product at a price that's more appealing to you. If you can't afford $3500 out of pocket for a Minimoog, but you still want one, tough! You either save your money and get one or you just dont get what you want. We don't get a lot of things that we want in life. But for some reason this change is happening where people won't accept that they can't have what they want how they want it, and companies like Behringer are taking advantage of it.

I dont blame Behringer entirely, I blame us, the consumers. Because we stomp our feet like children and say "waaaah I want a $3500 synth for $300. I asked Moog for it and they said no, they're jerks. I know they can do it, the technology is there, Korg figured it out. They just want to rip me off instead! But I want it! My money pays their bills, so they should listen to me or I'll take my money away! Will you do it uncle Behringer?"

Why does Moog have to keep making Minimoogs, and Memorymoogs? Why should Roland reissue the Jupiter 8? Why do we hold these companies and ourselves hostage to the past? Move on people. If you want a Jupiter 8, have some self control, save some money and get one. Use a soft synth in the meantime. It might take you 4 years, but believe it or not sometimes you have to wait in this world! And owning a Minimoog, or Jupiter 8, regardless of price, will not make you a better musician.

Seriously, I want to know, why do you think you deserve a $300 Synth "X"?
Why should Dave Smith reissue the Prophet 5 or Pro1 for you?
Why should Roland give you a new analog Jupiter 8?
Why should Tom Oberheim spend the time in the last years of his life giving you a new OBX?
Why should Korg remake the 2600 under their new Arp branding?
Why can't you save money? Why shouldn't you have to?
Why does everything need to be common and cheap?
Why should you have everything you want?

All of this btw is not meant to be aggressive so please don't take it that way. I mean no direspect to anyone personally. I am genuinely curious about this mentality.
racooniac
in short: if i want a lamborghini made out of gold i can buy one, if lamborghini directly wont sell me one i will find somebody else, because i can.

i dont care who takes my money in the end, thats the manufacturers decision.

i think you are mixing wishes with demands, ... nobody demanded anything from moog ... they asked politely and they said no, behringer also listened and said yes, its as simple as that.

i am happy for the situation as it is, it forces the old brands to step a little closer to reality pricewise for once.
facklr
tl;dr

Does he say when the Behringer-8 comes out and how much $$$ ?
commodorejohn
Because it's frustrating for people to want an instrument that could be made and sold for less than a grand but instead costs multiple times as much simply because they're not making any more? This isn't rocket science. And you can gripe about people being "entitled" if you like, but isn't the whole idea of the manufactured goods industry to provide people with the things they want in exchange for reasonable monetary compensation? It's hardly all that surprising that, after years of watching, say, Roland continue to ride the Jupiter and Juno and SH-x branding with products that aren't even close to the same thing (and yes, that's finally started to vaguely maybe sorta halfway change, but only just) synth enthusiasts might be a little frazzled over this.

It'd be like if Fender discontinued the Telecaster in 1955, then years later introduced a line of "Belecaster" instruments that were clearly styled after it but had fifteen strings in five courses, only came with a multi-scale fretboard, and had a 5-pound speaker built in that was connected to an advanced Wall Of Sound digital auto-accompaniment system that you had to dig through three menu pages to turn off every time you plugged in. Sure, maybe that's useful to somebody, but what the hell are you supposed to do if all you want is an actual goddamn Telecaster?
tobb
Can't see any problem with all those clones because they do not sound exactly like the vintage models anyway.

So i think its very cool to have access to a similar look/layout/interface/sound for peanuts.
suboptimal
For me the primary issue with cheap knockoffs is it has the potential to harm innovation, because the knockoff artist invests relatively little in R&D compared to a company inventing new approaches.

It's also a frustrating sign that synths have, to a degree, become pure consumer commodities divorced from the spark of creative genius that has thus far propelled them in interesting directions. There's absolutely nothing to be done about this inevitable part of a maturing market. But it helps to vent.

Finally there's the issue of quality, which isn't just a question of value, but also one of ethics. Which corners were cut to bring the price down so low?

None of this means the apocalypse is upon us. There's a ton of space in the gearwhoring universe for boutiques to continue to thrive. We all want a fucking room full of synths.
starthief
What does "deserve" have to do with any of this?

