And surely the Behringer ones too ;) Was thinking about this recently when I was playing my (Moog) Grandmother, and about the recent commentary coming out of Behringer and potshots they are taking at people on social media like Loopop. Where they're trying to claim they're some kind of NGO releasing products even below cost. But, it struck me the real reason an expansionist minded behemoth puts things out below cost is the opposite of charitable. It's put such price pressure on their competitors that they disrupt the market and choke competition. It's the Ryanair business model in Europe, and it works. And here we are, Moog died. And I can't help feeling that an infection of Boogs parasites didn't help. Then eventually, companies like Behringer will begin to hike prices, after a slew of synth makers, modulars that created the ideas that Behringer, well basically shamelessly stole.
@@compucorder64 I feel like it might be a bit silly to assume a significant overlap between potential Moog customers and people buying cheap clones. I am not and never will be in the market for a brand new $5,000 monosynth. Not even $1,000. So what's the loss to Moog? They're not exactly serving bleeding-edge tech this century, they're *heavily* resting on recognition, reproductions, reissues, and repackaging, and anything they've got that reaches my price range is either secondhand or is up against dozens of way more appealing boutique, kit, or (best of all) open-source alternatives that I'd rather throw my pennies at. Like, to the extent that it's just background noise when Behringer is *also* trying to cash in on the recognition, reproductions, reissues, and repackaging. I'm having a real hard time imagining a situation where you've got a $300 budget and you're simultaneously counted as lost revenue for Moog. Even if Behringer were truly selling accurate, worthwhile repros (and I'm going to hazard a wild guess that they're not) while undercutting Moog, I'm not going to be so naïve to believe there's moral high ground to be taken by picking a side in that battle. Capitalists capitalism at each other and consumerism sucks more as a result. That's not news. Add some neoliberal reforms and you get more obfuscated, pervasive, socioeconomically palatable, socioculturally bereft suckage. When cracks start to spread so wide that your fave falls through, I think we should take a hard, long, structural look at the foundation instead of patching in vain while fingering bad actors who might have pushed them in.
Worth mentioning that a Moog Mavis is $299. M32/DFAM/Subharmo is $499 when on sale. The bottom cost of entry for a legit handmade Moog is pretty reasonable.
Ben's history psychoanalysis is, well, sorta "silly" when considering Bub Muug saying, quote; "I who thought i was a bad bissniss man commenting on the dramatic ARP bankruptcy". B.t.w does Mr Jordan ever consider all the manufacturing of Muug ,so called , pro audio PCB's, component P&P is all "Made in china" by machines already with Moog voyager? No ofcourse he does not! "Handmade in USA" Jordans big "patriotic" claim of a federations last breath while blame everyone else for your own faults and failures. So let us all now become the Ukranian jew president applauding a Ukrainian Canadian nazi. Thats real patriotic antisemitism.
One bit of general advice: when your company reorganizes, gets bought, etc. there will be a meeting when you’re told that nothing is going to change. When this happens, set your stop watch because within 60 days, everything is going to change. And this often includes layoffs.
Uli deserves his ego. My friends and I gave it to him willingly. Because he made classic-ish analog gear affordable to us poor people. Haters gonna hate. Uli rulies!
Amen to Mike Adams. As one of the original (short term) reps for Moog the guy had no effing idea about the business he was in. He was a manufacturing guy, period. He (they) had many opportunities to adapt, adjust, rescale. But didn't.
I mean I was hoping for more about Moog. Not that I’m a Behringer fan at all, just that it seems to digress quickly into a Behringer bash. Is Behringer the sole reason for Moog selling out? I kinda doubt it
You can have a Korg synth (or Roland, Yamaha, Arturia, you name it) with the same or comparable features of a Moog synth for a fraction of the price, it's not just a Behringer thing. That's because Moog has absolutely crazy, out of market prices, but ssh! Don't tell anyone! It's Evil Uli's fault if capitalism works as intended!
@@wonderwheel80snot true at all. All the Moog synths in the Mother ecosystem are valued way below their equivalent components if trying to build them yourself out of eurorack modules. The VCOs VCAs LFOs, sequencers, EGs, mixers, effects, etc if purchased as separate eurorack component modules would easily cost 3x more than a Moog. And Yamaha, Korg, Arturia, etc make nothing like them from a modular standpoint at that price point.
@@andrewnancarrow What are you talking about? Moog sells self-contained synthesizers (like the nicely priced $1300 monophonic 2-osc Grandmother, for example, a real bargain!!!) as well as Yamaha, Korg etc. Why should I compare this stuff with Buchla?
Neither of these arguments strike me as very strong. Even if Behringer’s and Sweetwater’s business practices are kind of shady, which I can readily grant, I don’t think that adds up to why Moog went out of business. I doubt that the market between Moog and Behringer synths overlap very much. Also, I could imagine someone buying Behringer synths to get into electronic music and then saving up to get iconic items like a Minimoog reissue. I can’t see a loyal Moog customer switching to Behringer products because of price. As for Sweetwater, again, no one held a gun to Moog’s head and forced them to sell through Sweetwater. One wonders why they bothered to sell through Sweetwater at all (or any retailer, for that matter). One would think that Moog has enough of a brand presence within the electronic music gear market to have only sold direct to consumers. From what I’ve heard, the Moog CEO was kind of a jerk, and selling to InMusic was a way for him to cash in. Frankly, that seems the more likely situation.
I own several Moog synths and have owned a few others over the years… and I love Behringer’s products. Maybe if Moog hadn’t reoriented their entire business model to catering to Instagram hipsters with semimodular products that just recycled ancient circuits, they wouldn’t have had to worry about Behringer.
Sweetwater also commits more large scale purchases than any other dealer for Moog in the US. Blaming Sweetwater is like blaming your best customer for buying too much of your product.
Wait a minute, Moog is innocent, it was all a conspiracy by MC Burger Queen and other evil elements. It's funny that Mike Adams has a different opinion, but Benn probably knows better. Anyway, at least now it will honestly say “made in China” on the case.
@@prospectnycIf your “best customer” creates conditions for sales that cut so deeply into your margin that it’s barely profitable enough to run your business, are they really your best customer? Greater bulk isn’t always the answer
"Counterfeit" implies a copy being illegally sold under the name of the real item. If Behringer was selling units with both the Moog and Model D name on them then the "counterfeit claim would be accurate.
Indeed. Behringer's ethics have been debated for years and will be debated for many more, but labelling their stuff as "counterfeit" is a bit too much. It's just inflammatory and frankly just a cheap shot.
@@D1570R73D Because it is not pretending to be made by Moog. If you buy a counterfeit Rolex watch, it has the name "Rolex" on it and you are not meant to know the difference. It is fraud. The Model D is a clone that came out when Moog was not making any kind of reissue.
@@D1570R73D counterfeit is defined in most dictionaries as having the intention to deceive or defraud. Benn's point is clear, the Behringer products are intended to represent an equivalent product. While it's a stretch to claim that Behringer customers are being tricked and think they're buying a Moog, it may be argued that they are not as good - not equivalent - is that deceptive? Perhaps it is. If you think it's intended to deceive then that is consistent with the definition of counterfeit.
I doubt there’s any people in the market for a Mini Moog reissue who are going to be swayed by the Behringer knock-off over the cheaper price tag. If someone is willing to shell out $5k on a monosynth, that’s “money is no object” rich. Sweetwater looks like the bigger culprit here in terms of eating into the high-end luxury synth market. Which says to me, stick to either the used market or buy direct from manufacturers that only sell through their website.
Honest to god, if it were 1970 and Behringer and software didn't exist, I'd have saved a few years to spend $5K on a Moog D. Take that 5K out of retirement or the car payment. But I'd be insane to when the alternatives exist. I'm not rich, but we all make a few big investments in life. So it isn't limited to the rich. Or it is *now,* but only because we have cheaper options. That argument of "Moog and Behringer are different markets" falls flat. It's kinda sad. I wish Moog could have stayed competitive without requiring good will on the part of the consumer.
I dont think you realise how much some of these sorts of things go for. The $5K authentic moog is a (very very good) working mans instrument. An Authentic CS-80 can fetch $100K, and thats just the shit that gets listed in Reverb instead of the higher end auction houses. An Emerson Moog Modular can fetch $150K, and I dont even want to speculate on what am EMS Synthi 100 would set you back. $5K is within reach of a working musician whos prepared to eat rice for a month*. The real big boys are for rich dudes only, not musicians. *And then continue eating rice to finance maintaining the damn thing
@@shayneoneill1506 $5k in the abstract isn’t that much for a professional musician. However, when we’re talking keyboard monosynths specifically, there’s a lot of options at least as good or better at a lower price point, such as the pro 3 or Moog’s own Sub 37. Not to mention all the desktop synth + midi keyboard options. It’s something you buy for the collector value, if you want the most value for a gig you’ll get something with presets.
You are completely right. But those are different markets. Behringer serves musicians who want the sound and feel of the Minimoog and Moog simply wanted to sell to collectors (who would buy this as an investment). I have NO pity for those.
I had the opportunity in March 2023 to visit Moog's factory, do a tour, have conversations with their employees, etc. As someone who is a big proponent of buying small & local, I was very pleasantly surprised and encouraged by Moog's dedication to locally sourcing their materials and hand assembling their products right here in the good old US of A. Everyone who worked in the store or the factory seemed very happy with their jobs and really believed in the products they were making. This acquisition was, putting it very lightly, disappointing.
Locally sourcing? What the wood they use in their panels? Their parts and boards are manufactured in China. Hence Moog threatening to leave the US when Trump was imposing tariffs on China, causing Moog's manufacturing costs to go up.
This probably isn't a popular opinion, but I wonder if that's just a symptom of the company running its course. The American business model doesn't really have a concept of a useful lifespan. You're supposed to become a successful business, and then grow until you consume all the matter in the universe, at which point you're supposed to identify alternate universes in which to expand. It's a failure to stay the same size, or even shrink to accommodate the dwindling ongoing demand of a saturated market. But you're "selling out" if you stray too far from the market you're known for. Is Moog ever going to be the DAW vendor of choice? Make microphones? Sell a custom drum shell line? Nah, they're the analog synth guys. But, like Benn has pointed out, who needs a physical analog synth in 2023? Not enough people to sustain the consumption of all the matter in the universe...
@@nickwallette6201 it’s a valid opinion. They are luxury items. They can be sold and retain value as well with the right timing. A smart company would build up big enough to sell and get out while a profit can be made. A good startup is lucky to make year 5 before selling.
The thing with Behringer copying Moog is that Moog today is not the same Moog company of yesteryear, creator of the Model D or the Moog Modular. That company declared bankruptcy and died in 87. In 2002 Bob Moog got the trademark back for the release of an updated Minimoog, the Minimoog Voyager. So in a sense, the Model D is not ripping off an existing company. It's ripping off a long defunct one. If anything it's not a counterfeit, it's a replica. The same as the newer Model D synths under the Moog Music brand. Also FYI, I own a Voyager, Prophet 6 and the only Behringer stuff I have is a pair of speakers (which have actually oulasted most of my non-synth gear).
"Counterfeit" is a little too inflammatory a term. Behringer isn't slapping fake Moog badges on their Model Ds like fake Air Jordans, like a real counterfiet (lol, "real counterfeit"). One can dislike Behringer's ethics and that's fine, but "clone" or "replica" is really more accurate here.
I find it interesting that he spent so much time bitching about Behringer but never actually said why Moog got bought out. Moog was struggling with supply chain issues, they simply couldn't get the parts to make their synths, and the tariffs were killing them. InMusic is able to get those parts cheaply and manufacture cheaply, so manufacturing moved overseas. These issues weren't new either, they go all the way back to when Trump started his trade war, which drastically increased the cost of electronics. Also as Benn said that hardware synths are luxury items and there are loads of software synths that can mimic them near perfectly. So if Behringer wasn't making clones and people were just going after the cheaper software synths, Moog would still be in the exact same place it is now. Competition amongst music hardware manufacturers is tough is tough as there are simply so many options. Moog isn't the only synth manufacturer out there, there's plenty making similar products, and software synths have gotten very good and are very cheap.
Thank you for mentioning the tariffs. It's spooky that tariffs on Chinese imports was marketed by US Govt as a tax paid by Chinese manufacturers when it is a tax paid by American importers and consumers, putting more pressure on US manufacturers that need to import parts.
"So if Behringer wasn't making clones and people were just going after the cheaper software synths, Moog would still be in the exact same place it is now." you do realize there was a hardware renaissance? interest > increased production taking a risk is different for a behemoth company
And ironic that tariffs were imposed after a Section 301 investigation found that China was misappropriating U.S. intellectual property and coercing U.S. companies to transfer sensitive technology
Trump or the pandemic... You seriously can't think tariffs killed a company when the grey market is making it so they have 40+% margins They could always raise the price, what happened is someone wanted to cash out and not want to continue the business Trump didn't do nothing it's just a business person throwing in the towel for the highest payout, I've been to moogseum and those people aren't the same They've been playing a fools game since they didn't have the rigor to keep up with modern business they just wanted a quick cash out. They couldn't even pay people for their own event like five years ago they just don't get how money works and want more
Don't get me wrong, I love Moog's ethos, but it has to be said that their public face was a bit misleading. They advertised themselves as an employee-owned company that hand-built everything in the US. But in reality, their employees owned less than 50% of the company, so when push came to shove, management could still sell the company out from under the employee-owners. And secondly, I'm pretty sure the actual PCBs they used were made in China or outside the US. Their gear was then assembled in the US. So, it's not entirely true that they "made everything" in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my understanding.
