How many Behringer Synths should one buy?

[egbert101]

Why not just record twice?

It's not the same. If you're playing it and getting that sound then the sound affects you and impacts your playing. If you are using a more structured approach to your composition, sure, record your part and then play it back again. These days I'm not even recording midi, I just record multi-track audio and take the sdcard down to my computer for remixing.

This. Besides, if they are selling at £299 each, and with potential 16 note polyphony, it's pretty worth it.

[Nug Wrangler]

Minnimum 2 of each is the right answer

Atleast when it comes to the Pro 800 which is a awesome poly for the Money
If the Polysource is just as good i might need 2 of those too and i am waiting for my Kobol Expander to arrive someday next week

I would love to own a Polysource aswell.

Same here
It looks like a Early 2000 Synthedit plugin so full retro vibe there + i am sure it will sound awesome

I Hope they change the screen to white or blue to match the look since a red screen will look very ugly on that layout.

It kinda does yes. A white or blue screen would look better i agree.

Definitely blue, also, you must have two. The Solinas are on backorder, so I can't get a second one right now. There's someone on reverb trying to sell one for $450. I guess I don't really get reverb.

450$ for a Solina? Original price is about 370$ right?

[pdxindy]

You shouldn't buy them.

My perspective is that is up to each person to decide. I bought a couple Behringer Synths early on, but once Behringer started targeting Moog, that bugged me. Making copies of old gear is fine, but once they started making copies of Moog's current product line, that was a type of predatory practice I couldn't support.

To each their own choices, but I won't be buying Behringer anymore.

[ghettosynth]

Why not just record twice?

It's not the same. If you're playing it and getting that sound then the sound affects you and impacts your playing. If you are using a more structured approach to your composition, sure, record your part and then play it back again. These days I'm not even recording midi, I just record multi-track audio and take the sdcard down to my computer for remixing.

This. Besides, if they are selling at £299 each, and with potential 16 note polyphony, it's pretty worth it.

Agreed. Also, 8 note polyphony with two layers is huge. That you have knobs for both layers, separately, is amazing. All in 6U and for less than what an Alpha Juno cost brand new.

I'm not sure about the solina. I'll rack up the one that I have. If that Poly Source comes out though, I'm all in.

[D-Fusion]

You shouldn't buy them.

My perspective is that is up to each person to decide. I bought a couple Behringer Synths early on, but once Behringer started targeting Moog, that bugged me. Making copies of old gear is fine, but once they started making copies of Moog's current product line, that was a type of predatory practice I couldn't support.

To each their own choices, but I won't be buying Behringer anymore.

How is that different from vst emulations or do you boikot them too?
Do you own any moog emulations in vst form or emulations of other synths that still can be bought today from the original companies?

I mean why use arturia, softube or tal if you can buy the Jupiter 8 and junos via the original company via the roland Cloud or a juno, Jupiter 8, Minimoog, Korg ms-20 and the OB-X8 if you use the Arturia V.collection.

[ghettosynth]

It doesn't matter. Look, some people are going to choose not to buy the B. That's their choice. However, in that sense Behringer isn't really competing with the likes of Moog. Behringer is targeting the low end of the market, where there are plenty of consumers unaffected by gear politics. I put the zero option on the poll for fun and completeness, but nobody in this thread buying Behringer gear is going to be swayed by the arguments attempting to frame perfectly legal reverse engineering as stealing.

I'm a firm believe in IP laws, but that belief goes both ways. We should respect IP, but also respect why the laws were created in the first place: to foster innovation. That is, we should respect actual rights and exercise every right that we have. This includes copying that which is not protected legally by IP and reverse engineering until the cows come home.

IMO, Behringer's biggest sin isn't copying products, but not improving on them quite enough. I get why they're doing it, and I fully realize that I'm not the target consumer in that sense. So, I will take their slightly-too-cloney for my taste clones as they are better than the high-priced alternatives.

[Uncle E]

How is that different from vst emulations or do you boikot them too?
Do you own any moog emulations in vst form or emulations of other synths that still can be bought today from the original companies?

Sorry, not disagreeing with you but you’re missing a key point. It’s not that Behringer cloned classic Moog’s, it’s that they cloned DFAM and Mother-32.

[D-Fusion]

How is that different from vst emulations or do you boikot them too?
Do you own any moog emulations in vst form or emulations of other synths that still can be bought today from the original companies?

Sorry, not disagreeing with you but you’re missing a key point. It’s not that Behringer cloned classic Moog’s, it’s that they cloned DFAM and Mother-32.

