Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

In this post (see URL below) on Gearslutz, Uli Behringer calls into question the costs associated with Moog production. Surely that constitutes an attack on Moog? Meanwhile, his company, in many instances, does no ‘blue-skies / exploratory’ R&D (is he even aware of the costs of true synthesiser R&D?); has a legacy of poor quality and of copying other companys' technology; and avails of the most dubious manufacturing practices in China - yet feels comfortable using all of that as the basis of an attack on the founding company in modern music synthesis

For me his post is worrying on so many levels. He presents to a forum likely dominated by young musicians a false perspective on the likes of Moog (and therefore all similar companies) - presents a bogus proposition that what Moog do can be done for one tenth the cost; and offers cheap copies of that technology as the route ahead. If successful, he will dismantle the validity of Moog’s and others’ approach and cost-base needed to innovate, and will devalue the World’s legacy of astounding instruments; meanwhile flooding the market with cheap copies that we all know cannot be of quality if they cost nothing to build.

Behringer’s approach, rather than based on innovative new instrument, is based on attacking other companies, shedding doubt over their legacy and intent of running them out of business; meanwhile taking their technology and cloning it!

And just let’s just do a little 'reminder' comparison: Moog of late have put out an actual original Minimoog for anyone who wants it; and have created the masterpiece that is the Sub37; meanwhile Behringer put out a polysynth based on the Juno 106 and then a very cheap looking Minimoog module. Yet Uli Behringer feels comfortable with attacking Moog and claiming that Behringer are the future (with 20 graduates as his crack-team I might add).

If Behringer get their way, we'll suffer a generation of cheap junk from this outfit - at the expense of innovative companies they'll run out of business. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind...



https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12472785-post87.html

There has been a tad too much of Behringer talk on the internetz recently.

Mudslinging is a sign of good manners these days, too.

Stephen

knolan wrote:In this post (see URL below) on Gearslutz, Uli Behringer calls into question the costs associated with Moog production. Surely that constitutes an attack on Moog? Meanwhile, his company, in many instances, does no ‘blue-skies / exploratory’ R&D (is he even aware of the costs of true synthesiser R&D?); has a legacy of poor quality and of copying other companys' technology; and avails of the most dubious manufacturing practices in China - yet feels comfortable using all of that as the basis of an attack on the founding company in modern music synthesis

Be careful of a common mistake in reasoning:
We can't discredit Uli Behringer's argument that Moog is cutting costs because Uli's own company is guilty of cutting costs themselves. Though it may be hypocritical, we need to look at Uli's reasoning process and than determine if he's got a good argument or a bad argument. This mistake is called ad hominem tu quoque.

knolan wrote:For me his post is worrying on so many levels. He presents to a forum likely dominated by young musicians a false perspective on the likes of Moog (and therefore all similar companies) - presents a bogus proposition that what Moog do can be done for one tenth the cost; and offers cheap copies of that technology as the route ahead. If successful, he will dismantle the validity of Moog’s and others’ approach and cost-base needed to innovate, and will devalue the World’s legacy of astounding instruments; meanwhile flooding the market with cheap copies that we all know cannot be of quality if they cost nothing to build.

knolan wrote:If Behringer get their way, we'll suffer a generation of cheap junk from this outfit - at the expense of innovative companies they'll run out of business. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind...

Keep this slippery slope in check. He can't do that much damage, Moog's legacy is built on pioneering the craft itself, and most people can tell within 5 minutes of playing a quality instrument THAT it's a quality instrument, and vice versa. Moog has a cult following that's extremely dedicated, and a history that speaks for itself. Behringer might win over a few costumers who don't care, but the majority of people will still want a moog, especially the classic ones, simply because they're extremely desirable no matter what anyone says, and they have a certain high end status. Uli discrediting Moog is like Suzuki discrediting Mercedes Benz: at the end of the day, people are still going to want that 500SL, and will still be willing to pay a little extra just to be associated with the brand.