I respectfully disagree. Even if both points are valid (and I think they are) the conclusion is not correct here. 1) Even less than 50%, Moog was still employee owned. If you own 49% of company you are still legally responsible for that company as one of the owners. 2) It's common practice that some elements of the product in electronic industry are mass-manufactured elsewhere, it does not make the final product less hand made and less US. Nobody is expecting you to melt your own copper or etch your own PCBs.
1 Behringer sale does not equal one less Moog sale. In most cases, the people who can’t afford a Moog aren’t going to buy a Moog. The money may go to Behringer for a knock-off, sure, but it was never going to Moog in the first place. The budget market & premium market coexist but are not the same.
Incorrect. 100 Behringer sales do not equal 100 less Moog sales. But one Behringer sale may equal one less Moog sale. The argument that everyone falls in exactly one of two categories is an oversimplification. Not every Behringer purchaser can't afford a Moog; some simply don't want to. I get why people buy knockoffs. I've bought some knockoffs of things (not synths), but I also have the decency to admit that it's at least a somewhat crappy thing to do.
I think some people who have purchased a behringer are a potential Moog customer, but not everyone of them. Another thing that doesn't get mentioned often, how many brands have ripped off of Fender? How many brands make Strat, Tele, P Bass and Jazz bass instruments, with the exact same shape, dimensions, materials, pickup configurations, etc. Where is the outrage there? I mean, I'm not defending Behringer. The corporate bullying and misinformation as Benn talks about here is spot on, and why I don't think I'll ever be able to buy behringer products ever again, or at least for the foreseeable future. But it's not exactly like behringer is the first company to copy someone else's designs identically. I'm a bass player first and synth player second. And for the same money, more than a few brands make better P and Jazz bass instruments than fender does.
If Behringer really was the main reason Moog went out of business. I find it very strange that most vintage synths Behringer make a cheap version of, only got more and more expensive in the second hand vintage market. Vintage synthesizers i bought 20 years ago are now 10 times more expensive to buy second hand. Even whilst Behringer did their cheaper version of it
That is, because they often sell for a lot less than their price tag, and because there are some people who buy them not to make music but to sell them at a higher price, or just to collect them. There are also psychological factors in play, like old guys like me who had some gear back in the day, which they sold cheap and want it back (I had MS-20 and TR-808, and I wanted, but I didn't rebuy them). Or people who plan a career as influencer and buy some vintage gear to earn the respect of their audience. So, in conclusion, the vintage market is another realm and has not much to do with instruments that are actually bought to work with. But that doesn't say that without Behringer clones vintage gear wouldn't be even more expensive than it is now...
“ I find it very strange that most vintage synths Behringer make a cheap version of, only got more and more expensive in the second hand vintage market” You didn’t just suggest that Behringer helped create a buzz resulting in rising prices, did you?
A counterfeit product is one where the manufacturer attempts to fool the buyer into believing it's an "original". Behringer doesn't do that. There is no attempt to hide the Behringer name. There are many adjectives [some deservedly derogatory) to describe Behringer's unoriginal products, but "counterfeit" isn't one of them.
This video is a prime example of the expression «pulling the ladder up behind you». It shows complete lack of perspective beyond how far you can see with your own eyes, disregarding everyone who cannot afford a «premium» product as simply not worthy of having one, and should therefore not get it or the feeling of owning one in any other variation at all (the fake Jordan stab at 7:47). People with economical challenges and people from developing countries should simply just «drink water» if they cannot afford a Coca Cola. It gives you everything you need, just not what you want, while the people who have never had to face such challenges can enjoy their premium products in peace on top of the ladder.
Interesting. Benn states Behringer was going to produce a racist anti semantic product, then continues his op-ed by calling Behringer's products "Ghetto ass".
@@AFuturePresentation the amount of elitism and hypocricy throughout this video is unheard of. It’s a sobering reminder of the importance of the dislike button. Biased videos like this would have a hard time surviving a few years back.
@@robinwindsrygg9568 Seriously. We could go on for days with all the issues here. We're better off finding joy in the things we love... Like making music!
@@AFuturePresentation thank you. And he did word it as such to say it's one of the reasons, only to go on and (at 9:48) say that "the number one reason" is because he already featured mutable modules. Racism was a side note if nothing else mattered to a viewer. Neglecting that large companies have dedicated marketing teams responsible for what's put out. But somehow entire company is racist.
Dont agree Behringer is the main cause of Moogs demise as I dont believe a Boog Model E is a competing product to a hand made Moog Model E. I mean Gibson still sells plenty of premium guitars despite decades if cheap Chibson counterfeits.
wood has more mojo, and guitarists have a greater romantics/pragmatists ratio PS and Im going on a limb here, but if all the nice woods in the world came from china, Gibson and Fender would be done for
Interesting you bring up the 'Chibson' counterfeits. They are designed to fool customers into thinking they're the real deal, which Behringer clearly don't do. Not that I wish to defend Behringer - I think their company practices are trash - but counterfeit was an inaccurate word to use in my opinion. I preferred "flee-market" version, that made me laugh!
As an economist and a synth nerd one thing I really didn’t understand about moog is that they didn’t ask their customer what kind of products they were looking for.They had all of our email addresses. I will certainly register a product that cost $1000 or more. I currently have a very expensive moog synthesizer and I’ve had half a dozen or so over the years. When the subsequent 25 came out I asked why they didn’t make a rack version. There are a lot of people that agreed with me.I also saw somebody else mention why they made the sirin a limited edition and got thousands of thumbs up. A lot of people want a rack mounted moog synthesizer that could store presets. I truly didn’t mind the prices of moog synthesizers because I thought they were very well-made and sound fantastic. The thing that bothers me is that they didn’t listen to their customers needs. They said this is what we are making and if you don’t like it then don’t buy it. Whether you like Behringer or not the idea of asking customers what they want is a very practical way to stay in business.
they asked ppl snd they said we just want tons of clones of old school synths? i think i’d take their program or not caring what ppl want over that. sorry to oversimplify here though. also roland is weird like that. not listening. but i’m not familiar w all of contemporary moog. it’s too classy for me.
@@chinmeysway yes, actually I did say that. I said I want something that is affordable and at least somewhat as good as Moog. I can't afford Moog but I want a synth like theirs. Why shouldn't I be able to get something similar. Small or big business are not owed our loyalty or our money. I'll take it to whoever is willing to provide me what I need. Granted, I didn't know about antisemitism. Which can be fixed. Fire those that came up with the idea. They are a big company. They have a dedicated marketing team that is responsible for that.
I've never worked in the synth world, but I did work for a high end HiFi manufacturer. Very similar to Moog in terms of how the business worked, they manufacture entirely here in the UK and has many many worldwide enthusiasts. My previous employer is (I believe still) the largest independent employer of engineers in the country outside the military. In fact, virtually all the engineers that leave go get jobs in the defense industry. My take on your comment is listening to customers isn't what a boutique maker does. Hear me out! They work within the sphere of "build the thing the customer doesn't even know they want yet". If they didn't make the thing the customer wanted (and I get it, your rack mount Sub 25 isn't a reach) they've already missed the boat. During my time there I was doing what you're talking about saying: "guys, you need to make this particular thing. If you do you'll sell thousands upon thousands". It was the HiFi equivalent of making something rack mountable. It should've been easy. It was not. It took so much more work than I (and the business) expected. All the engineers hated the project because they weren't getting to come up with cool new ways to get cool new things for customers. They were just solving an arbitrary problem. This is at the core of why companies like Moog (and my former employer) work the way they do. What makes the products exciting is they come up with things that you'd never think of. The minute customers think it's a good idea it becomes pedestrian. Granted, this was compounded by the fact that some very specific surface mount components our supplier had been bought out of those components 7 years into the future by Tesla which required an entire board redesign which caused carnage and it was leeching engineering time away from the big sexy exciting projects. That product eventually got released. A product I had been told time after time after time that we'd have thousands of people queuing up to buy it. It sold poorly. Satisfying niche but loud enthusiasts doesn't work for companies like Moog, it doesn't pay the bills and doesn't do much for your product line and reputation.
@@ewanmatheson4235 That does make a lot of sense and you do want your engineers to be excited about the job they're doing. They will put a lot more effort into it and it will be a better product in the end. That being said moog already made the sirin. In the synthesizer world a desktop synthesizer that can be converted to a rack mount synthesizer is obviously the best choice. They sold a lot of minotaurs but for some reason did not want to sell the sirin as a regular product. The Sirin sold out very quickly and the demand for it was huge. It was pretty easy to see that because it was back ordered with pretty much every company that sold music equipment. The funny part is is that now Moog is making a new polyphonic synthesizer with presets that has been leaked and I guarantee you it is a lot cheaper than the $6,000 moog one. It's not that a few people said a few things in the forums. There have been numerous articles and thousands of postings about how people would buy a polyphonic Moog with presets. In today's world a lot of small companies use social media like Facebook and UA-cam to put out surveys to try to understand the demand for products. While putting something out for a few people that email you is probably a bad idea. Doing your own market research through social media is not a bad idea. If they had put out a survey on whether or not people would have liked the Mavis or a reissue of the Sirin, I can almost guarantee you that people would have voted for the Sirin overwhelmingly.
As someone that manufactures high end audio equipment and does so here in the USA, I have some insight into all of this. First off, the cost of compliance in the USA is simply unbelievable. California, for example, passes about ~1200 new laws per year and most of them are business related. The pandemic also made a mess of things here in the USA as the government can decide who and what is "essential". Worse still, sanctions against Russia threatens my business as we still make items out of vacuum tubes and Russia is our #1 supplier. As we continue to move into the future, the majority of fabrication of our products will move to Asia - not because we want to but because we have to. Feel free to have me on your show and I'd love to talk to you about it as much as you want. I'll break it all down for you.
It might be that a VST has to be coded from scratch, whereas a synth can just be reverse-engineered and re-manufactured. I've got a long out-of-print effects pedal that I've disassembled, photographed the top and bottom of the PCB, traced out in a paint program, created a schematic for, and designed my own PCB. It was a couple evenings of work. It would take me a lot longer to replicate that in code. (Admittedly, DSP is not my strong suit. Maybe it's easier for someone who has a library of filters and waveform generators already written.) Now, if a VST's code was somehow acquired, and then another company published a clone of that software, we could have the same conversation about ethics, but purely in the software space.
@@nickwallette6201that makes no sense. The ultimate product is the sound. Not necessarily whether it's produced by hardware or software. The main thing is they are different markets, whether the purchaser has the assets to be able to spend 5000 bucks on a premium product without it hurting them. If not then they will likely spend five percent of that on something that sounds just the same and be just as happy. Or spend even less on software and put up with it. I remember when Rover was bought by BMW. They still make the Mini, but it's nothing like it used to be. It's a much better made, bigger and more luxurious car. The Ford Jaguar however 😉 What I'm saying is that this happens all the time and people have to deal with it. Time will tell, but I think the Moog name will go on and on and hopefully there will be better products delivered by them.
@@TheDavidPoole I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. The OP asks, "why is it OK for software vendors to produce a VST that emulates the function of a given specific hardware synth, but it's not OK for another hardware manufacturer to do that?" I say, it's different because the software vendor is creating a whole new product from scratch. You can't just copy the schematics into your dev environment and compile a VST. (Yet.) So there's a significant level of effort required to generate that software product. It doesn't take as much effort to simply clone a hardware design, since the "source code" of an analog device is right there in the box for all to see. It feels cheap to profit off the back of someone else's development effort. If you have to put in all that effort yourself to shift the product from physical to virtual, then you kinda earn the right. Or that's how I see it, anyway. You may not be able to call it "A Moog" but you can get the point across with clever wordplay and graphic design. None of this has anything to do with the consumer's role in the transaction. The consumer has to choose what they can afford, what is available to them, and what inspires them to make music. That calculus yields different results for everyone.
The more I think about this, the more I think that you can’t really blame Behringer here. Look at nearly any of Moog’s products, and it isn’t hard to find a less expensive option with more features from a company that isn’t Behringer. (And it isn’t like Subharmonicons are selling in great numbers without any competition.)
" it isn’t hard to find a less expensive option with more features from a company that isn’t Behringer. " but it's really really really easy to find one that is. that's the point.