Should the virtuous be rewarded with Minimoogs and the sinners and heathens make do with Minilogues?

Except, this is capitalism and instead of virtue we have wealth (which is quite often the opposite).

And also because this is capitalism, if Behringer is willing and able to undercut others' prices -- and they are -- they can do that. That's a feature, not a bug.


Why are you thinking in terms of "blame" at all? What is the wrongdoing for which blame must be assigned? Is wanting things wrong?

I kinda want a Music Easel. I could, by sacrificing more than is wise (including the trust of my spouse) buy one right now, but I don't want it that badly. I could also stop buying any other music gear for a year or so to save up for it, but I won't. I also have not written to Buchla USA to demand they send me one anyway. I have, however, spent $100 on a software version that is kind of half decent and gives me at least $100 worth of entertainment and music production value. Does this make me a bad person?

I kinda like the SH-101, but not enough to buy the real thing. I traded my 0-Coast to someone for an SH-01A. Have I somehow caused harm or done anyone wrong?
Panason
I don't understand what the point of the thread is. That people want nice analog gear they can afford or that Behringer is giving it to them?

That the value of the vintage gear is threatened and people stand to lose out on their investments? Tough tittie.
commodorejohn
Panason wrote:
That the value of the vintage gear is threatened and people stand to lose out on their investments? Tough tittie.

That, I suspect, is the dirty little secret behind all this griping about cloning efforts.
starthief
suboptimal wrote:
For me the primary issue with cheap knockoffs is it has the potential to harm innovation, because the knockoff artist invests relatively little in R&D compared to a company inventing new approaches.


They're also releasing new things. The Deepmind wasn't entirely uncreative. Their next synth -- which, yes, is at least partially derivative of Mother 32, Dreadbox Erebus, and everything that ever used the 3340 -- has a brand new filter design in it.

And none of their actions are slowing other companies' innovations, either. We're not heading for a situation where all anyone can release is $300 and under clones of old designs.

suboptimal wrote:
It's also a frustrating sign that synths have, to a degree, become pure consumer commodities divorced from the spark of creative genius that has thus far propelled them in interesting directions.


To a large degree Moog's success came from offering synths that musicians -- rather than universities or major studios -- could afford. The definition of "affordable" has changed over time as electronics and manufacturing have become cheaper.
GNSDG
SteeVtheRipper wrote:
Why do people feel like they deserve to have everything and have it cheaply? Why do people feel they are owed these vintage synths?

I dont blame Behringer entirely, I blame us, the consumers. Because we stomp our feet like children and say "waaaah I want a $3500 synth for $300. I asked Moog for it and they said no, they're jerks. I know they can do it, the technology is there, Korg figured it out. They just want to rip me off instead! But I want it! My money pays their bills, so they should listen to me or I'll take my money away! Will you do it uncle Behringer?"


Who is saying this? You're saying there people on Muff's who say Moog has an obligation to sell them a Mini for $300? I've just never encountered anything like this mentality. It seems, likewise not being aggressive, that you're just reading a lot into people's posts to get to that. For instance, the quotes you cite above really don't evince that level of entitlement.

I do think people have very high expectations for what they receive for their money these days, but those expectations have been largely set by manufacturers offering amazingly cheap products.

And look, I know we're talking about synths, not essential goods, but figuring out how to things more cheaply is and historically has been an enormously important component of making everyone--not just rich people--better off and raising standards of living. I'm not going to go for the reductio ad absurdum here and suggest that you'd call starving Europeans pre-invention of chemical fertilizer whiny and entitled, but I do think you should suggest some kind of limiting principle here. So people who want to buy goods more cheaply are whiny and entitled... ok... where does that end?
SteeVtheRipper
To use the Mini as an example again...

It costs $3500. Thats the amount Moog decided to charge for a premium instrument using the highest quality components, hand assembled in America. That price was arrived at taking many things into account: component cost, labor, business expenses, etc. Its not an unachievable amount of money. It's not like they're asking 100K for it.

The Behringer D costs $300. Not hand assembled, mass produced, made in some factory over seas.