If anything, this will just make Uli look, dare I say, Burrhurt, and perhaps it will even keep Moog on their toes, but it's more likely that Moog won't even notice, like an elephant being bitten by a fly. Sorry for the post-sniping btw.

Would like to see Moog's real cost of reproducing the Minimoog and how it compares to the selling price.

ninja6485 wrote: Keep this slippery slope in check. He can't do that much damage, Moog's legacy is built on pioneering the craft itself, and most people can tell within 5 minutes of playing a quality instrument THAT it's a quality instrument, and vice versa. Moog has a cult following that's extremely dedicated, and a history that speaks for itself. Behringer might win over a few costumers who don't care, but the majority of people will still want a moog, especially the classic ones, simply because they're extremely desirable no matter what anyone says, and they have a certain high end status.

You have a much more optimistic view of human nature than I do. This forum is populated with old farts (myself included) that usually have more disposable income, and willingness to use it. To me, the idea of Behringer releasing a direct clone of a premium product by a small manufacturer is predatory. There are a few people on gearslutz standing athwart Behringer yelling stop, but overwhelmingly there are a lot of people yelling that Moog pricing is pure profit and elitism. (and that people questioning it are butt hurt about paying $3500 and the idea that someone else will get the same thing for $500.)

As I posted in the identical thread on GS, my biggest worry is Behringer could put some of these companies out of business, just as the were put out of business by the Japanese synth companies in the early 80s, especially if Behringer targets specific major revenue instruments for these companies.

And I wouldn't put it past him. A month before the Korg Arp came out, Behringer posted some hint about making the Arp for $500, seemingly just to throw some gears in Korgs launch. Behringer never made it, so it seems the only benefit was to screw with a competitor. Maybe they're working on an actual analog drum machine, but on GS Behringer started a thread about possible making one the very week that Arturia announced theirs. Maybe they're really making one, but they're timing seem to about f---ing with their competitors.

Interesting post from Uli.

Sorry, the components do cost more then $200 when you consider the actual casing. Anyway, Moog does not sell as many units as Behringer so they do not get the huge economy of scale (buying more parts means you can get each part cheaper). Parts is not the only cost, mfrs have a metric called Cost Of Goods Sold (COGS) which is the price of everything involved in getting the product out the door to dealers. That includes things like inventory, assembly, testing, labor, marketing, etc.

The only product I think Moog is overpricing is the modulars. I've owned synthesizers.com modulars which sell for a fraction of what Moog charges plus they are not limited editions.

I'm not worried. A lot of companies make cheap Stratocaster knockoffs (Squier Strats don't count), and it's all perfectly within their right, but no one really buys them.

The hardware synth market is very specialized in the era of USB controllers and plugins. Behringer is kind of late in the game. We will never see another quarter-million seller like the Korg M1 or Yamaha DX7 ever again. Could they make a hit product? I'm sure they could, and maybe they will, but in between there will be dozens of misses.

I won't be buying the Behringer Minimoog clone -- not because of the Behringer name/stigma/reputation, but because I have no interest in tabletop synths (if it came with a keyboard, even mini-keys, I might consider). I'm a caretaker of a friend's late '70s Minimoog but I wouldn't mind buying the new Model D (hey, it's got built-in MIDI) and returning my friend's Moog in the foreseeable future.

Just let the market speak for itself. Vote with your wallet.

IMO, these are companies not charities. A market of willing buyers and sellers. You can make as niche a product you want but if nobody's buying it, you fail. You can mass make a product at lower quality and if it sells, you succeed.

If one delves into moral grounds as to what should/should not be done, it will just be down that slippery slope a member mentioned.

Heritage, history and hand-built workmanship, etc. fall into another category. One man's meat is another man's poison. A piece of art may be worth a lot at an auction due to its history, craftsmanship among other reasons, but nothing to another.