@@brmbkl Still it is pretty far fetched to blame one company's mismanagement on another company. I have mostly Rolands, a few Yamahas, Waldorfs, one Nord, and I have a couple of Behringers, too. Although I think it would have been "interesting" to sometimes have a Minimoog Model D, I would never have bought one. But when a Poly D came up second hand in pristine condition, I thought, well why not, if I don't like it, I can always pass it on. Well, I really like the sound of Poly D and with the added features (sequencer, Juno-like chorus, sequencer, extra osc and more lfo possibilites) it is really great. Counterfeit? No, Benn Jordan does not know what the word means, and this the point where he's anti-fanboyness, although many of his arguments are pretty valid (reseller power, small producers have no negotiation power etc). This is sort-of a clone on a 50 year old design, but with added features and 4-voice polyphony/paraphony. No, Behringer is not the reason for Moog's demise, that's giving Behringer too much credit. Hardware producers of course compete with each other, but so are they doing with software producers, where plugins are getting really good these days. Why does Jordan & co like to blame Behringer, but not other producers and neither software producer? Well, Benn made a video about brand loyalty and confirmation bias... maybe that's the reason?
I don't know, if it weren't for Behringer synths I wouldn't have gotten hooked on analog and modular, which later made me get a few Moog. So the push for me to buy Moog is mainly thanks to Behringer. So I guess depending on which way you want to look at it, you can reach a completely different conclusion.
i live off 10k a year with my social security. there is no way i could even think about owning a moog. i wouldn't be able to make music without cheap behringer kit and i am grateful. this video reeks of gatekeeping and first world elitism. I'm out. Just unsubbed even. never to come back.
If you can't buy a Moog you should get a free VST instead of a Behringer? That is a very elitist and oversimplified way of seeing things. So I guess if I can't afford a Bentley I should walk instead of getting a Toyota?@@mechuniversal
@@Astronomater secondhand is where it at. I have a nice modular, loads of it cheaper than Behringer modular gear and its "like new" . You cant buy it all on day one but over some weeks and months it all comes along at a good price. My Arturia Minibrute was cheaper than a B Model D. Its a myth that B is the only choice if you are on a budget.
Moog killed Moog by selling to a market that was propped up by creators living on the razors edge each paycheck. It was bound to fold when the price was so high and the average buyer had just a few percent inflation rise. Their costs were fixed until a parts shortage and supply chain bottleneck. It was either let go of a ton of staff or sell. They couldn’t just fire a load of employees who were all vested stock owner / employees as they would have to liquidate a ton of stock to pay them out if they need it, (and most likely they would) and that would trigger a stock sell off of larger stakeholders. They should have realized that synths are cool when you are living with friends, living with parents, or independently wealthy. They are not cool at all when you have debt, high inflation, kids, rising rent, rising mortgage rates, and $6 a gallon gas.
@@Sidecutter No. If Moog used a strategy following capitalism, they would have price adjusted their products based off the market, and not a faux perceived value based on their brand name. Moog's competitors were considerably cheaper and provided nearly the same value. Moog's assumption that inflated value is sustainable forever created a false sense of security when forecasting the market. Once they allowed over paid assembly line workers to create a fake union and make unrealistic demands or refuse to work, all while many of those same employees held the leverage of stock ownership, the end of their story was written for them. Capitalism would have caused them to lower prices, lay off over paid workers, streamline processes, and meet consumer demand at a reasonable and measurable market price. Sure some of the 6 figure soldering job holders would have cried about it being not fair, but low skill jobs should only demand lower wages. Also let's not forget the abundance of "what about my needs" hires that would organize walkouts constantly. Employees exist to work in the best interest of the company, not their own personal agendas.
@@Sidecutter Yeah capitalism is an issue, its not an issue when you make a million plus a year . But one day in the future though, it will be for millionaires as they will be drawrfed by Trillionairs . So yeah capitalism is an issue.....can you hear the suck?
Behringer is no counterfeiter. He built a similar instrument to a keyboard long out of production. He ran with the premise. This is business. Poor shaming has nothing to do with it. It is the poor decision to pay more for a brand name. They would not be fake Jordans. They are real Filas.
You missed the part where he said the crave was a clone and the model D was a counterfeit. Behringer built a similar instrument and branded it the exact same way. Trading off the moog name, That isn’t “ business” that’s copy right infringement. They are trying to pass their product off as the exact same thing. The Crave would be a fila. The model D is a counterfeit air Jordan. The brand name is the one that spent all the money on research and development and design. When you off load that to another company and then just copy them the yeah… you can sell an item for much cheaper. When all the people doing the r and d go out of business who does behringer have left to clone?
@@hastyscorpion And you missed the part a little later, when he calls it a "ghetto ass counterfeit version" of a Mother32, contradicting himself after a few minutes.
@@hastyscorpion Patent laws exist to protect new designs for a while to allow a company to make their r&d investment back but patent expires to allow competition to keep the prices reasonable to keep the economy rolling. This is how capitalism works.
It’s sad to see the name Moog fade, but maybe it’s just a name! Even Bob himself had to rebrand for a while as Big Briar, and Dave Smith had to let go of the Sequential Circuits name for a little while. Maybe we might see a new group emerge with former talent from Moog called something like “R.A. Music,” “East Coast Synthesis,” or maybe just “Bob!” I could enjoy enjoy playing a MiniBob synthesizer!
They didn't have to "let go" venture capitalists took them over and relegated them to virtual mailroom duties. There are already former Moog engineers who have formed their own companies: Asheville Music Tools, and Make Noise.
I don't know how much I can say, but Cyril's (was chief engineer) over at Rhodes now, I spoke to him about making synths at Rhodes, and he said there wouldn't be any conflict. Think he's focused on delivering the new Rhodes keyboard, but you never know; there could be some bonkers new electro-acoustic shenanigans bubbling up somewhere :P
Cyril, like many other folks, left awhile ago. Dunnington is still there last I heard, and I regularly speak with a number of former enployees.@@MouldySoul
@@RhythmiconsMoog shareholders (including employee shareholders) decided to sell their stock to a competitor (not venture capitalists) because they were offered a high price. That price was high only because InMusic expected to make a bigger profit than Moog would have made by continuing to run Moog the same way. Now we see how InMusic planned to achieve that profit - it wasn't through selling more instruments that won in the market by simply being better designed. It was by cutting costs.
Where the Model D is concerned, people who buy a Behringer as their primary synth probably wouldn't buy a Moog to begin with. Just the same as if the people who are buying a $5000,- Model D reissue or a Modular reissue most likely won't be buying a $300,- Behringer. Those prices are just too far apart. They are catering to different markets. When it comes to the DFAM and Mother 32 vs Edge and Crave, maybe those sales might have hurt Moog a bit. As those markets do overlap a little bit. From what I've been reading, it seems like the circuit boards with surface mount components for Moog products were already being produced outside of the USA. Then shipped to Asheville where it was assembled into a synth. If that's true, then Ben's argument of people working in factories not giving a crap leading to mediocre quality would presumably be equally true for Moog lower tier synths such as the DFAM and Mother 32. Obviously that doesn't apply to Moog's premium "through-hole components"-products such as their Model-D and Modular reissues. As they are no doubt built by hand and soldered together in their American workshop.
People that say "Don't finance music gear" are people that have money. If your retired, on fixed income or just starting out you have to finance the gear. I've financed everything in my home studio. No shame. No regrets.
Eh ***k this clown and his horse blind act. You play WHATEVER YOU WANT. PROBABLY BEST TO STOP LISTENING TO ALL CHODES MAKING VIDEOS FOR CLICKS AND MAKE MUSIC INSTEAD. None of this clown's sentiment means jack squat today
Exactly, my biggest purchase was back in the '90s, it was a flight-cased E-mu sampler with a SCSI HD bought on 0% credit for around £2200, that's around £5.7k in 2023 money. I worked a reasonably low-paid, but secure position at IBM. At the time I would've never been able to afford a sampler that good if I'd simply saved up. I also didn't have friends or family that would've been willing or capable of lending me the money. It took 18 months to pay off and has given me over 28 years of use and enjoyment. At the time I had cheap musical instrument insurance, so I put an ad in my local classifieds, and at the weekends I'd hire out the sampler and my services as a hobby to small recording studios in exchange for stuff I didn't have access to like recording live drums, CD burning or whatever money they could afford, pretty good deal if you ask me.
@@Rr0gu3_5uture That is awesome! I bought equipment back in the early 90's from a local music store, don't even remember the interest rates, I bought a Roland U20 keyboard, a Roland R5 drum machine, Ensoniq EPS -16 sampler, ans varios effects processors.and computers.... Paid everything off, then I sold everything because I was getting married and having a baby. Two years later got divorced. Wish I had never sold any of my music stuff. I'm medically retired now. I've rebuilt my home studio with cool stuff, alot better then what I had, all bought thru Zzounds and Reverb mostly 0% interest. I have plans to buy a $2500 keyboard around the first of next year. No way I could buy stuff outright, unless it is a local FB marketplace purchase of $50 or so. 👍
Hi Benn, I’m hoping you’re considering doing a video about the recent mass layoffs of Bandcamp. I find you do a much better job of giving context into these sorts of important events in the music industry than what I tend to read in the standard music press. This video is a good example, as well as several you have done in the past that focus on M&A in the music industry. Thanks!
I suspect that the people who bought the Behringer Model D wouldn’t be able to buy the official Moog products, so the issue there more lies with the global financial situation of the people / clientele who normally would be able to afford a 5K luxury product. They (Moogs target audience) no longer have the disposable income or simply elect not to purchase Moog products, instead going for other luxury synth items, which makes sense as there is more competition in that market now. So when it comes to Behringer, It’s different target audiences. If the knock off situation were to be as you said, then LV etc would be bankrupt. I do not think Behringer is at fault for Moog having financial issues because they replicated certain designs. Moog as a brand however has declined, with the rise of more effective luxury brands in the same market sector ie The Super 6, Elektron stuff etc. This entire situation is Moogs own fault. They had a strong brand and legacy (giving them all the marketing advantages of that) but they didn’t step up to a level that challenged other companies.
mostly you're right but you can buy a Moog Mavis for the price of the boog; and the desktop line (mother 32) is about twice the price of Behringer; not ten times so it's not outrageous either. I think it's more nuanced.
I don't share your view and I am surprised you didn't mention ARP, Sequential and Oberheim, because Moog problems were the same as the other GREAT THREE before they went under also. One can NOT have a profitable business forever, based on SINGLE wonder product from the past! It pisses me off when business are deityfied because they carry inventor's name or are synonymously identified with their founders. Pearlman, Oberheim, Smith and Moog were GREAT inventors - but they were not great businessmen. Moog Music as a business was not a knight in shining armour it is often romantisized to be, and it wasn't because of some distributor or a Swiss army knife with a factory in China. Moog Music is a business dinosaur and it should consider itself lucky to last this long. If anything, it is a tragedy that the idea, which set the standard for what we today think of as subtractive synthesis, was enveloped in some retarded ideology dictating that products had to be hand soldered like it's 1969. Think about it: Minimoog went on sale in 1970 for $1500(?). It would have been over 6 years prior to Apple 1 being produced by two young guys in their parents' garage and sold for $666.66. Today Apple Inc is worth over 1 TRILLION $$. And where's Moog?? Soaking up sadness from youtubers bithcing about some water and DIY guy from Switzerland? Uhm... yeah.
Earlier this year I bought a Matriarch as my first synth (that's not a VST lol) and ever since then I've only come to love that decision more and more. Glad to be able to have gotten a Moog before shit hits the fan. I'm gonna treasure it forever.
"Mike's decision to sell Moog was influenced by his advanced age and serious mistakes made on the supply chain side. The company had purchased excessive inventory, leading to significant cashflow constraints." What does that mean, too many PCBs were ordered in China, sales expectations were too high. This could particularly affect the One, possibly the main reason for the bankruptcy. Wasn't it the same thing with memory moog and norlin, dejavue?
Exactly, they made exactly the same mistake twice: developing a hugely expensive synth without having a market for it . The memorymoog was a flop, just like the source back then ( I bought a source ) and so is the moog one. Nobody in his right mind will pay 10k for a rather limited synth, with all the competition around from vst’s lower priced complex synths like Waldorf quantum etc. Also the whole business ignores that young people just see music as one of a thousand possibilities to spend their time and money on. 40 years ago that was different . Then also , plain venture capitalism is the real problem in many sectors, not just the music sector. These huge venture ( vampire) capitalists just buy companies like candy, in order to finish off the competition , whether it’s in electronics, clothing, food or any other business. It’s this extreme form of capitalism that is guilty for companies like moog going bankrupt in the end
Moog killed Moog. If you don't evolve with the times, someone who does will buy you out - unless you've become so obsolete even your name has become worthless. A lot of people who fight for the "originals" tend to be very similar to art owners. If it's not a Picasso, it has no value and if it has no value, it has no right to exist. A kid that draws a horse, well that's worthless but look at this misfigured piece of shit drawn by an adult man 50 years ago, this is the holy piece of art worth $100mil even if it doesn't even look like a horse. Now, I do agree on the naming of the devices to make them appear something they're not. It's as pointless and stupid as is claiming that the other manufacturers with the capability to produce devices cheaper and in quantity are the reason Moog is dead. Based on your logic, everything past the first version of the device is a clone, counterfeit and the manufacturer is a thief. So up yours, manufacturers stealing from the guy who came up with the shirt. The wheel. The fire.