One is not better than the other, they're just different. And it's not the same instrument being made here, let's just be clear about that. A D is not a Minimoog. It resembles one, and it sounds similar, but its not a Mini. A Mini has keys, wheels, wood, and presence.

Now if you're able to come up with $300 to buy a D, surely that indicates you're able to come upon $300 of disposable income. Surely that won't be the last spare $300 you come upon in your life, if it was maybe you shouldn't be buying synths. So why not save that $300, and do that again 11 more times and you'd have enough for a Minimoog by Moog?

To me it's that simple. It might take some time, but so what? Why do you need a Mini RIGHT NOW? Maybe you've been lusting over it for years, what's a little more time? If you just want the sound for something you're composing there is plenty of software that in a mix would be indistinguishable. But if that's not the reason you want it I can only assume you want it for the experience. And if you want it for the experience wouldn't you prefer the real deal not some knock off?

And I think it's inaccurate to say that "the whole idea of the manufactured goods industry to provide people with the things they want in exchange for reasonable monetary compensation?" Who said that the compensation had to be reasonable? What is reasonable anyway? It's all a matter of perspective. You can't compare a D to a Mini and say the Mini is unreasonable, especially a new one. It's apples and oranges when it comes to manufacturing costs, business structure/overhead, and final product. I think $3500 is quite reasonable for what you're getting. I also think $300 is quite reasonable for what you're getting.

Sure I would have loved if Moog made the D module, not Behringer. But they didn't. But I never felt that I was owed one, that I deserved one because the Mini is not something I can afford out of pocket right now. I never felt like there should be something exactly the same for me. I shrugged my shoulders and said, "well I guess if I want a Mini I have to save for it, or buy something else." And then I ordered a Dominion 1 because that works for me. I wanted a full sized 3 oscillator monosynth with keys, some modular interfacing options, big gorgeous sound, and that could be the center of my modular and module section of my studio. The Dominion checked all those boxes and more, and had quite a lot of overlap with the Mini. Sure it doesn't have a ladder filter, but that sound isn't that important to me as I have a Mother 32.

And take the Dominion 1 for example. They made a smaller module of it, the Dominion club. But I don't think they did it because the people were demanding it, they did it because they wanted to, and probably because they thought it was wise business sense. Why Moog passed on that opportunity, and passes on a lot of opportunities is beyond me, but I don't hold it against them. I'd love for them to make a poly (wouldnt we all) but I don't think they owe me one. They owe me nothing.

I guess I don't look at it from the angle of "who's gonna give me what I want?" Rather I look at everything on the market, the money I have to spend, and I audition everything. When I find the thing that works for me that's what I buy. I tend to buy things that are purposeful, often good at one or a few things.

If you want to have a "reality of what it should cost" argument you should find out exactly what each component costs said company, what they pay their employees, what their rent is, what their utitilies are, how much they pay to insure their staff, etc etc and then come back with some hard facts. I know how much components cost online and in the store, I have no idea what Moog or DSI or Behringer pay for them. No one here does, or about any of the other overhead of those companies, unless they work for one of those companies and is responsible for the finance end of it.

And if the Telecaster went out of production, and you wanted one, I guess you'd have to buy a vintage one. What can I tell ya? Why do you think that just because you want something that isn't around anymore that someone should remake it for you? I'll tell you why, because someone has, for something else that someone else wanted, and now you want that same treatment. Rhodes pianos have not been made since the 80s. I bought a 1974 Rhodes because I wanted a early model Rhodes. I could have gotten Keyscape and had a beautifully recreated software version, but that's not a Rhodes. I could have gotten a Vintage Vibe Piano for $6000, but again, not a Rhodes. I searched for years for just the right one, and got a great deal on it, shipped it across the country, and I'm totally happy. And if Behringer started making real electric tine pianos for $1000, I'd still get a Rhodes. Maybe I'd get a Behringer one after, just for the novelty, but only a Rhodes is the real deal.
kwaidan
While I do not see why someone would buy a Behringer Model D over a Minimoog, I do see why someone would buy it over a Mother 32.
J3RK
If someone wants an OB-6 for $3000, that's probably what they will get. If someone doesn't want to spend $3000 on an OB-6 they still might buy a $999 UB-X (and no I don't know what that will cost, just a guess...) Or maybe they won't. However, I don't think there will be any question of which is which, and which people will buy which. Besides that, when it comes to a clone, we all know the CrowBX is the way to go. hihi

Anyway, the high end will still be the high end, and I think it's actually cool if there's a low end to supplement it. Some percentage might choose one as an alternative to the other, but I think there's a market for both. My guess is that DSI won't see a huge drop in OB-6 sales. It's just that more people will be able to afford an OB type synthesizer.

