Page 3 of 3

Re: Uli Behringer's deeply concerning post

Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:46 pm
by Zamise
Those son-of-a-bitches! Now I'll never be able to afford any Moogs nor want to ever get a cheapass copy.

Re: Uli Behringer's deeply concerning post

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:54 pm
by jxalex
wiss wrote:The moment he releases the 2600 clone, every single one of us will be preordering that s**t and dreaming of recreating Star Wars sound designs.
Really? :)
2500,,..2600 alike ones... or similar ones You could get already long time ago (Paia modular kit?).
Put your soldering iron in a hot place and get that kit done. :)

I have not dreamed about ARP or TB303. HOwever I have heard quite much about TB303 and on one day I got a myself building 2 clones of the TB303 (XoxBox) becouse one mutual friend wanted these badly. Yes, it is good sounding synth, but well just like any other VCO synth and I dont get what is so mystical about it. I really did not really got what is about all the cult thing about that TB303. -- no huge preset memory, waveforms, multitimbrality... ee... so I am into different synths.



After 10 years with synthesizers...
TO me it went like this about the G.A.S. --- at first I got the synths which all others praise becouse of some x features. THe only reason why I did NOT obtained the TB303 and Novation Bass station is that I already got disappointed by the first cult synthesizers, but I discovered different synths which I really like.
... the next thing is that I got still better know many other options about those cult synthesizers (that there is much more than "universe pad" in M1 and "staccato heaven" in D50).


I have already Prophet P600, Roland MKS-80 rack, Juno-106, JX8P, JX10, MKS-70. So the analog ground is quite well coated and some of these mentioned can replace other synths and do the same thing if tweaked right (P600 and MKS-80 can replace the Juno-106 easy way if using the same chorus module), but some synths are NOT the same, while they claim to be the same thing (JX8P and JX10).
In fact the first sounds what I tweak on those is the brass sound ("jump") and pads, but what I dream or get fascinated about the synth is still the original unique FM-bellpad alike sounds what I actually get from FM synthesizers (to my biggest surprise!) and AWM, AI2, and ROMplers.

Re: Uli Behringer's deeply concerning post

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:03 pm
by Solderman
commodorejohn wrote:I've owned exactly one piece of equipment by Behringer. It was a little four or five-channel mixer, and it sounded like total a*s and clipped out in a junky digital way if you so much as looked at it funny. I don't see myself buying anything else from them any time soon, even if it is cheaper.
I bought a noise-gate rackmount(Behringer Denoiser) in late 1996 that worked just as well as a Drawmer. Decent quality knobs and switches, sound quality was fine, had an internal power supply, etc. I turned it on one day about 6-7 years later, the power supply made a little whimper and the LED's went out. Whole thing fried. If it was made before the transfer to Chinese manufacturing, I have to believe that their policy on quality has always been bad.
Steve Jones wrote:And yet people never seem to learn that cheap, derivative, minimum specification junk is not a good buy. Something is not cheap if you have to buy it over and over because it was built with substandard parts and has such poor design tolerances that it soon self destructs. It also becomes landfill as it's so poorly made that it is not worth repairing. It has no resale value either.
I think most are aware but especially when you consider competing software implementations, the industry has shifted more towards the short-term, wider immediate consumer demand, only a fraction of which could be labeled as "professionals". Social media, enthusiast websites and forums like this one are all you need for marketing. I guess the real irony and stupidity of this reality is someone designing something based on vintage, due to too high an unmeetable demand for vintage, that itself likely will never become vintage due to lackluster quality.

A software approximation that only runs in your DAW, has the similar conundrum of one foreseeing the hardware it runs on becoming obsolete long before it has a chance to become "classic". Thus you will still be replacing it every half-dozen or so years out of necessity. I emphasize DAW plugin software because DSP-based VA of a similar generation just cannot reproduce circuit modeling to the same degree of authenticity,(at least thus far) nor do it with as many simultaneous voices or instances, and cost the same order of magnitude less than real analogue.

Re: Uli Behringer's deeply concerning post

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:31 pm
by CS_TBL
Solderman wrote:I emphasize DAW plugin software because DSP-based VA just cannot reproduce circuit modeling to the same degree of authenticity, nor do it with as many simultaneous voices or instances, and cost the same order of magnitude less than real analogue.
I believe you. Question is however: does it matter? Does it really matter in cases where one's not out to 100% emulate a hardware synth in software? And what if you get 90%? Or 80%? Or 70%? Where to draw the line between 'meh' and 'yay'?