Indeed, every bolt-on neck guitar that doesn't have Fender on the headstock must be a counterfeit Fender. All those Tubescreamer clones out there... NO WAIT I don't like them so I'll call them cheap counterfeits.
“ other manufacturers with the capability to produce devices cheaper and in quantity are the reason Moog is dead.” Copying is easier than creating, we agree on that. “ Based on your logic, everything past the first version of the device is a clone” Benn said that?
I honestly don't think Behringer are the guilty party in this. Do you really imagine someone with the money to buy a $5000 Moog didn't because Behringer brought out the Poly D? Anyone that bought a Poly D was NEVER going to drop 5k on a Moog. I can't imagine Moog lost any customers to Behringer, they're just in two completely different classes.
I know multiple that did, unfortunately. The justification was “I can buy this *and* a bunch of other (list cheap Behringer ripoffs)”. Unfortunately a lot of folks now strive for sheer quantity over quality when it comes to instrument ownership.
compare the poly D with the current Moog catalog, not an outlandlishly priced collector's item. I can get the Moog sound from 300 bucks actually from moog; it's called the Mavis. a Mother 32 is twice that price. then; even from an "ethic" standpoint it doesn't make this much sense getting the clone.
@@valdir7426 if they are the same than a Minimoog, then why a Minimoog costs usd5000?. I do think there is a difference among these products, at least according with what I have been able to check, and I do think Minimoog is probably overpriced (even a poly like Prophet 5 is cheaper).
Reminds me of the acquisition of Rane. A company that before it's buyout and factory closure sent me a ground nut for my mixer all the way to the UK for free, even though I bought it used, just because it was impossible for me to source one. I bought a couple more of their mixers as a result of the good vibes that gave me. Companies that care about customers often get rewarded with loyalty.
The original Minimoog patents expired which is why the current Moog Music (formerly Big Briar Music) and other companies can manufacture Minimoog clones/reissue. In a way, the Minimoog reissue can be considered “counterfeit”, as it was put. Prior to the current Moog Music, there was the Moog “Welsh” Minimoog (UK) and Studio Electronics Minimidi (Minimoog clone). Bob was never interested in building the Model D since returning with the Voyager.
The environment was different around 00s though, DSI wasn’t doing even pseudo-reissues of Prophets yet either - they were on the Evolver etc train still. Both companies took their signature sound but applied new digital control and modulation, cos they still wanted to push the envelope just like newer competitors were doing. But Dave Smith did approve Prophet reissues and outright sequels (not new ideas in the same concept like with the X or 08, but a straight-up 6 for the OG 5) later-on, and I would’ve been surprised if Moog wouldn’t have followed suit (had he still been alive). Especially because they were pals, and would’ve been talking about DSI/Sequential’s turnabout on the matter. That’s all just supposition on my part, though. Perhaps I’m biased because I really like the Little Phatty and the Voyager (not that I own either, I have allowed myself exactly one big analogue).
Where is all the outrage over the smd-concept of an Oberheim OBX8, if that makes such a huge difference and then what does that tell us about its price tag compared to the Behringer stuff? When you make counterfeits, you don't use your own brand name for that, you copy everything, also the name of the original company. Hearing Benn talk about the working conditions at Behringer without offering a comparison to any other company seemed rather suspicious but when he talked about how and why they use the song "street life" my bullshit detector completely exploded! Sorry, but that's just laughable, dude...
So terrible to hear that rich audio collectors with upwards of $5000 will no longer be able to buy American made products from Moog! Not sure why American made means good though.
Benn's spent that just on Eurorack Novelties he hardly uses. (Has a video saying so). That include the Behringer Neutron, (used on 15% of patches and wouldn't trade) and 6 months ago exposed it great value.
"Not sure why American made means good though." for one; QC. And it means good, because of the ripple effect. The final product is not the end all and be all. The US didn't make Moog better, Moog made the US better.
Thank you for the info regarding how the big music stores do the 0% financing deals. I had no clue. I am guilty of taking advantage of them from time to time and probably will not anymore going forward.
You aren't guilty of anything. Do you really think Moog has been coerced into this 0% financing cabal like Ben is suggesting? NO! Moog could easily tell them to GTFOH. Notice how he qualifies this by saying he asked a 'small pedal company' about this arrangement. A small pedal company Moog is not. You shouldn't feel guilty. The only person who should feel guilty about this upload is Ben.
They mark up the product by the financing amount, or get a discount from the manufacturer to offset the financing charges. Sweetwater is a 1.5B company owned by an equity firm, they're not going to let a much smaller company (Behringer) force them into money losing deals.
Not to defend Berhinger, but how are those counterfeits instead of clones if nearly ever non-IBM MS-DOS PC prior to either the Compaq386 or the IBM PS-2 series were clones? Those looked identical to the IBM PC including cloning the IBM Model M keyboard layout which was not the standard prior to the IBM PC. That would have been either the VT-100 or the IBM 3720. The Hercules graphics card even duplicated errors in the IBM monochrome graphics card, continuing a tradition dating back to Amdahl's mainframes that implemented the S/360 instruction set with the "it's not a bug it's a feature". So, while I get your complaint I not sure synths are more like sneakers than computers. And if they are, why is it the sound that isn't what is counterfeit not the look of the case. After all, Harley owns a trademark on the sound of a HD engine requiring other V-2 motorcycles to sound different. And if it is the sound, why aren't virtual versions counterfeits as well?
The level of self-delusion on here is incredible and another embarrassing testament to the collapse of critical thinking of this era. I suggest everyone get a copy of noted composer Albert Glinsky's book on the history of Bob Moog's role in the technical innovation of the analog synth as a real musical instrument--a tool--dispels nearly every single comment in this clip and in the comments here, all of them as pitiful as some old man insisting that using a 1928 Stanley hammer because, man, my great-grandfather and father used one...
Coming from the guitar community, I always find curious those kind of comments like "You don't really need that analog gear, there is a plugin you can use instead". A few days ago, a saw a video of another synth musician who explained he sold his moog studio because "it took too much sonic space". I'm not saying he was wrong, the thing just didn't fit in the sound he was looking for, but to me that comment sounded like: "I had to sell my marshall amp because it sounded too big and awesome. Now I prefer to use this amp simulator I downloaded, so now I only ask the sound guy to connect my laptop to the console and I'm ready to go..." With that customer mindset, what is surprising is that moog hadn't died earlier. Again, I'm not saying that there is any thing wrong with that thinking, but I think the biggest factor that keeps alive those legendary guitar companies, is the hype around "The Tone", that doesn't seem to be as important for the synths enthusiasts.
Hello Guitar Community! What people don't realize is that there's an organic element to the electric guitar tone/vibe. The strings, pickups, cable, amp (tube/no tube), speaker(s); and if those speakers(s) are in an open vs closed back cabinet - all work together to make the sound. Changing any of those parts will change the sound. The early synths were similar in that they needed to be tuned, were affected by the weather, and basically fussy. Check out the live recordings of Genesis in the early days: the Mellotron had pitch fluctuations that give it a certain feel. "You don't really need that analog gear, there is a plugin you can use instead" "You don't really need that "irrational" woman, there's a blow up doll and AI generated moaning you use instead"
Some synth people definitely think a certain type of filter (VCF) sounds better than others, and will pay extra for a real analogue version if they care enough. But the biggest difference is we care about the circuit topology more than the badge - there’s plenty of excellent ladder filters that aren’t made by Moog now the patent’s expired. That’s not _completely_ unheard of in the guitar space, a lot of people like G&L’s pickups better than any new “Fender” and sometimes even better than the vintage Fender pickups. But it’s definitely _rarer_ in the guitar community - there’s a handful of well-regarded other makes, even those who mostly clone Leo Fender or Gibson designs, but almost all of the well-regarded marques ones cost even more. Whereas with synths it’s more like guitar _pedals,_ so long as they’re using good components and the right circuit you won’t mind (usually, as a musician rather than a collector) who actually made the pedal if it sounds right (especially if it’s a generic circuit design like fuzz or a BBD implementation). You might pay a little extra to support a hand made one or an extensively tested one, but when the results are the same you’ll probably pick the cheaper modern pedal rather than an original from the 70s or 80s.
I don't doubt Behringer had a big impact on what happened to Moog, but before you went on the Behringer attack/rant, I was hoping you would talk about the Moog One and the possibility of that synth also playing a major role in their downfall. I remember being really excited when they announced that synth, and checking all the demos I could find, and almost immediately being incredibly disappointed by what I was hearing. Even big name artists, like those in their Moog One marketing videos could not make that thing sound impressive or characterful. Hence, and especially at the price they were asking, I rapidly lost interest and I'm STILL yet to hear anyone make that synth sound anything but bland (actually, Lisa Bella Donna did some cool stuff with it, but that has more to do with her rather than the synth). In fact, I rarely come across anyone talking about or using the Moog One. I imagine they didn't sell very well, but I don't know for sure (I know it had some teething issues also), it just seems that way and if so, it makes me curious as to what that synth cost the company.
I'm also sceptical that Behringer would have a big impact on Moog. I mean someone that would buy a Poly D was NEVER going to fork out for a $5000 reissue. Moog and a lot of the upper end synths that Behringer rip off might as well be made out of unobtanium for most people. I feel like a lot of the Behringer stuff is there to give people a hardware option for what would have almost definitely been a software purchase. I'm not a fan of Behringer's ethics but they might not be the guilty party here.
Opinions! Which part is laughable to you? If you own a Moog One and disagree/think it's an awesome synth, then I'm happy for you. I'm not here to try and convince anyone to agree with my opinion. Besides, it's not really important what we think of the synth. But it could be important as to what effect the cost of the synth had on the company if any.@@rhythmsofprescott
When the other guy on the basketball court ends up kicking your ass, trying to make fun of his fake air jordans while wearing originals still won't do you any good, will it?
About Zero Percent Financing: From my personal experience, I didn’t come from a well off family and had tons of debt from college and other mishaps in my life. Without that financing (which I’ve been doing through Zzounds & Sweetwater for decades) I would’ve never been able to acquire any of the gear I have, hardware or software. Through buying my gear like this and paying it off before time I have been able to increase my score substantially. It was a tool that I used that killed 2 birds with one stone. Some of us love to make music and have wild ideas but do not have the financial support to do so. That being said, I’ve never bought any knock offs or counterfeits. No matter how well the build I just don’t think that’s fair to Moog or any boutique manufacturer.
I believe if you’re paying it off early the manufacturer sees more of the money too, if I’m interpreting the “manufacturer covers the actual interest” part correctly.
Where do you stand on the Studio Electronics MiniMoog, which is half the price of the Moog, but without a keyboard, or Rolands collaboration with'Studio Electronics with an affordable desktop clone. Or is it just Behringer who can't make one?
They killed them self, their synths after the SUB 37 where not special enough for the bigger public. The only synth I was adoring, but couldn't afford it, the Moog One was out of reach for most people. For me it was the built quality of the Sub Phatty, sticky side panels, wobbly knobs and a unusable filter knop. Couldn't sell it any more, but sold all my other Moog's, even my beloved Voyager.
@@dddayesq5061 I feel the same about their new products, they lost the consumer market and that they still sold their products was because of their fan base.
I see some folks are still crying about Behringer, even though the title is about Moog. TWO FACTS..If Behringer was such a horrible company and complete junk, then how come they sell their products???Next, if they were doing something illegal then how come they have not been shut down? I mean if the moral gatekeepers have facts and documented evidence, then how come they have escaped being placed in prison? Let's just keep it that simple...That's what happened to AMC Pacers, Toshiba computers, and the Beat Thang..they are all gone..Period..
@@neonblack211 It's so sad for any grown man to cry and complain so much yet do NOTHING to change it. It's almost as if they believe if they cry, insult,and yap about the company, they will get scared and run away.
@@michaels8607 this is the first video Benn has done that didn't sit well with me.... even his actual video about Behringer didn't bother me lol, this just felt bizarre
@@neonblack211Here's the thing that gives me clarity..Remember when it was revealed that where they made Jordans was a sweatshop? Remember when Timberland made a comment allegedly, or Tommy Hilfiger made about them and people of color? Remember what Roger Linn said once sampling to make beats became a culture? Did any of that shut down these companies, and don't people still buy the products? Here's my thing, it's my money,i buy what I want,just like he does and no one on UA-cam is the gatekeeper for ethics/morals..If you didnt buy it with your money,it's not your business. Having a creator's pinion on UA-cam does not make you deity that we should follow..
Seriously? The modern Moog company has nothing to do with Bob Moog. The company has changed hands multiple times over decades. By your reasoning, the Minimoog re-issue is also a counterfeit. Bob Moog never wanted to make the Minimoog in the first place.
But Bob sold the company and the design of the instruments to that company, not to Behringer... that was his decision to make that he profited off. Behringer deciding to make a fake one does have less to do with him
I have several Moogs and love them. That factory was a complete mess - so inefficient - right out of the 1820's. They had to fix the issue if Moog was going to survive.