It depends on perspective and intention of potential buyers.

Percivale wrote:IMO, these are companies not charities. A market of willing buyers and sellers. You can make as niche a product you want but if nobody's buying it, you fail. You can mass make a product at lower quality and if it sells, you succeed.

For me, its not really a moral argument, it purely self interest. A vibrant market with lots of options produces better more interesting options for me. A market with three or four conservative monolithic companies is less interesting than a market with dozens of competitors, some conservative shooting for 100k sales, and other companies happy with 2k sales, and able to cater to smaller, narrower market segments.

Analog enthusiasts in 1990 weren't crying for Moog, they were crying for themselves.

Let me add that I don't know how likely my bleak outcome is, but it is the first thing that occurred to me when Behringer started talking about cloning the Model D.

It's not really about optimism or human nature, but about the market itself.

Moog is an established high end brand, and Behringer is a budget brand with a sketchy reputation. Their customers are likely to have different values and possibly different applications from the outset. Moog has a lot of customers who set out only shopping for Moogs!

If Behringer really can make a product as good as a Minimoog at a fraction of the cost, they should be encouraged to do so, and Moog should be encouraged to try to strike back and compete with a product of their own at that quality at that price, if they are afraid of losing customers. There's no need to try to protect Moog from competition. If the Behringer product doesn't live up to the hype, it will be a joke.

If Moog has become bloated, selling products that aren't all they could be for more than they should be sold for, than a little competition could be a well deserved kick in the butt. If not, given the sheer amount of Moog fan boys, I doubt they have anything to worry about, just like how Mercedes doesn't worry too much about the Hyundai genesis stealing their S class sales.

No one wants an oligopoly, but businesses have to be able to compete. If you're worried about the Behringer moog copy, why not worry about the $500 ms20's and Karp Odysseys stealing Moog sales? The Odyssey was it's biggest competition for Moog at one point in time. I think at best, the Behringer could be the novation bass station 1 to Moog's sh-101, or the XoXbox to the 303, the Octave Cat to the original Odyssey. If history tells us anything about the Synth market, it's that knock offs are nothing new, and nothing to worry about.

My guess is Uli is just trying to build up hype about his product through taking shots at the top dog. No press is bad press, and now even we are talking about his new product! I guarantee someone reading this is interested in a cheap Moog replica, and now, thanks to our banter about Uli's outrageous comments, they know where to get one.

ninja6485 wrote:.

No one wants an oligopoly, but businesses have to be able to compete. If you're worried about the Behringer moog copy, why not worry about the $500 ms20's and Karp Odysseys stealing Moog sales? The Odyssey was it's biggest competition for Moog at one point in time.

To me I see a difference between competition (odyssey, ms20) and borderline IP theft. I'm sure Behringer has good lawyers (after the Mackie suit they should) to ensure that they stay on the defensible side of the line. I don't mind companies cloning gear from long dead companies that no longer produce products, but cloning currently made products for the sole purpose of undercutting the price of that company is on my no-no list.

And it still is a question of human nature. You think that moog buyers will not be swayed by 1/7 the price. I agree some won't be and will be brand loyal to their premium brand, but I believe a lot more will defect than you do. It's not just Model D buyers. How many Minitaur buyers will tell themselves that they can get a model D for the same price if they jump to Behringer.

Anyway, maybe nothing will come of it, maybe my concerns will not come to pass. I just get a little worked up when people seem to think that Moog is making $3000+ profit on the model D, and Behringer is feeding and trying to profit off that misconception. (not so much here, but on GS and some other sites)

I thought Uli's initial remarks were a bit classless, but I passed the product itself off as, "Hey, not for me, but for those who want it, knock yourselves out." I found myself a little annoyed when he released his concept drawing with colors, typography, and a big "D". But still, I thought "Whatever, they're just going to look kind of silly when it doesn't sound like a Model D, and when the customers find they have to open it up to connect a ribbon cable or something again." It's just all part of a petty marketing strategy to get attention, and people are buying it.