I could be a bit off, but that would be my take without doing too much market research.
commodorejohn
SteeVtheRipper wrote:
And if the Telecaster went out of production, and you wanted one, I guess you'd have to buy a vintage one. What can I tell ya? Why do you think that just because you want something that isn't around anymore that someone should remake it for you? I'll tell you why, because someone has, for something else that someone else wanted, and now you want that same treatment. Rhodes pianos have not been made since the 80s. I bought a 1974 Rhodes because I wanted a early model Rhodes. I could have gotten Keyscape and had a beautifully recreated software version, but that's not a Rhodes. I could have gotten a Vintage Vibe Piano for $6000, but again, not a Rhodes. I searched for years for just the right one, and got a great deal on it, shipped it across the country, and I'm totally happy. And if Behringer started making real electric tine pianos for $1000, I'd still get a Rhodes. Maybe I'd get a Behringer one after, just for the novelty, but only a Rhodes is the real deal.

And that's your choice, and that's fine. What we don't get is why you're so butthurt over people who feel differently.
rod_zero
Capitalism working as intended.

I think the rest of manufacturers are quite safe, they have their Brand which is much more desirable than Behringer, they are also capable of releasing new stuff that is not a clone of the past and that behringer won't be able to copy.

I also like that these efforts by behringer are desmystifying all the analog hype: "Look!!! It wasn't that hard to make recreation nor as expensive", yes I know Behringer has access to economies of scale only Roland, Korg and Yamaha also have, but these corporation were unwilling to do so.

And once everyone and their mother have all the clones of jupiters, obxs, junos, minis, trs and arps the analog fad will worn out and developers will be free to explore other stuff.

Personally I prefer companies which offer something more innovative that just clones, or even more value when you count the features.
SteeVtheRipper
GNSDG wrote:
SteeVtheRipper wrote:
Why do people feel like they deserve to have everything and have it cheaply? Why do people feel they are owed these vintage synths?

I dont blame Behringer entirely, I blame us, the consumers. Because we stomp our feet like children and say "waaaah I want a $3500 synth for $300. I asked Moog for it and they said no, they're jerks. I know they can do it, the technology is there, Korg figured it out. They just want to rip me off instead! But I want it! My money pays their bills, so they should listen to me or I'll take my money away! Will you do it uncle Behringer?"


Who is saying this? You're saying there people on Muff's who say Moog has an obligation to sell them a Mini for $300? I've just never encountered anything like this mentality. It seems, likewise not being aggressive, that you're just reading a lot into people's posts to get to that. For instance, the quotes you cite above really don't evince that level of entitlement.

I do think people have very high expectations for what they receive for their money these days, but those expectations have been largely set by manufacturers offering amazingly cheap products.

And look, I know we're talking about synths, not essential goods, but figuring out how to things more cheaply is and historically has been an enormously important component of making everyone--not just rich people--better off and raising standards of living. I'm not going to go for the reductio ad absurdum here and suggest that you'd call starving Europeans pre-invention of chemical fertilizer whiny and entitled, but I do think you should suggest some kind of limiting principle here. So people who want to buy goods more cheaply are whiny and entitled... ok... where does that end?