All these musicians who hate Behringer yet use Apple products. 🤔 My first Moog experience with Moog was having my Sub 37 arrive with parts audibly bouncing around inside it. I sent it back for a new one. The replacement I got had the easily breakable filter shaft due to the materials Moog used. So I had to then send that one out to get the filter shaft replaced. I had an Access Virus TI2 Polar whose motherboard went within a couple of months after buying it. It would emit ear splitting noise randomly where the only way to stop it was unplugging the power. Meanwhile, I've owned several pieces of Behringer gear for years now and have not had a single issue with any of them. 🤷♂️ It's not what people wanna hear, but that has been my experience. So when I hear how Moog is "made in America," I really don't care, especially when it's an American who assembled my synth with parts bouncing around. Also, Moog's parts and boards are still manufactured in China anyway, they're just assembled in the US. That's why Moog was threatening to leave the US when Trump imposed tariffs on China, because it was going to raise their manufacturing costs. And funny how no one mentions Moog's union busting attempts.
I get what you're saying and the thrust of what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but the one small point I wanna say is in an age where devices like smartphones are practically necessities, it's harder to try and ethically consume a product such as an iPhone than a synthesizer.
@@clarkharrell2227 I hear ya, but Apple has done some heinous stuff to its employees. Much, much worse than anything I've heard about Behringer. And it ain't like Moog isn't using Chinese labor for their parts as well.
That’s a frustrating story and I believe you but one data point does not a trend make. I haven’t heard or read that declining QA was a prime contributor to Moog’s demise. I also don’t hear Benn arguing that “made in the USA” equals perfect quality and unequalled support but it does mean more jobs for your friends and neighbours (under comparatively better labor laws, despite efforts to undermine those) which is generally good for your local community.
@@justinmccamish9059 I have heard about Moog's declining quality from others. Benn asked "who killed Moog?" Well, Moog killed Moog. And my Moog synth came with parts bouncing around inside. I'm explaining why being American made or higher priced doesn't always equal quality. I'm certainly less likely to buy another expensive synth from a company when my experience was not good. I don't care if a synth is assembled and calibrated by an American if that's the end result. I'd rather support a company like Dreadbox. Moog's "made in the USA" has a huge asterisk next to it. They rely on parts and boards manufactured in China. Moog being "employee owned" also has a huge asterisk next to it. Their CEO can sell Moog off to whoever he wants and the employees had to fight to unionize in the end. Noticed how the CEO Moog sold the company shortly after employees wanted to unionize. I noticed you ignored my mention of Moog's union busting attempts. People have this nostalgia for old Moog that leads them to act like current Moog are some bastion of all that it is good in the world. When, really, Moog is a shadow of its former self. This focus on Behringer comes off as hypocritical when many musicians use Apple products to make music and is a company way worse than Behringer. Roland also make their products in Chinese factories. Yet Behringer are shamed for it. So yea, it all comes off as highly hypocritical.
I think Moog’s a part of music history so I hate to say it, but the answer to why they died is “Model D costs $5000”. If you take that 40% retailer mark-up off that’s still a $3000 monosynth. Resell prices shouldn’t be your benchmark for market value when those are determined by a revolving door of 500 guys who just sell vintage gear back and forth to each other. Moog could’ve gotten bigger or smaller and did neither. They could’ve developed an affordable product that addressed a market niche and they didn’t. Most people can’t afford to be sentimental about their purchases in any category, and leaning on sentiment for sales is just bad business. Especially when your product is a luxury item that’s as expensive to make as it is to sell.
So the Mavis, the Minitaur, their Euro line, the Grandmother, the Theremini weren't affordably priced? They had products from every price point from software up to their modulars. Furthermore, I don't think 40% is accurate as a markup. A dealer back in the 2000s made about 800 dollars off the Voyager.
And for $5k you can buy a whole lot of synth of another iconic brands... Like, they ended up being just the label. Does Moog One does anything competition costing half the price can't ? And anything below that is pretty much just some fresh paint on old synths.
There are literally a half dozen other products that cost less than 2k from Moog. They went broke because capitalism is shit and entitled consumers complain about synth costing the down on a nice car when the originals cost as-much-or-more than an entire luxury car. Synths are luxury goods. You are not entitled to own a Moog Model D, and any thinking otherwise is grossly out of touch with reality.
If a MAP agreement existed then Moog was setting the minimum retail price, obviously at a point where they believed they could be profitable. Two things have happened 1) cost of capital and access to capital has increased drastically as interest rates have risen. 2) Inflation has reduced the availability of disposable income to buy luxury items. Prevailing economic factors are likely why Moog had to sell, why Modal will die or sell, and the potential real-estate upheaval in China may take down MusicTribe.
Behringer products are not counterfeit. They put the name Behringer on it. That makes a whole 9f a difference. You risk being liable for accusation of counterfeit when it is not.
After 25 years with my company and a lucrative promotion I decided to buy myself a brand new BMW . Up to that point it was Honda and VW. Real plain cars that got me from point A to B. No frills just the basics that I needed. It felt so good when I bought it. The first thing that came to mind was the attention that I was going to get. Then I realized something when I pulled in the parking lot. There were like 6 BMW and two were the same model and color as mine parked all in the same area that I usually parked in. I thought, "how will anyone know which one was mine" How do I let them know without sounding like a total douche? I know, someone was bound to see me drive in and will bring it up. That never happened. I know, I will wear the BMW shirt that the dealer gave me as thank you for shopping with them and someone will ask where I got it from. Yeah never happened. Then about 2 months passed and the car broke down leaving me with no car for two weeks. It seems that part that was needed can only come from the factory in Europe. I was given a loaner from the dealership. On the back window was the words " BMW courtesy car" All of sudden, everyone noticed. They wanted to know why I was in that car and when did I buy a BMW. I was ashamed to tell them mine had broke down , I didn't want to hear " Serves you right for buying a BMW" The horror stories I heard from current and previous owners was enough to make me trade mine in at a $10K loss after 4 months of owning it. I went back to Honda. You see , all I wanted to do was be in that ownership club. I really believed that having that car was going to make all the difference . It didn't. I was just another owner of a reputation and prestige that was marketed, created and eventually sold to another person who thought the same thing. Over the decades I have owned a Moog Voyager, Voyager rack. Prodigy and other Moog products. I have sold them all at a loss. Why? Because like my BMW, owning one was not that all that they say it is. They are a dime a dozen, literally. I know this was longwinded but I hope that people see where I was going with this. Companies come and go. Brands fall in and out of favor. Moog is no exception. BTW I was laid off from my company after 33 years. I thought that it could go till then end. We were bought, sold , rebranded and eventually became redundant over the years. Like Moog. I guess I am in a special club after all.
Wow. You should consider being a content creator on UA-cam . I actively read your entire comment, all while seeing where it was gradually leading. I enjoyed reading every word. Seriously, I did. Sorry about the bad times stuff, though. One of the best comments I've read. 👍
See, I on the other hand own a 1996 735i E38 V8 which growls and everyone looks up to see what that is as I start up or just crawl at 1200rpm's.. and as soon as I pull into any parking lot, numerous people men and women start asking questions in awe of this piece of engineering history. Not so much to any of the other new (and about 100x the price haha) BMW's parked around mine. Same could be said about Moogs, and I get a feeling all of these people complaining how moog was replacable easily did not know how to play this tool... now was it too expensive as big screen tv's, mopeds from china, baseball cards etc were all equally or higher in price yet totally unnecessary - if you are really a musician. If you are a hobbyist then fine, but ANY pro in ANY biz pays good money for their go-to tools
There is no "would be" Moog purchaser who settles for buying a Behringer. As great as Moogs sound (and I've owned numerous of them), they're just as much about the brand and mystique as anything else. The large, large portion of folks who buy the Behringer equivalents are likely folks who simply would NEVER be able to justify the Moog price or simply cannot afford it. Frankly, US tariffs are higher than they have been in many years, inflation is up, and UA-cam Synthfluencers are aiding numerous companies with creating a "fast fashion"-like market of electronic instruments. There is a seemingly weekly glut of new releases, and i just don't see how this is ultimately going to work out well for any individual company ultimately. This market is heading toward a collapse, IMO.
I can barely tell the difference between the original D and the Poly D....I love how the Poly D has more features, dedicated LFO, and that awesome octave switch for the keyboard...and...it stays in tune.
Having a limited space for Synth Modules, I have a Model D. I mainly play Hammond Organ, usually using a Clone at Present which allows me to Layer the "D" and other Module with the Organ Tones.
I'm not surprised to be honest. Times, people and technology changed a lot. Moog biggest mistake was not to adapt to it. If a hot-dog costs 90 cent you can't survive by selling it for $20 even if their better. It worked in the past! But not today anymore. And btw... I bought a Mother-32 and after a while I've found out that the cutoff knob was not a high quality original knob. After not even a few months, the knob caused an annoying scratching noise. So the Mother-32 was sent for service... the knob was supposedly replaced.... but this was not the case because after a few months the scratching started again. So I sent it to the service again with a letter from me and the request to please replace the knob with an original high-quality filter knob. This was done finally and since then no problems anymore. So Moog deliberately built inferior filter knobs and on the net you can find many threads about "fixing scratchy filter cutoff knob" from thousands of other affected people. A shame when you consider how much you pay for a Moog synth.
I feel a lot of Moogs appeal is just hype. Expensive and extremely limited. I found Benn's criticisms pretty lacking. He wants to say that Behringer is responsible for killing Moog. Which I just don't believe and he provided no evidence for it. If Crave isn't selling as he suggested then it isn't hurting Moog either. I believe Behringer makes a lot of its money from professional stage equipment and does take losses on its cheap synths, which no one talks about and I need researched. I bought lots of hardware since the pandemic and none of it was Moog. I just don't see them as competitive as the other brands, 1k+ for a mono synth made with parts from Asia isn't appealing when you have opsix, mod wave, monologue, Nord, SH4D, Aira, cobalt , argon, micro/mini freak, motif, etc etc. It's not 1979 anymore and when I order a product made directly from Asia it doesn't have the quality issues Moog has. So I should just give Moog my money because of who they are? Moog dies because of a lot of poor decision making at the top they went out of business in the 80s for a reason. Back then they blamed Japanese companies but overall It's a brand that can't adapt.
@@ChetHanks-eh1mdyou’re right and I don’t see Moog as an innovator, what innovated Moog the last 40 years? It is all the same nothing new the Minimoog comes three times and it has Midi hey what an innovation for 6000€. At this price point it has nothing to do with build quality, it is bad marketing
when you say "knob", you mean "potentiometer", right? Knobs don't have the ability to make your sound "scratchy." If you sent it in saying "my knob is broken" (insert beavis and butthead laughter) they may have just changed the knob, which as stated before, cannot affect the sound of a synth. When you sent it back in, they may have been like, "OHHH this dude meant the pot has issues, not the knob." and fixed the actual problem, which btw, could have been fixed by you with a can of contact cleaner spray, which you should probably keep on hand for regular upkeep if you own any audio equipment with "knobs."
@@ChetHanks-eh1md The Crave has been in the top selling synths on Thomann for months (position 9 as I write this), I thought it was very popular. At least in my country, its price has increased from 120-150 to 200 in one year. It doesn't seem "sold under cost" to me, and just a year ago was difficult to find in stores, so yes, it was "flying off the shelves". In fact, i find funny thinking that the Model D sells and the Crave doesn't just for the likeness (or lack of) with the cloned product front panel. I mean, we're not stupid.
A lot of people hated Moog to be honest It’s the Gibson of synthesizers They rehash the same ideas over and over and over and charge the price of a car for it A machine that uses the same schematic from 1979 should not cost $3500-$5000
Also not to forget the Moog One disaster that the firmware had so many issues that they decided to do a complete rewrite. And Moog , after Bob unfortunately passed away, came only across as arrogant. Also I always had the impression that the Moog family is not particularly happy about how the company was run.
It’s a business. Their goal has always been to maximize profit. They used their brand to overcharge for their products. They sold the company for a huge pile of cash. We need to stop conflating nostalgia with good intentions. They’re the Apple of synths. Their brand is what allows them to charge massive premiums for their products. They tug at your heartstrings to pull more cash from your wallet. There are many companies, manufacturing great products in the US and other places with decent labor laws. They don’t have the name, so they charge reasonable prices and cut a respectable profit. Moog milked their reputation as long as they could, then sold out as fast as they could. Good riddance, embrace the real innovators.