But when I saw that Music Group was actually in the process of trademarking "OB-Xa" and the original "OSCar" logo for themselves, I decided that there really were some talentless scum at that company, and that I want nothing to do with their products or the people who are worshipping at their altar. AFAIC, Behringer has no shame and would be quite happy to dance on the ashes of any industry they burn to the ground, in the name of profit.

knolan wrote:In this post (see URL below) on Gearslutz, Uli Behringer calls into question the costs associated with Moog production. Surely that constitutes an attack on Moog? Meanwhile, his company, in many instances, does no ‘blue-skies / exploratory’ R&D (is he even aware of the costs of true synthesiser R&D?); has a legacy of poor quality and of copying other companys' technology; and avails of the most dubious manufacturing practices in China - yet feels comfortable using all of that as the basis of an attack on the founding company in modern music synthesis

Get into electronics really! Get to know the details then you k now HOW MUCH it can be done cheaper and where from not to cut the quality. And after You have built yourself something look around in cellphone industry (especially how NOKIA does) if you want to talk about ethics -- and you see something really disgusting happening there!
But when it is about Bob Moog then now the other men are counting his money and the rest of the bunch got money from others sweat - Mr. Moog is dead, You know? So neither the synthesizer manufacturers know any respect towards customers. So, I see why not Behringer and other companies should take over who ever has interest to make copy.

IT really is worth to learn about some basic electronics and to know the components. Otherwise it is just rambling and praising that "becouse it is Sony". KNowing how things are done can give the insight what components must be used, how cheap it can be done and where the components must be much better. THere are cheap, better and very good and costy designs. Some products have flaws, it is just sometimes 1-2 faults why this or that products quality sucks. ALso there are products which have "reserved" some option for higher price class models, but can taken into use with tweaks but was not taken into use as it would cost more in production. But all can be tweaked and in result it is enjoyment for lifetime, and still with bargain price for those who know electronics in intermediate level.


Soundblaster at first was selling their GAMEPORT- MIDI converter with 150USD, whereas it had just less than 5USD components worth! Just using a simple logic chip, and CNY17 or other optotransistor require no special brand or manufacturer! But it means that there is never need to buy a expensive converter becouse it is Soundblaster brand.
JUst a side note of overpricing.

Behringer’s approach, rather than based on innovative new instrument, is based on attacking other companies, shedding doubt over their legacy and intent of running them out of business; meanwhile taking their technology and cloning it!

oh yeah, so you are attacking Behringer for making things affordable , becouse otherwise the other seven Moog middleman should get rich from others sweat who never ever designed something? no way! shareholders, investors, etc. whatever. If thats all whats left from Moog -- a bunch who counts money from others sweat and gets money becouse of the dead founder -- then why bother? THe remaining persons really have nothing to do with Moog!
DO You even know that Mr. Moog died over 10 years ago?

Let him be in peace. There is no need to pay for a overpriced synthesizer which money does not go for Mr. Moog but other seven middlemen who gets fatter, whatever way they disguise their "charity" program with schools or other caveats to softer others heart.

You act like copyright protector for a musician who is dead over 50 years and protecting others investors profit who know nothing about music. Neither perhaps You know about electronics in a sense that HOW MUCH CHEAPER CAN BE DONE, or can be done reliably without letting the quality suffer.

I have had problems even with other big company products, and if there are products, then there is no top class service, whatever if it is Canon. In this case hey, I welcome more these companies like Behringer.

perspective on the likes of Moog (and therefore all similar companies) - presents a bogus proposition that what Moog do can be done for one tenth the cost; and offers cheap copies of that technology as the route ahead.

And there is nothing wrong with that! Perhaps the XOXBOX is what You dislike too, as it is TB303 clone for 1/10 price, but not from Roland?
Have You ever built something? Have You ever inspected the components where and what is needed? I built 2 kits and I say it is working fine. And it sounds great, but neither I get why that TB303 should cost even 200USD.