True but many have recently cloned junos, SH-101 and Jupiter 8 in vst form that are still on sale via the Roland cloud and in hw in various products like System 8 and some zen core products.
Why is one company sacred while others are not?

[ghettosynth]

How is that different from vst emulations or do you boikot them too?
Do you own any moog emulations in vst form or emulations of other synths that still can be bought today from the original companies?

Sorry, not disagreeing with you but you’re missing a key point. It’s not that Behringer cloned classic Moog’s, it’s that they cloned DFAM and Mother-32.

Yep, and IMNSHO, confirmed exactly what I thought when I saw those products originally, that is, that they were vastly overpriced for what they are. That said, this is case in point from my perspective. Both products, again IMNSHO, are mediocre and have that typical Moog attitude of "we're putting out excessively simplistic architectures and attempting to justify it by claiming that the limitations are intentional and somehow more musical." IMNSHO, both products could be vastly improved with some additional control and complexity. At minimum, Mother 32, a name that is stupid as f**k, BTW, needs a second oscillator, and DFAM needs enough modulation to get much much closer to a 909 style kick. I would much prefer that Behringer made a Super DFAM and a Super Mother-32 that addressed some of the shortcomings in both products. But the market wants to be sure that they're getting the same thing for a lower price, even given that the purists will still argue that the real thing is better.

[D-Fusion]

How is that different from vst emulations or do you boikot them too?
Do you own any moog emulations in vst form or emulations of other synths that still can be bought today from the original companies?

Sorry, not disagreeing with you but you’re missing a key point. It’s not that Behringer cloned classic Moog’s, it’s that they cloned DFAM and Mother-32.

Yep, and IMNSHO, confirmed exactly what I thought when I saw those products originally, that is, that they were vastly overpriced for what they are. That said, this is case in point from my perspective. Both products, again IMNSHO, are mediocre and have that typical Moog attitude of "we're putting out excessively simplistic architectures and attempting to justify it by claiming that the limitations are intentional and somehow more musical." IMNSHO, both products could be vastly improved with some additional control and complexity. At minimum, Mother 32, a name that is stupid as f**k, BTW, needs a second oscillator, and DFAM needs enough modulation to get much much closer to a 909 style kick. I would much prefer that Behringer made a Super DFAM and a Super Mother-32 that addressed some of the shortcomings in both products. But the market wants to be sure that they're getting the same thing for a lower price, even given that the purists will still argue that the real thing is better.

I agree.
I wish they would improve on the originals instead of cloning their quirks that everyone hated from the og's like the Wasp Deluxe for example that are locked to the 3 lowest octaves on your keyboard like the original and no external pitchbend can be used only the pitch knob on the hw.

Midi cc would also be great to have on the mono synths and duophonic if possible like they did with the Pro 1.

[Uncle E]

Yes, agree with both of you. What B did may not be morally right but M taking the piss with their pricing doesn’t help their case.

[pdxindy]

How is that different from vst emulations

IMO, it's fundamentally different. Software plugins are not hardware, especially analog hardware.

[egbert101]

Are you comfortable about the business practices of google, apple or microsoft, and do you own any of their products? Sometimes you have to compromise according to your circumstances.

[ghettosynth]

Yes, agree with both of you. What B did may not be morally right but M taking the piss with their pricing doesn’t help their case.

I don't agree with the stance that copying within the context of legality is amoral. There is widespread misconception about the purpose, scope, and intent of IP laws. I frequently see plugin vendors on here attempt to misrepresent what their rights are with respect to IP laws and I find it tedious.

Similarly, among hardware vendors there is often a claimed unwritten rule that one does not copy current products from other vendors. How convenient that established businesses want to make that claim, I'm sure that it suits them. As long as they follow that rule then they remain cordial with each other. However, it's arbitrary. Every vendor has the right to control their own product line and that includes discontinuing products as a business decision. For example, not selling a particular product that is designed around a circuit with hard to obtain or expensive parts because it doesn't generate enough profit. Such a vendor may believe that their newer, cheaper to produce, products are replacements in the marketplace. By cloning discontinued products you are still impacting their bottom line by making it harder to sell their newer products.

If you have the legal right to clone a product, old or new, then I don't see any difference. You are competing, legally, in the marketplace. If you have cloned any discontinued product then I don't think that you have any moral high-ground. This matters at every level to me, the circuit level, to the feature level, up to the product level. The law provides multiple broad levels of IP protection and it's up to each vendor to exercise those protections.

[Uncle E]

Certainly agreed on the Mother-32. That's Neutron-level innovation (ie not much). DFAM seems innovative and deserving of protection but that could be my inexperience with modulars showing.