Counter-point: Stuff ain't cheap. Now, first, I'm not a Moog customer. I just don't need their products. So I don't have any first-hand experience with the build quality or complexity therein. But, speaking generally.... It's an interesting exercise to take some device -- any piece of electronics you care to examine -- and attempt to reverse-engineer it, then build your own. Just give it a shot. A Boss guitar pedal from 1985, a mic pre, whatever. Once you've got the the parts identified and made your own schematic from it, you're basically in Moog's position, right? Now. Try to make your own. Go to Digi-Key and Mouser and fill a cart with the parts -- pots, switches, battery clip, XLR connectors, etc. Don't forget the knobs -- those are often more expensive than the pots they're attached to. Then, go grab the design software from Front Panel Express and get a quote for how much it'll cost to manufacture the part you look at. Even for something small, it doesn't take long to bust right through a $3000 budget. Consider how many things you can buy -- things that do quite a bit of a real, productive work -- for less than two hundred bucks. Less than one hundred. Think about what it might've cost them, even with economies of scale, to make that thing, ship it to a distributor, and warranty it, and contemplate how it's possible to sell it with some non-zero profit margin. You read everywhere on the Internet "this should've been $49" as if that assertion was based in some actual analysis. No. It's a race to the bottom, and we're pretty close to the bottom now. Congratulations. Everybody lost. Even the likes of Behringer can't actually sustain the model they've made for themselves.
honestly I missed the day when Behringer was just synonym with "shit audio gear but I'm broke and it's so cheap so let's go for it anyway"; and not "the robin hood of synths" or whatever. It's true there's been an increase in quality since those days even for basic audio gear (mixers and such) but I wish B and Uli would at least now their place.
As a Sweetwater employee, before we sold to private equity, "Do the right thing" was a motto, taking care of a customer over short term profit was the strategy for long term success. Luckily there hasn't been too much turnover and we've been able to keep a lot of that culture, but there's definitely been a push toward more profit-seeking behavior, and I'm sad to see it.
I went to high school very near the Moog factory in Williamsville NY. When they did demos for visiting musicians they would open an overhead door and you could hear the music from the school grounds. My friends and I would sometimes walk over there. One of those times we actually got to see Keith Emerson toying around with one. They were only in that location for a few years and then moved to a much larger facility in an adjoining town. It has since been torn down and replaced by a Walmart.
Oh man. To have seen Bob and Keith noodling around with R&D synths... Thats like accidently spying god and the angels hunched over a blueprint plotting the construction of heaven.
There is still a Moog here in the Buffalo region, Moog Inc. They do aerospace something something. Bob's cousin, I believe was the founder? Often I'll get really excited at the beginning of someone's sentence, then realize they're talking about the "boring" one.
My first ski bindings were made by the Moog you're talking about. I navigated the slopes at Kissing Bridge on theirs ,while listening to the other. Unrelated companies as far as I know. Perhaps they shared a carefully modulated hiss . They did for me.
There are dozens of manufacturers who have copied the minimoog over the years, and most people raised no issues with this, or were supportive. Behringer does it at a budget, and all hell breaks loose. My own feelings are that Moog was just too expensive during a cost of living crisis, and given that their prices were rapidily increasing rather than decreasing in this same period, then this would lead to a perfect storm. Average Joe on a tight budget is not going to shell out £5,000 for a Minimoog, even if the Behringer Model D was not available; they're just going to buy one of the countless other budget monosynths that have a ladder filter and sound broadly like a Minimoog. They can't afford to be snobs. And no, they're not going to turn to software synths, because if that argument was at all valid then everyone would be using free software rather than hardware, and no one would be buying a £5,000 synth, or a £200 one either. And even if the person who could not afford a £5,000 synth did indeed use free software instead of buying a Behringer Model D, then Moog still wouldn't be shifting units, and would still go out of business. So it's hardly Behringer's fault. It all comes down to Moog not being competitive - counting on the elite market which ultimately didn't pay off - and being too slow or reluctant to change. It's the same reason why you are not filming this video on a Nokia phone, and editing it with a Commodore Amiga. Both those firms ulitimately didn't give their customers what they wanted at the right price point, made stupid mistakes, and both went bust. And it's wasn't all rosy at Moog for the workforce either. There were news reports of the staff being treated poorly and underpaid.
What is it with American companies that think their name and products they designed 50 years ago will keep them going! Harley Davison and Gibson spring to mind. Companies need to innovate to survive these days, reputation means nothing if you don’t move forward. Moog could easily done what Behringer did themselves but decided to produce a $5000 reproduction. Why didn’t they outsource production for a product that came in around $300-500 as well as their boutique ones? Guitar companies do it all the time and do very well. You can buy a made in Korea Fender Squier for $400 or a custom shop Fenter USA for $5000. They’d have sold a shed load of cheaper ones and maybe a few less of the expensive ones but they’d have all the money. To me that’d make good business sense but sadly, Moog didn’t think so and caused all their staff to lose their jobs.
That argument about getting a better deal getting VSTs for people that are not willing to spent on overpriced physical monosynths is missing the point on why people are getting Behringer gear. I thought you knew that since you own a lot of physical gear. And as for Behringer being counterfeits? That would have been correct if they were using the same brand name; when they made the Solina, legally they actually acquired the name fair and square. In other cases they use an abbreviated name that alludes to the original name of the product they are trying to recreate like the RD-9 or the Pro-800. It would have been nice if you talked about the small companies that are actually trying to do replicas like DynSync and STEDA Electronics.
I was still working in retail when the 'Chinese wave' hit in the early 2000s and Mackie were complaining about them all the way back then, they sued them for a direct mixing desk clone (8-bus), easily provable because they even copied a circuit mistake, but Mackie still lost in court, we were told they had to move production to China or go out of business. That's nearly 20 years ago it's been there MO from the off.
First, Moog instruments are amazing and I would never part with my Matriarch. I loved that they were small and a co-op, but it wasn't a good business model. Second, Berringer instruments are wonderful and I've owned many. They have a business model that works. Third, InMusic provides great musical instruments and I loved my MPC. They also have a business model that works. Fifth, the same can be said about David Smith and Sequential. So really, we should be thankful there are so many great companies and instruments.
It's ridiculously short-sighted that we've let almost *all* our manufacturing get moved abroad. But to some extent: If you can't beat them, join them. I think every premium Made-in-America brand should create their own outsourced budget alternative. Like Fender and Squier. Because if you don't, someone else will.
I got quite a few Behringer clones and don't regret it one bit, Moog wants to overprice their instruments. I love my flea market moogs and my actual moogs,Safe to say all modulars are a knock off of Moog also....yea. Those Chinese workers made money to support their family....working at that facility doesn't change that...like most everything in your house is china made. Moog should have made better business choices.
This would have happened regardless of Behringer. The new owners are a cold hard acquisition vehicle who's only goal is to maximise profit. You can try and work out what went wrong but the point is, the soul just got ripped out of the instrument
It was not a surprise to anyone but a few romantics who still believed Moog was a small time business. And it was obvious that a bigger corpo will "optimize" things to turn in max profits. Sequential is next.
I think that the horology (wristwatch) term might work better here. Behringer makes both homage (products that hint at the originals) and outright replicas. I think of counterfeit products are ones that are labeled and packaged identically like an original with the express purpose of conning an unsuspecting buyer, like counterfeit shoes.
there have been countless model-D hardware clones over the years. There are a trillion VST clones. The model-D was designed and sold over 60 years ago. Moog should have spent the last few years trying to innovate out of their crisis instead of trying to turn into a boutique style brand charging way over what the instrument was actually worth. There are countless examples of businesses that fail to innovate in a new market. Moog is just the latest. Blaming Behringer for everything is just calling out the boogeyman. I have a Behringer 2600. I paid £450 for it. It was designed and sold 50 years ago. Before Behringer I would have paid over a grand? So should be able to get it a reasonable cost? Or always pay over the odds against the cost of manufacture? I love behrigher and I wont stop buying them just because some rich dude with a studio full of expensive hardware doesn't like it when he realises that he could have gotten half of his studio at a fraction of the price. Also, this guy does have a history with Uri - that's all I'm saying.
You also should not forget that at least older people often bought the gear used at a time when it was not a collector’s item. In the 1990s or even 2000s a lot of vintage gear which is now super expensive was sold for a small price. Now Behringer is filling this gap. Even though I try to avoid them, but more because of their very questionable marketing practice. With the 2600 I could get weak.
@@mudi2000a I have the 2600. It sounds amazing, and I am learning so much about modular synthesis. Just buy it. Don't be swayed by this gaslighting bullshit. It's an amazing synth. And an amazing teaching tool - which was the entire point when it came out. It was supposed to teach people how subtractive synthesis works. And if you can get it for less than £500 - I don't know why we are even arguing at this point. hopefully, we aren't. This whole hating Behringer thing is really getting on my last nerve.
Selling us their name, and not the sound we came to love in the 70s. Modern Moog sound has only a distant resemblance to the rich organic quality it used to have. Ok, they did start to address this, somewhat.
Only the fittest of the fittest shall survive. Hundreds of talentless musicians suffer the loss of Moog, collectors and posers. But only the talented make music with anything at hand.
As someone who has never owned any real good fancy piece of audio equipment, never practiced on well-known, branded electronic music machines (but often made my own), let me say this very important information I am sure everybody was waiting for here, my heartfelt comment: *_“It sucks to see a good name like Moog being left to rot in a ditch for the sake of money”._* There. I ❤ you, Moog.
"Don't finance luxury items" Yeah that's why I buy Behringer products because I can actually afford them. I would LOVE to be able to afford Moog and all these niche companies that send you stuff for free. I still want to be able to enjoy the fun workflow of some hardware before I die so it's either Behringer or bust. This felt like a lot of poor-shaming, company defending, and consumer bashing. Just because you addressed poor-shaming in the video doesn't make what you said NOT poor-shaming.
You don’t need hardware synths. Let’s put a spin on this “I couldn’t afford Prada so I bought Shein” - or you could just realize you want but don’t need a $5k luxury item that is limited edition and the mark of professionals, instead going for their $299 Mavis or just (gasp) waiting.
I don't know how many times I need to emphasize that, regardless of the company or income-level, we don't need the collector's items mentioned in this video to make music.
@@BennJordan Yeah. But they are fun and offer different work flows and creative inspiration. So, it seems like those options should only be available to people who can afford to not finance luxury items.
@@BennJordan but the accessibility that behringer provides goes far beyond just hardware synthesizers. For example, I needed a keyboard amp to be able to go to live gigs. I was looking at a Roland amp, or a behringer one that was identical in specs but several hundred dollars less. I'm not rich, and the amp is something I can use to take with me to gigs to try to make some money. Of course I went with the less expensive behringer option. Not everything behringer clones is a luxury item in the first place. And if the barrier to entry into playing music is so costly that only the privileged can afford to buy the flashy brands and be taken seriously, then frankly, the artform no longer deserves to be called art. Am I a "fan" of Behringer and their business practices? No, certainly not. But I don't stan any corporation under capitalism. There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism, and placing the burden of guilt onto the consumers by telling them they should never buy this brand, or never finance gear is unfair and elitist when there are no other affordable alternatives. If the prerequisite to being allowed to take part in the world of hardware synths is to be rich, then all of the art coming from that space is pay-to-win.
The mic at the end cracked me the fuck up. Thanks Benn for making this type of content. You are literally the only person/creator etc I know of that has the background to comment in an informed way on this stuff. We need to learn about how these systems work on the macro and micro and there is a serious dearth of content that speaks to it. Thanks.
as much as i hate stuff being bought off and made to be manufactured in china i gotta be real my ass couldnt afford a moog product at all and their offerings were way more pricey than equivalent products by other brands, moog is a big brand name, you were in part paying for the label
Yes, but the (tenuous) view of a lot of ppl is that you are paying mostly for a label. But this isn’t fashion apparel. The branding figures way less in price than people think. You pay for the brand, but only in so much that you can view it as a guarante for quality, and a seal of approval in both directions where you know you invested in the future of the company.
Big difference in your cloned iPhone comparison. Clones are general not as good as the orignal; but in the case of Behringer they are often better than the original. Moog made some great gear, but they also made some dumb decisions, like not including MIDI or Reset of DFAM. Expecting customers needs to spend hundreds of dollars to purchase basic features from after-market sellers is kind of inexcusable. Why couldn't Moog make a faithful product at a fraction of the cost but with the features that customers want? If Behringer was able to do that, what prevented Moog from doing it first?
So this was just a Behringer hate video and you're even trying to tell us how to buy things by the end when Moog made a lot of bad business decisions. They were just luxury products, they refused to make anything affordable(I don't care if it's made in the USA, $5000 is way too much for a fucking monophonic synth), they haven't made anything new in god knows how long, they don't even have any digital synths and couldn't even get close to the usability of much better synths by other companies. Someone sold the company out of greed and is probably the reason they were too expensive.
i have a 1950s counterfeit fender bass master tube amp. this has been happening since the inception. and for a nearly 70 year oold counterfeit, it sounds great
Everyone saying Moog is no more need to quit. Moog exists, employees still exist in Asheville. By saying that Moog is no more you are sealing their fate too. Let’s see what inMusic does with the brand. Moog as an employee owned, manufactured in US Company no longer exists, but Moog will continue in some form.
behringer is a great company. You and other detached youtubers forgot that this company innovates the exact same way as it rethinks great classics. I have many original synthesizers and drum machines like a minimoog, 808 303, linndrum and so on, but I am excited when behringer releases a new piece of gear. These guys innovate!! You are just a chatter who doesn´t produce anything people can put their hands on. Shit talking is easy in case you didn´t know, having a solid presence on the world market is not.
I know some insiders in the Moog factory who said sexual misconduct and quiet internal lawsuits was at the core of this whole debacle, nothing else. And Let’s all be brutally honest, Moog was charging quadruple what everyone else was, because they could whore their name out more than anyone else based on their legacy. A lot of bad juju if you ask me.