I see your point on the fertilizer and having a limiting principle. I agree. I think it's hard to explain. To me a synthesizer doesnt feel the same as fertilizer, or a garlic press, or toaster. Yes every toaster has a design team that works to make that product the best it can be under the available resources, governing budget, and eventual price point. And a synth goes through the same procedure. But everyone has a toaster and thinks barely anything about it. People who have synths are a specific and small niche. We LOVE our synths, they're extensions of our souls, we use them to express ourselves. Not something that falls under the duties of a toaster. When someone designs a synth, in my opinion, they are putting a bit of their passion and love for creativity and music into that interest. They're imagining how people will use it, the joy they will get from it, the places it can take them. No one is imagining the smiles brought to people's faces as their sourdough pops up with the perfect amount of char. Or maybe they are lol. But do you see what I mean? Synths, and instruments, feel more personal. The work feels more personal. When you buy a SEM you know that Tom Oberheim created it, designed those circuits himself, went through many different iterations before landing on the final version, he hand wired and soldered the damn thing. A man's life's work is in that little cream box. His reputation, his legacy. That commands a price, that work commands a price. I think that's OK. And for consumer to say "well, I'd rather pay 1/8th of the price for that...any takers?" just rubs me the wrong way. Then for that consumer to say that they know this cream colored box can be made cheaper, and that the manufacturer is just ripping them off, seems down right ridiculous to me. Bringing it back to the toaster, no one gets fired up over the toaster. You browse the shelves at Target, find one that fits your budget, and buy it, never thinking about it again. If it breaks...oh well it was $30. Get a new one. There's no emotional investment because it's just a machine, and it's been copied over and over for decades. I don't want that to be the future of synthesizers, something so common that we don't care about them, who made them, the passion behind them, or the work that was put in. I respect those things.

The quotes I wrote were not actually quotes, I just put them in quotes for effect. And none of it was directly taken from specific individuals on Muff, though maybe informed by some. I've been ruminating on this every since these discussions started on various forums and sites, so those quotes represent general sentiments. Sorry for the confusion.

I posted this on Muff because I respect everyone here and the threads don't spiral out of control like they do on other forums. I wanted to actually have a civil, intelligent conversation about this. These are just my feelings, and I'm always open to new perspectives, though I do have my opinions. I wanted to hear what you guys thought. That's all smile
dkcg
SteeVtheRipper wrote:
As we all know, one of the hot button conversations as of late in the synthesist community is the impending flood of Behringer clones and the ethics of it all. This is not a thread about the ethics of what they're doing. But to recap some of the main arguments I've heard:

"The patents have run out, so it's fair game."

"Cloning is not a new thing, why is it blasphemy for Behringer to do it but not for others? People have been cloning Strats for ages. Software clones are still clones, why aren't we bitching about that?"

"We've been begging these manufacturers to remake these synths, but they won't, they aren't listening to their consumer base. It was only a matter of time before someone did."

"Vintage synths are way over priced and they're all in various states of disrepare and inevitably are working their way towards failure. Who can afford that?

"New synths are too expensive, and they don't sound as good as the old ones. Rubbish! Why can't these manufacturers get it right? Some of them made good sounding synths in the past, have they forgotten their own secret sauce recipies?"

----

Fall where you may on these various discussion points. Here I want to focus on us, the consumer, the real reason we are where we are.

The one argument on this whole cloning issue that really fires me up is this fixation on manufacturers not giving the people what they want. The question I have is why should they? Of course I understand that a business that makes products for people to buy needs to keep making products its customer base enjoys and will purchase in order to stay in business. But why do they have to be slaves to their previous work? Why should they keep reissuing things? And if they do why should it be for cheap?

We demand it, like whiny children, I WANT I WANT I WANT!!!!! And because we want we believe we should have and those who do not give are bad. That's what it sounds like to me.

Sure the Minimoog is a great instrument, legendary, blah blah, everyone wants one. But they are expensive, vintage or new. Why do we feel that it shouldn't be? Because there is a way for someone to make it cheaply, so they should? Suddenly we are all experts on componet costs or manufacturing procedures, we do a little googling and fire off. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should, or that it can be done by everyone. Some companies don't have the resources to make things cheaply, so they price accordingly. Some companies may not want to own over seas manufacturing plants, or can't afford to. Or maybe they want to support other local businesses and keep a closer eye on their production.

Why do people feel like they deserve to have everything and have it cheaply? Why do people feel they are owed these vintage synths?