If Behringer get their way, we'll suffer a generation of cheap junk from this outfit - at the expense of innovative companies they'll run out of business. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind...
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12472785-post87.html

Tell these words to every major software companies instead who waste creative ressources!
I have already suffered becouse of the many things the software companies have done.Yet no one complaining so much, but insteads tells others to shut up who is whining.
When talking about ideology how things are done then
the only branch industry should close their bunker doors then those are M$ with its windows, Intel and EVERY software company who release their software before really fixing it and providing no offline help version and going along with every stupid change, and with its planned obsolence it results renderin obsolete all the useful expensive hardware which makes higher costs! And always their suggestion is - buy new, upgrade! Just to keep you in the consumtion rat race.

What Behringer is doing is something like in the opposite way --- making affordable, by re-building OLD things. Software companies wont sell old products. Neither other synth manufacturers do old synths.
If Behringer can do the Jupiter 8 below 500 USD, while keeping the manufacturing in a good quality - go ahead, but it needs some technological changes at first to do it affordable.
THe trouble with Behringer is that yes they do in China, but perhaps a way too loose or low production quality. So - NB! Then no-one cant say bad-cheap-replica, if it is produced affordable way, but with very good schematic. But I am certain that persons like You would be whining even louder in this case --- a way too good replica.

AT LAST Behringer would, I hope, put an end of these overpriced praised companies with ridiculously overpriced MIC preamplifiers, summing mixers and so on whereas the schematic inside can be REALLY SIMPLE and the cheapest chinese tricks will do it as well! I hope it puts end an those who praises his 10 000 USD cost amplifier which is just ordinary stereo.
I say that becouse I am into electronics myself and I build things myself. I know how much the details cost, DAC modules should NOT cost even 100 USD !!!

I hate that they wont add service schematic, but otherwise I am very fond of their other reverse-engineered products and which in some way have achieved better results compared to the originals..

For me his post is worrying on so many levels. He presents to a forum likely dominated by young musicians a false

young musicians? Not really. Thats really false title. More it is like Hi-Fi forum of electronic illiterates.

Musicians do not sit in this kind of forums, but behind the instrument instead. They do not argue or praise that the 1500USD/meter speaker cables are worth buying, neither they praise this or that equipment brand.

dismantle the validity of Moog’s and others’ approach and cost-base needed to innovate, and will devalue the World’s legacy of astounding instruments; meanwhile flooding the market with cheap copies that we all know cannot be of quality if they cost nothing to build.

I am not into the production and certainly if the Behringer would keep the production quality better then You perhaps would be whining much louder?! The end product price would be just a little bit higher, but the reliability would be much better.
THe reason why I wont buy their more expensive components are the reason of production.


And it seems that You are also representing someone, but who? The manufacturing brands who overprice the components inside, but also keep the production in China?

If it worries You then I say that ATC is no better with its production in England.
I found a stuck piece of solderblob inside ATC SM75-150 worlds class middlerange speaker element. Surprised becouse of that what I found. That element It cost to me 330 GBP, bought 2015 and it is from the year 1987. Handycraft as we know for worlds class speaker elements!!!
So I have no belief to handycraft damn expensive brands anymore after this.

I hope Behringer puts Moog out of business and the Moog factory in Asheville, North Carolina is replaced with a Walmart Supercenter that sells Behringer Model D knockoffs.

ppg_wavecomputer wrote:There has been a tad too much of Behringer talk on the internetz recently.

Mudslinging is a sign of good manners these days, too.

Stephen

indeed. Especially if someone is afraid of competition, then the bag of old dirty tricks gets loose all over again.


I see that they are hiring...I think that what if they would hire something in production control too, on a land far far away.
Then I would get the product to me too which is accordingly to my own highly selective taste of reliability at last.