All of Behringer products are carrying Behringer's logo. I am not sure if a product with a different logo is legally a counterfeit. There is a huge difference between somebody selling a counterfeit Louis Vuitton bag, which has the company's logo and is for the average consumer indistinguishable from the original, and somebody selling a Moog clone, with a slightly different design and a their own company logo on it. Who cares if a musician uses a Moog clone, when the music sounds great? Are these the same people, who would bully a player over his no-name shoes, after he scored the winning points for their favorite team? Was "CorkSniffer" really an anti-Semitic meme? Afaik, Peter Kirn is not Jewish, and the shape of the nose resembles more Pinocchio's as those used in the anti-Semitic propaganda you are comparing it to. I agree with you, that Behringer pulled quite a few questionable actions, and the "CorkSniffer" is right up on that list. Though, somebody has to make music gear for those, who can't afford high priced brand name products. If Behringer does not make clones for this target group, then real counterfeiters will fill the gap with super low quality garbage carrying fake logos of the originals. Is this good for the consumers and the original Brands? No! Companies "copy" from each other in one form or another since forever. Some find loopholes, some license and some win or loose in court over it. You will find similar looking and performing products across various categories. If things are not right, companies can battle this out in court using patents, copyright, trademark laws and so on. I feel bad about Moog's employees and hope that they find new employment quickly. It's unfortunate, that small companies often don't have a fair chance in today's global economy with private equity sharks just waiting to tear them apart by any given chance.
You are being *incredibly* generous to Behringer regarding the corksniffer thing. There is a very clear similarity even if it wasn’t the intent. At the very very least a German company should be extra sensitive to those sort of things and stay far away from that line.
@@hastyscorpion I am very sure that Behringer had no intention to release images which can be perceived as antisemitic. Exactly because some people are super quick to play the Nazi card on Germans whenever they have some disagreement. Yes, Behringer's "Korgsniffer" was absolutely stupid, childish, mean, petty and whatever you want to call it, but antisemitic is super far fetched. As of my knowledge, there is actually no public statement of any Jewish person, who felt offended by Behringer, in this case. Though, people, who seek attention or are just happy about another argument against Behringer, are all over it. What's next? Banning German companies from using the "+" sign on volume buttons, because it's too close to a swastika? Give me a break! It's important to call Behringer out for that what they do wrong, but those, who play the Nazi card at any given occasion, discredit themselves.
Even if im not a big fan of Berhinger, ok i have a Deepmind 12 , but thats not a moog clone but more a roland one. Anyway , my poiint is that we can’t realy blane Berhinger for whats happening to moog, its more that they sticked to a business model that doesnt work anymore in 202x. Even French wine producers came up with a solution to foreign competition which is give the customers what they want, some cheap products along with high end products. As far as i know they didnt try really hard or maybe the mavis, but seems more a reduced version of an highend product at a reduced price that only collectors would buy
Here's the obligatory prerequisite to comment on this video 😂: ua-cam.com/video/HqMMRh3VRT8/v-deo.html
And surely the Behringer ones too ;) Was thinking about this recently when I was playing my (Moog) Grandmother, and about the recent commentary coming out of Behringer and potshots they are taking at people on social media like Loopop. Where they're trying to claim they're some kind of NGO releasing products even below cost. But, it struck me the real reason an expansionist minded behemoth puts things out below cost is the opposite of charitable. It's put such price pressure on their competitors that they disrupt the market and choke competition. It's the Ryanair business model in Europe, and it works. And here we are, Moog died. And I can't help feeling that an infection of Boogs parasites didn't help. Then eventually, companies like Behringer will begin to hike prices, after a slew of synth makers, modulars that created the ideas that Behringer, well basically shamelessly stole.
Awww, why did you have to give us homework ugh
@@compucorder64 I feel like it might be a bit silly to assume a significant overlap between potential Moog customers and people buying cheap clones. I am not and never will be in the market for a brand new $5,000 monosynth. Not even $1,000. So what's the loss to Moog? They're not exactly serving bleeding-edge tech this century, they're *heavily* resting on recognition, reproductions, reissues, and repackaging, and anything they've got that reaches my price range is either secondhand or is up against dozens of way more appealing boutique, kit, or (best of all) open-source alternatives that I'd rather throw my pennies at. Like, to the extent that it's just background noise when Behringer is *also* trying to cash in on the recognition, reproductions, reissues, and repackaging. I'm having a real hard time imagining a situation where you've got a $300 budget and you're simultaneously counted as lost revenue for Moog.
Even if Behringer were truly selling accurate, worthwhile repros (and I'm going to hazard a wild guess that they're not) while undercutting Moog, I'm not going to be so naïve to believe there's moral high ground to be taken by picking a side in that battle. Capitalists capitalism at each other and consumerism sucks more as a result. That's not news. Add some neoliberal reforms and you get more obfuscated, pervasive, socioeconomically palatable, socioculturally bereft suckage. When cracks start to spread so wide that your fave falls through, I think we should take a hard, long, structural look at the foundation instead of patching in vain while fingering bad actors who might have pushed them in.
Worth mentioning that a Moog Mavis is $299. M32/DFAM/Subharmo is $499 when on sale. The bottom cost of entry for a legit handmade Moog is pretty reasonable.
Ben's history psychoanalysis is, well, sorta "silly" when considering Bub Muug saying, quote; "I who thought i was a bad bissniss man commenting on the dramatic ARP bankruptcy".
B.t.w does Mr Jordan ever consider all the manufacturing of Muug ,so called , pro audio PCB's, component P&P is all "Made in china" by machines already with Moog voyager?
No ofcourse he does not! "Handmade in USA" Jordans big "patriotic" claim of a federations last breath while blame everyone else for your own faults and failures.
So let us all now become the Ukranian jew president applauding a Ukrainian Canadian nazi. Thats real patriotic antisemitism.
One bit of general advice: when your company reorganizes, gets bought, etc. there will be a meeting when you’re told that nothing is going to change. When this happens, set your stop watch because within 60 days, everything is going to change. And this often includes layoffs.
meh, for each example you can find where that's true, you can find a case where it's false.
@@quantum_oceanwould you rather prepare or hope? 😁
I had no idea who you were a week a go. But god damn am I glad that I came across this channel.
Mike Adams killed moog, not Uli. Although given the size of Uli's ego I'm sure he won't mind getting the credit for this one.
Uli deserves his ego. My friends and I gave it to him willingly. Because he made classic-ish analog gear affordable to us poor people. Haters gonna hate. Uli rulies!
Amen to Mike Adams. As one of the original (short term) reps for Moog the guy had no effing idea about the business he was in. He was a manufacturing guy, period. He (they) had many opportunities to adapt, adjust, rescale. But didn't.
Tariffs on the components that Moog was using to assemble their synths probably had a bigger impact on Moog than anything.
I mean I was hoping for more about Moog. Not that I’m a Behringer fan at all, just that it seems to digress quickly into a Behringer bash. Is Behringer the sole reason for Moog selling out? I kinda doubt it
You can have a Korg synth (or Roland, Yamaha, Arturia, you name it) with the same or comparable features of a Moog synth for a fraction of the price, it's not just a Behringer thing. That's because Moog has absolutely crazy, out of market prices, but ssh! Don't tell anyone! It's Evil Uli's fault if capitalism works as intended!
@@wonderwheel80snot true at all. All the Moog synths in the Mother ecosystem are valued way below their equivalent components if trying to build them yourself out of eurorack modules. The VCOs VCAs LFOs, sequencers, EGs, mixers, effects, etc if purchased as separate eurorack component modules would easily cost 3x more than a Moog. And Yamaha, Korg, Arturia, etc make nothing like them from a modular standpoint at that price point.
@@andrewnancarrow What are you talking about? Moog sells self-contained synthesizers (like the nicely priced $1300 monophonic 2-osc Grandmother, for example, a real bargain!!!) as well as Yamaha, Korg etc. Why should I compare this stuff with Buchla?
Buchla? Clearly you know nothing of eurorack
Grandmother has tons of cv points to integrate with modular. Show me a Yamaha with that
Neither of these arguments strike me as very strong. Even if Behringer’s and Sweetwater’s business practices are kind of shady, which I can readily grant, I don’t think that adds up to why Moog went out of business.
I doubt that the market between Moog and Behringer synths overlap very much. Also, I could imagine someone buying Behringer synths to get into electronic music and then saving up to get iconic items like a Minimoog reissue. I can’t see a loyal Moog customer switching to Behringer products because of price.
As for Sweetwater, again, no one held a gun to Moog’s head and forced them to sell through Sweetwater. One wonders why they bothered to sell through Sweetwater at all (or any retailer, for that matter). One would think that Moog has enough of a brand presence within the electronic music gear market to have only sold direct to consumers.
From what I’ve heard, the Moog CEO was kind of a jerk, and selling to InMusic was a way for him to cash in. Frankly, that seems the more likely situation.
I own several Moog synths and have owned a few others over the years… and I love Behringer’s products. Maybe if Moog hadn’t reoriented their entire business model to catering to Instagram hipsters with semimodular products that just recycled ancient circuits, they wouldn’t have had to worry about Behringer.
Sweetwater also commits more large scale purchases than any other dealer for Moog in the US. Blaming Sweetwater is like blaming your best customer for buying too much of your product.
Your last comment: 🎯
Wait a minute, Moog is innocent, it was all a conspiracy by MC Burger Queen and other evil elements. It's funny that Mike Adams has a different opinion, but Benn probably knows better. Anyway, at least now it will honestly say “made in China” on the case.
@@prospectnycIf your “best customer” creates conditions for sales that cut so deeply into your margin that it’s barely profitable enough to run your business, are they really your best customer? Greater bulk isn’t always the answer
"Counterfeit" implies a copy being illegally sold under the name of the real item. If Behringer was selling units with both the Moog and Model D name on them then the "counterfeit claim would be accurate.
Indeed. Behringer's ethics have been debated for years and will be debated for many more, but labelling their stuff as "counterfeit" is a bit too much. It's just inflammatory and frankly just a cheap shot.
Pure hyperbole, at best.
@@rumplebunny
They literally called it (model d) the same thing and it has the same controls, how is that not counterfeit?
@@D1570R73D Because it is not pretending to be made by Moog. If you buy a counterfeit Rolex watch, it has the name "Rolex" on it and you are not meant to know the difference. It is fraud. The Model D is a clone that came out when Moog was not making any kind of reissue.
@@D1570R73D counterfeit is defined in most dictionaries as having the intention to deceive or defraud. Benn's point is clear, the Behringer products are intended to represent an equivalent product. While it's a stretch to claim that Behringer customers are being tricked and think they're buying a Moog, it may be argued that they are not as good - not equivalent - is that deceptive? Perhaps it is. If you think it's intended to deceive then that is consistent with the definition of counterfeit.
I doubt there’s any people in the market for a Mini Moog reissue who are going to be swayed by the Behringer knock-off over the cheaper price tag. If someone is willing to shell out $5k on a monosynth, that’s “money is no object” rich. Sweetwater looks like the bigger culprit here in terms of eating into the high-end luxury synth market. Which says to me, stick to either the used market or buy direct from manufacturers that only sell through their website.
Honest to god, if it were 1970 and Behringer and software didn't exist, I'd have saved a few years to spend $5K on a Moog D. Take that 5K out of retirement or the car payment. But I'd be insane to when the alternatives exist. I'm not rich, but we all make a few big investments in life. So it isn't limited to the rich. Or it is *now,* but only because we have cheaper options. That argument of "Moog and Behringer are different markets" falls flat.
It's kinda sad. I wish Moog could have stayed competitive without requiring good will on the part of the consumer.
@@Leo9ineRelying on "good will from the consumer" would be a terrible business model
I dont think you realise how much some of these sorts of things go for. The $5K authentic moog is a (very very good) working mans instrument. An Authentic CS-80 can fetch $100K, and thats just the shit that gets listed in Reverb instead of the higher end auction houses. An Emerson Moog Modular can fetch $150K, and I dont even want to speculate on what am EMS Synthi 100 would set you back. $5K is within reach of a working musician whos prepared to eat rice for a month*. The real big boys are for rich dudes only, not musicians.
*And then continue eating rice to finance maintaining the damn thing
@@shayneoneill1506 $5k in the abstract isn’t that much for a professional musician. However, when we’re talking keyboard monosynths specifically, there’s a lot of options at least as good or better at a lower price point, such as the pro 3 or Moog’s own Sub 37. Not to mention all the desktop synth + midi keyboard options. It’s something you buy for the collector value, if you want the most value for a gig you’ll get something with presets.
You are completely right. But those are different markets. Behringer serves musicians who want the sound and feel of the Minimoog and Moog simply wanted to sell to collectors (who would buy this as an investment). I have NO pity for those.
I had the opportunity in March 2023 to visit Moog's factory, do a tour, have conversations with their employees, etc. As someone who is a big proponent of buying small & local, I was very pleasantly surprised and encouraged by Moog's dedication to locally sourcing their materials and hand assembling their products right here in the good old US of A. Everyone who worked in the store or the factory seemed very happy with their jobs and really believed in the products they were making. This acquisition was, putting it very lightly, disappointing.