Who do we think we are? It's such an arrogant stance to take. A lot goes into the pricing of a product. At the end of the day you have to decide if what you'd be getting is worth the price. If it's not they you need to choose something else, not demand that someone else should make that same product at a price that's more appealing to you. If you can't afford $3500 out of pocket for a Minimoog, but you still want one, tough! You either save your money and get one or you just dont get what you want. We don't get a lot of things that we want in life. But for some reason this change is happening where people won't accept that they can't have what they want how they want it, and companies like Behringer are taking advantage of it.

I dont blame Behringer entirely, I blame us, the consumers. Because we stomp our feet like children and say "waaaah I want a $3500 synth for $300. I asked Moog for it and they said no, they're jerks. I know they can do it, the technology is there, Korg figured it out. They just want to rip me off instead! But I want it! My money pays their bills, so they should listen to me or I'll take my money away! Will you do it uncle Behringer?"

Why does Moog have to keep making Minimoogs, and Memorymoogs? Why should Roland reissue the Jupiter 8? Why do we hold these companies and ourselves hostage to the past? Move on people. If you want a Jupiter 8, have some self control, save some money and get one. Use a soft synth in the meantime. It might take you 4 years, but believe it or not sometimes you have to wait in this world! And owning a Minimoog, or Jupiter 8, regardless of price, will not make you a better musician.

Seriously, I want to know, why do you think you deserve a $300 Synth "X"?
Why should Dave Smith reissue the Prophet 5 or Pro1 for you?
Why should Roland give you a new analog Jupiter 8?
Why should Tom Oberheim spend the time in the last years of his life giving you a new OBX?
Why should Korg remake the 2600 under their new Arp branding?
Why can't you save money? Why shouldn't you have to?
Why does everything need to be common and cheap?
Why should you have everything you want?

All of this btw is not meant to be aggressive so please don't take it that way. I mean no direspect to anyone personally. I am genuinely curious about this mentality.


I think I can sum up the mentality.

20 years ago, things used to take 6-8 weeks to get shipped out to you.

Before that, probably even longer to get your wagon wheel from the sears catalog that shipped via horse and carriage and maybe some iron horse if you're lucky.

Today, people get annoyed, irate, maybe even angry or furious, if they don't get their order in 3 days.

And we are nearing the consumer singularity.

Ironic thing about the $300 Moog vs. the vintage Moog is that I know many will swear the $300 moog is exactly the same. Most w/o ever using a vintage Minimoog.
GNSDG
SteeVtheRipper wrote:
When you buy a SEM you know that Tom Oberheim created it, designed those circuits himself, went through many different iterations before landing on the final version, he hand wired and soldered the damn thing. A man's life's work is in that little cream box. His reputation, his legacy. That commands a price, that work commands a price. I think that's OK. And for consumer to say "well, I'd rather pay 1/8th of the price for that...any takers?" just rubs me the wrong way. Then for that consumer to say that they know this cream colored box can be made cheaper, and that the manufacturer is just ripping them off, seems down right ridiculous to me. Bringing it back to the toaster, no one gets fired up over the toaster. You browse the shelves at Target, find one that fits your budget, and buy it, never thinking about it again. If it breaks...oh well it was $30. Get a new one. There's no emotional investment because it's just a machine, and it's been copied over and over for decades. I don't want that to be the future of synthesizers, something so common that we don't care about them, who made them, the passion behind them, or the work that was put in. I respect those things.


I agree with this... especially offensiveness of the idea that the Moog and Oberheims of the world are ripping anyone off. That's crazy.

I would suggest, though, gently, that our perspective is not the only right one and that if someone wants to see synths are tools for a job--like a toaster--that's not wrong. There may even be chefs who would disagree with you about the toaster. : )
starthief
dkcg wrote:
Ironic thing about the $300 Moog vs. the vintage Moog is that I know many will swear the $300 moog is exactly the same. Most w/o ever using a vintage Minimoog.


People who are able and willing to buy the vintage Minimoog will:

-- be happy with their purchase and not worry about other people.
-- or, assume they were justified without really examining it, and look down their noses at the clones.
-- or, examine the differences, decide they were justified, and possibly look down their noses at the clones.
-- or, examine the differences, be annoyed that they could have spent 1/12 as much to get a 97% similar synth, and be angry about the clones.
-- or, sell the vintage one and buy a couple of clones and some other stuff and be pretty happy about it.