Some 16 years ago, I was talking to an ex-colleague o' mine who showed me some episode of Blackadder he downloaded. Back then it was around the time when the DVD codec was hacked and more 'n more stuff appeared on p2p networks. I argued that the original DVD would surely feature better quality. His answer? "Just look at the screen, man! Being free content I'd gladly watch this and take whatever artefacts (which I can't detect anyway) for granted." So, he accepted that 90% quality was good enough.

Now back to synths. If uncle Moog builds a $4000 synth, and uncle Uli builds a $800 lookalike/soundalike synth which sounds 90% like the $4000 Moog, do you really think the Behringer synth would fail on the mass market?

Re: Uli Behringer's deeply concerning post

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:40 pm
by Solderman
No question it will sell. I was thinking more in line with Steve Jones' comment about longevity. Also if it's made as only some weak facsimile of the high-end option with not much unique to offer and little chance of resale value, where it's easy and cheap to churn out tens of thousands of the next latest thing, how long before no one cares about the older model? Monosynths as light bulbs or razors. Or software.
CS_TBL wrote:Does it really matter in cases where one's not out to 100% emulate a hardware synth in software? And what if you get 90%? Or 80%? Or 70%? Where to draw the line between 'meh' and 'yay'?
There must be a threshold somewhere. Why else would people become dissatisfied with Synthedit freeware plugins and end up paying for cheap hardware synths? The market speaks in favor of this trend probably increasing.

Re: Uli Behringer's deeply concerning post

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:51 pm
by CS_TBL
Solderman wrote:There must be a threshold somewhere. Why else would people beceome dissatisfied with Synthedit freeware plugins and end up paying for cheap hardware synths? The market speaks in favor of this trend probably increasing.
Don't rule out the fact that many people are worthless sound designers, and even more people are worthless synth builders. Software like SynthEdit merely means that more people have the opportunity to create their own synth, it doesn't guarantee that those DIY-synths are any good. If many free SE-synths end up being 303-clones, 909-clones, 202-clones, Minimoog-clones and Juno clones, then I can imagine that at some point the audience yells "Okay Okay! We get the point! Now do something new please!". Somehow, many people seem to think the world needs boatloads more lfo->osc->filter->envelope synths, as long as the graphical interface is a Photoshop-feast.

Re: Uli Behringer's deeply concerning post

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:40 am
by jxalex
CS_TBL wrote: Now back to synths. If uncle Moog builds a $4000 synth, and uncle Uli builds a $800 lookalike/soundalike synth which sounds 90% like the $4000 Moog, do you really think the Behringer synth would fail on the mass market?
Can people get original Moogs cheaper when buying second hand?
If people are in the shop and faced with the prices and having no similar synths then they buy it, definetly the one with lower price,

My thoughts are still about Roland clone synthesizers.

What about the price and those people who already have other similar synthesizers, are used to buy used synthesizers, and began buying the synths 12..16 years ago? then it is different perhaps... they got everything with 150..300USD and if just used to buy Roland Jupiter with $800 then seeing a BehrisDeepMind12 for $1000 is absolutely ridiculous price.

Re: Uli Behringer's deeply concerning post

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:13 pm
by c-level
this is an interesting thread intersecting many hot topics in todays economy. behringer is absolutely right tho, moog could make its products cheaper, they would be betraying their legacy as a hand built, american artisan company. i toured their factory and they admitted to only a few of the products not being mfg'ed and assembled in house (namely the lower end products and smaller designs, the SMT boards and micro components of the minifoogers, mother32 and werkstatt.) even the cabinet wood came from a local amish woodworker. not sure i can say that this behavior is stalling their growth as a company, as they have always been a coveted, in demand manufacturer who has no problem selling their limitedly produced wares. they could use inferior components and labor and automation to compete, but they dont need to compete. they are moog. they have created their own legacy and continue to work at their own pace to their own goals.

behringer is a lot like the construction foreman who abuses immigrant labor, without OSHA guidelines, paid income tax or other concerns to get a job done cheaper and underbudget. to meet a gap in the need for a $325,000 house, already unaffordable to those needing a house when it would cost closer to $500,000 to do it on the up and up. is it unethical? probably, is it illegal? marignally. but the rabidity of the consumer and the market demands it, without scruples. it would take some serious re-thinking about the human/intellectual/conceptual cost of the supply/demand economic structure to change this predatory behavior. unfortunately it seems weve doubled down recently....