People who buy the clones will:

-- be happy with their purchase and not worry about other people.
-- and/or, not actually care that it sounds exactly like a vintage Minimoog but whether it sounds good.
-- or, assume that it's close enough for their needs, without having any opportunity to compare it to an original vintage Minimoog.
-- or, point out that there is as much variation between actual vintage Minimoogs and their clone, that it doesn't practically matter.
-- or, compare it to a vintage Minimoog and decide that, at 1/12 of the price, it's pretty damn close.
-- or, compare it to a vintage Minimoog and decide that it's not really good enough.

None of those reactions are wrong, except that elitism is a bad look.
commodorejohn
dkcg wrote:
Ironic thing about the $300 Moog vs. the vintage Moog is that I know many will swear the $300 moog is exactly the same. Most w/o ever using a vintage Minimoog.

I've used the genuine article, and...the Behringer version is close enough. Perhaps it's not exactly the same, but it's close enough for my ears. I'd certainly like to have the real thing - but if it means paying ten times as much? I don't want it that badly. I'll just hope to get lucky at a garage sale one day, or something.
bitflip
Pointless clickbait.
Dr. Sketch-n-Etch
SteeVtheRipper wrote:
As we all know, one of the hot button conversations as of late in the synthesist community is the impending flood of Behringer clones and the ethics of it all. This is not a thread about the ethics of what they're doing. But to recap some of the main arguments I've heard:

"The patents have run out, so it's fair game."

This is, legally speaking, true. Patents are designed to run out. Patent protection is intended to be temporary.

Quote:
"Cloning is not a new thing, why is it blasphemy for Behringer to do it but not for others? People have been cloning Strats for ages. Software clones are still clones, why aren't we bitching about that?"

A valid comment.

Quote:
"We've been begging these manufacturers to remake these synths, but they won't, they aren't listening to their consumer base. It was only a matter of time before someone did."

Another valid comment.

Quote:
"Vintage synths are way over priced and they're all in various states of disrepare and inevitably are working their way towards failure. Who can afford that?

Absolutely!

Quote:
"New synths are too expensive, and they don't sound as good as the old ones. Rubbish! Why can't these manufacturers get it right? Some of them made good sounding synths in the past, have they forgotten their own secret sauce recipies?"

Many of the "vintage synths" are actually pretty crappy (I'm thinking of the Arp Odyssey, of which I have a specimen from 1973, and it's a piece of shit -- a now very expensive piece of shit). It's a mystery to me why it took Moog 36 years to reissue the Minimoog. IMHO they forfeited a huge amount of revenue by delaying. I also am flabbergasted that they have stopped producing them again. It could be that they are just not very good at business.

Quote:
Fall where you may on these various discussion points. Here I want to focus on us, the consumer, the real reason we are where we are.

The one argument on this whole cloning issue that really fires me up is this fixation on manufacturers not giving the people what they want. The question I have is why should they? Of course I understand that a business that makes products for people to buy needs to keep making products its customer base enjoys and will purchase in order to stay in business. But why do they have to be slaves to their previous work? Why should they keep reissuing things? And if they do why should it be for cheap?


Selling people what they want is literally the whole point of retail business. Convincing people that they want it is the job of marketing. Both of these are critical functions of any successful retail business.

Quote:
We demand it, like whiny children, I WANT I WANT I WANT!!!!! And because we want we believe we should have and those who do not give are bad. That's what it sounds like to me.

And this chant is sweet sweet music to any ambitious entrepreneur. Most synthesizer companies would have killed to have access to the legacy of Moog, and they did very very little with it for years. These, to me, are not model entrepreneurs.

Quote:
Sure the Minimoog is a great instrument, legendary, blah blah, everyone wants one. But they are expensive, vintage or new. Why do we feel that it shouldn't be? Because there is a way for someone to make it cheaply, so they should? Suddenly we are all experts on componet costs or manufacturing procedures, we do a little googling and fire off. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should, or that it can be done by everyone. Some companies don't have the resources to make things cheaply, so they price accordingly. Some companies may not want to own over seas manufacturing plants, or can't afford to. Or maybe they want to support other local businesses and keep a closer eye on their production.

The primary job of any business is to make money. Everything else is subsidiary to that. If you don't have desirable products to sell, then all these other concerns are moot.

Quote:
Why do people feel like they deserve to have everything and have it cheaply? Why do people feel they are owed these vintage synths?

Short answer: cellphones. Most people in 2018 have more computer power in their pocket than an entire IBM mainframe from the glory days of NASA, and they spent a few hundred dollars for it. In other words, people are spoiled. This is a business opportunity for an ambitious entrepreneur.

Quote:
Who do we think we are? It's such an arrogant stance to take. A lot goes into the pricing of a product. At the end of the day you have to decide if what you'd be getting is worth the price. If it's not they you need to choose something else, not demand that someone else should make that same product at a price that's more appealing to you. If you can't afford $3500 out of pocket for a Minimoog, but you still want one, tough! You either save your money and get one or you just dont get what you want. We don't get a lot of things that we want in life. But for some reason this change is happening where people won't accept that they can't have what they want how they want it, and companies like Behringer are taking advantage of it.

I dont blame Behringer entirely, I blame us, the consumers. Because we stomp our feet like children and say "waaaah I want a $3500 synth for $300. I asked Moog for it and they said no, they're jerks. I know they can do it, the technology is there, Korg figured it out. They just want to rip me off instead! But I want it! My money pays their bills, so they should listen to me or I'll take my money away! Will you do it uncle Behringer?"

Why does Moog have to keep making Minimoogs, and Memorymoogs? Why should Roland reissue the Jupiter 8? Why do we hold these companies and ourselves hostage to the past? Move on people. If you want a Jupiter 8, have some self control, save some money and get one. Use a soft synth in the meantime. It might take you 4 years, but believe it or not sometimes you have to wait in this world! And owning a Minimoog, or Jupiter 8, regardless of price, will not make you a better musician.

Why would you "blame Behringer" for making products that people obviously want, at prices that most can afford, at a significant profit? In Canada, this is what we call "tall poppy syndrome" where everybody wants to cut down the tall poppies, those who rise above others. Here's my take on the situation: the other manufacturers are just jealous.

Quote:
Seriously, I want to know, why do you think you deserve a $300 Synth "X"?
Why should Dave Smith reissue the Prophet 5 or Pro1 for you?
Why should Roland give you a new analog Jupiter 8?
Why should Tom Oberheim spend the time in the last years of his life giving you a new OBX?
Why should Korg remake the 2600 under their new Arp branding?
Why can't you save money? Why shouldn't you have to?
Why does everything need to be common and cheap?
Why should you have everything you want?

All of this btw is not meant to be aggressive so please don't take it that way. I mean no direspect to anyone personally. I am genuinely curious about this mentality.


Nobody "deserves" a $300 synth. The company who can figure out how to make such a thing and sell a pile of them "deserves" to make a fat profit.

To me, the worst thing about the synthesizer business is that it is practically invisible to the casual music customer. When you go into a music store, you find dozens, if not hundreds, of shiny, sexy guitars hanging all over the place, guitars for every budget and taste. Then you wander into the keyboard area of the store (if they even have one) and you might find some pretty substandard "hobby" type keyboards (like Casios), some MIDI controllers, and maybe the odd digital piano. Rarely ever an actual synth to be found. I've been to Guitar Centers in medium and large cities where there isn't a synthesizer to be found. To me, that's pathetic. If Behringer can get synthesizers back into the retail music stores, then my hat is off to them.
WaveRider
bitflip wrote:
Pointless clickbait.


agree, I read about B here and on other forums, some people are simply insane.

someone comes up and makes affordable analog synths, some clones of 30 years old designs, many of those unavailable except at inflated prices, ready to break vintage units.... and people complain??????

man, you cannot imagine how diffcult and expensive it has been to put my hands on analog synths in the last 30 years.... time to have it easy and make music with the gear. Some are afraid of just that. No more expensive hard to get bullshit.
donato
This thread eek!

So many poor, misguided ideas about how things work and even worse analogies...I just wouldn't know where to start... lol

0/10

Not recommended.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next [all]
Page 1 of 8
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group