Locally sourcing? What the wood they use in their panels? Their parts and boards are manufactured in China. Hence Moog threatening to leave the US when Trump was imposing tariffs on China, causing Moog's manufacturing costs to go up.
You can still buy moog products that are made here… they just cost the most… and thats for now
This probably isn't a popular opinion, but I wonder if that's just a symptom of the company running its course. The American business model doesn't really have a concept of a useful lifespan. You're supposed to become a successful business, and then grow until you consume all the matter in the universe, at which point you're supposed to identify alternate universes in which to expand. It's a failure to stay the same size, or even shrink to accommodate the dwindling ongoing demand of a saturated market.
But you're "selling out" if you stray too far from the market you're known for. Is Moog ever going to be the DAW vendor of choice? Make microphones? Sell a custom drum shell line? Nah, they're the analog synth guys. But, like Benn has pointed out, who needs a physical analog synth in 2023? Not enough people to sustain the consumption of all the matter in the universe...
@@nickwallette6201 it’s a valid opinion. They are luxury items. They can be sold and retain value as well with the right timing. A smart company would build up big enough to sell and get out while a profit can be made. A good startup is lucky to make year 5 before selling.
Did you buy a $5000 synth with mostly tech from 45 years ago when you were done with the tour?
The thing with Behringer copying Moog is that Moog today is not the same Moog company of yesteryear, creator of the Model D or the Moog Modular. That company declared bankruptcy and died in 87. In 2002 Bob Moog got the trademark back for the release of an updated Minimoog, the Minimoog Voyager.
So in a sense, the Model D is not ripping off an existing company. It's ripping off a long defunct one. If anything it's not a counterfeit, it's a replica. The same as the newer Model D synths under the Moog Music brand.
Also FYI, I own a Voyager, Prophet 6 and the only Behringer stuff I have is a pair of speakers (which have actually oulasted most of my non-synth gear).
"Counterfeit" is a little too inflammatory a term. Behringer isn't slapping fake Moog badges on their Model Ds like fake Air Jordans, like a real counterfiet (lol, "real counterfeit").
One can dislike Behringer's ethics and that's fine, but "clone" or "replica" is really more accurate here.
Exactly! Just like AMS/NEVE 1073 preamps are just as much a replica of original Neve than BAE, Warm or Stam 1073s
I find it interesting that he spent so much time bitching about Behringer but never actually said why Moog got bought out. Moog was struggling with supply chain issues, they simply couldn't get the parts to make their synths, and the tariffs were killing them. InMusic is able to get those parts cheaply and manufacture cheaply, so manufacturing moved overseas. These issues weren't new either, they go all the way back to when Trump started his trade war, which drastically increased the cost of electronics. Also as Benn said that hardware synths are luxury items and there are loads of software synths that can mimic them near perfectly. So if Behringer wasn't making clones and people were just going after the cheaper software synths, Moog would still be in the exact same place it is now. Competition amongst music hardware manufacturers is tough is tough as there are simply so many options. Moog isn't the only synth manufacturer out there, there's plenty making similar products, and software synths have gotten very good and are very cheap.
Thank you for mentioning the tariffs. It's spooky that tariffs on Chinese imports was marketed by US Govt as a tax paid by Chinese manufacturers when it is a tax paid by American importers and consumers, putting more pressure on US manufacturers that need to import parts.
"So if Behringer wasn't making clones and people were just going after the cheaper software synths, Moog would still be in the exact same place it is now."
you do realize there was a hardware renaissance? interest > increased production
taking a risk is different for a behemoth company
And ironic that tariffs were imposed after a Section 301 investigation found that China was misappropriating U.S. intellectual property and coercing U.S. companies to transfer sensitive technology
Trump or the pandemic...
You seriously can't think tariffs killed a company when the grey market is making it so they have 40+% margins
They could always raise the price, what happened is someone wanted to cash out and not want to continue the business
Trump didn't do nothing it's just a business person throwing in the towel for the highest payout, I've been to moogseum and those people aren't the same
They've been playing a fools game since they didn't have the rigor to keep up with modern business they just wanted a quick cash out.
They couldn't even pay people for their own event like five years ago they just don't get how money works and want more
Orange Man bad.
Don't get me wrong, I love Moog's ethos, but it has to be said that their public face was a bit misleading. They advertised themselves as an employee-owned company that hand-built everything in the US. But in reality, their employees owned less than 50% of the company, so when push came to shove, management could still sell the company out from under the employee-owners. And secondly, I'm pretty sure the actual PCBs they used were made in China or outside the US. Their gear was then assembled in the US. So, it's not entirely true that they "made everything" in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my understanding.
Add into that, a tonne of companies use disingenuous BS these days to appear more legit. Shit like; MANUFACTURED ᶦⁿ ᶜʰᶦⁿᵃ ᵈᵉˢᶦᵍⁿᵉᵈ IN THE US.
I respectfully disagree. Even if both points are valid (and I think they are) the conclusion is not correct here. 1) Even less than 50%, Moog was still employee owned. If you own 49% of company you are still legally responsible for that company as one of the owners. 2) It's common practice that some elements of the product in electronic industry are mass-manufactured elsewhere, it does not make the final product less hand made and less US. Nobody is expecting you to melt your own copper or etch your own PCBs.
@@tehnik333 So you respectfully disagree by proving everything the other guy said was correct. Interesting.
@@tehnik333If I go buy Google stock, I’m still just a shareholder.
@@NEOREV_MUSIC agreeing with the facts =/= agreeing with the conclusion. one set of facts can lead to many different conclusions.
1 Behringer sale does not equal one less Moog sale. In most cases, the people who can’t afford a Moog aren’t going to buy a Moog. The money may go to Behringer for a knock-off, sure, but it was never going to Moog in the first place. The budget market & premium market coexist but are not the same.
Incorrect. 100 Behringer sales do not equal 100 less Moog sales. But one Behringer sale may equal one less Moog sale. The argument that everyone falls in exactly one of two categories is an oversimplification. Not every Behringer purchaser can't afford a Moog; some simply don't want to.
I get why people buy knockoffs. I've bought some knockoffs of things (not synths), but I also have the decency to admit that it's at least a somewhat crappy thing to do.
@@jc3drums916that’s why you are better than other people even though you bought a knock off aswell
Hahaha! @@warius1
Incorrect lol@@jc3drums916
I think some people who have purchased a behringer are a potential Moog customer, but not everyone of them. Another thing that doesn't get mentioned often, how many brands have ripped off of Fender? How many brands make Strat, Tele, P Bass and Jazz bass instruments, with the exact same shape, dimensions, materials, pickup configurations, etc. Where is the outrage there? I mean, I'm not defending Behringer. The corporate bullying and misinformation as Benn talks about here is spot on, and why I don't think I'll ever be able to buy behringer products ever again, or at least for the foreseeable future. But it's not exactly like behringer is the first company to copy someone else's designs identically. I'm a bass player first and synth player second. And for the same money, more than a few brands make better P and Jazz bass instruments than fender does.
If Behringer really was the main reason Moog went out of business. I find it very strange that most vintage synths Behringer make a cheap version of, only got more and more expensive in the second hand vintage market. Vintage synthesizers i bought 20 years ago are now 10 times more expensive to buy second hand. Even whilst Behringer did their cheaper version of it
That is, because they often sell for a lot less than their price tag, and because there are some people who buy them not to make music but to sell them at a higher price, or just to collect them. There are also psychological factors in play, like old guys like me who had some gear back in the day, which they sold cheap and want it back (I had MS-20 and TR-808, and I wanted, but I didn't rebuy them). Or people who plan a career as influencer and buy some vintage gear to earn the respect of their audience. So, in conclusion, the vintage market is another realm and has not much to do with instruments that are actually bought to work with. But that doesn't say that without Behringer clones vintage gear wouldn't be even more expensive than it is now...
“ I find it very strange that most vintage synths Behringer make a cheap version of, only got more and more expensive in the second hand vintage market”
You didn’t just suggest that Behringer helped create a buzz resulting in rising prices, did you?
They would’ve gone up regardless. As time goes on there are fewer & fewer in operating condition.
A counterfeit product is one where the manufacturer attempts to fool the buyer into believing it's an "original". Behringer doesn't do that. There is no attempt to hide the Behringer name. There are many adjectives [some deservedly derogatory) to describe Behringer's unoriginal products, but "counterfeit" isn't one of them.
This video is a prime example of the expression «pulling the ladder up behind you».
It shows complete lack of perspective beyond how far you can see with your own eyes, disregarding everyone who cannot afford a «premium» product as simply not worthy of having one, and should therefore not get it or the feeling of owning one in any other variation at all (the fake Jordan stab at 7:47).
People with economical challenges and people from developing countries should simply just «drink water» if they cannot afford a Coca Cola. It gives you everything you need, just not what you want, while the people who have never had to face such challenges can enjoy their premium products in peace on top of the ladder.
Interesting. Benn states Behringer was going to produce a racist anti semantic product, then continues his op-ed by calling Behringer's products "Ghetto ass".
@@AFuturePresentation the amount of elitism and hypocricy throughout this video is unheard of. It’s a sobering reminder of the importance of the dislike button. Biased videos like this would have a hard time surviving a few years back.
@@robinwindsrygg9568 Seriously. We could go on for days with all the issues here. We're better off finding joy in the things we love... Like making music!
@@AFuturePresentation thank you. And he did word it as such to say it's one of the reasons, only to go on and (at 9:48) say that "the number one reason" is because he already featured mutable modules. Racism was a side note if nothing else mattered to a viewer. Neglecting that large companies have dedicated marketing teams responsible for what's put out. But somehow entire company is racist.
Dont agree Behringer is the main cause of Moogs demise as I dont believe a Boog Model E is a competing product to a hand made Moog Model E. I mean Gibson still sells plenty of premium guitars despite decades if cheap Chibson counterfeits.
wood has more mojo, and guitarists have a greater romantics/pragmatists ratio
PS and Im going on a limb here, but if all the nice woods in the world came from china, Gibson and Fender would be done for
Interesting you bring up the 'Chibson' counterfeits. They are designed to fool customers into thinking they're the real deal, which Behringer clearly don't do. Not that I wish to defend Behringer - I think their company practices are trash - but counterfeit was an inaccurate word to use in my opinion. I preferred "flee-market" version, that made me laugh!
As an economist and a synth nerd one thing I really didn’t understand about moog is that they didn’t ask their customer what kind of products they were looking for.They had all of our email addresses. I will certainly register a product that cost $1000 or more. I currently have a very expensive moog synthesizer and I’ve had half a dozen or so over the years. When the subsequent 25 came out I asked why they didn’t make a rack version. There are a lot of people that agreed with me.I also saw somebody else mention why they made the sirin a limited edition and got thousands of thumbs up. A lot of people want a rack mounted moog synthesizer that could store presets. I truly didn’t mind the prices of moog synthesizers because I thought they were very well-made and sound fantastic. The thing that bothers me is that they didn’t listen to their customers needs. They said this is what we are making and if you don’t like it then don’t buy it. Whether you like Behringer or not the idea of asking customers what they want is a very practical way to stay in business.
they asked ppl snd they said we just want tons of clones of old school synths? i think i’d take their program or not caring what ppl want over that. sorry to oversimplify here though. also roland is weird like that. not listening. but i’m not familiar w all of contemporary moog. it’s too classy for me.
@@chinmeysway yes, actually I did say that. I said I want something that is affordable and at least somewhat as good as Moog. I can't afford Moog but I want a synth like theirs. Why shouldn't I be able to get something similar. Small or big business are not owed our loyalty or our money. I'll take it to whoever is willing to provide me what I need. Granted, I didn't know about antisemitism. Which can be fixed. Fire those that came up with the idea. They are a big company. They have a dedicated marketing team that is responsible for that.
I've never worked in the synth world, but I did work for a high end HiFi manufacturer. Very similar to Moog in terms of how the business worked, they manufacture entirely here in the UK and has many many worldwide enthusiasts. My previous employer is (I believe still) the largest independent employer of engineers in the country outside the military. In fact, virtually all the engineers that leave go get jobs in the defense industry.
My take on your comment is listening to customers isn't what a boutique maker does. Hear me out! They work within the sphere of "build the thing the customer doesn't even know they want yet". If they didn't make the thing the customer wanted (and I get it, your rack mount Sub 25 isn't a reach) they've already missed the boat.
During my time there I was doing what you're talking about saying: "guys, you need to make this particular thing. If you do you'll sell thousands upon thousands". It was the HiFi equivalent of making something rack mountable. It should've been easy.
It was not.
It took so much more work than I (and the business) expected. All the engineers hated the project because they weren't getting to come up with cool new ways to get cool new things for customers. They were just solving an arbitrary problem. This is at the core of why companies like Moog (and my former employer) work the way they do. What makes the products exciting is they come up with things that you'd never think of. The minute customers think it's a good idea it becomes pedestrian.
Granted, this was compounded by the fact that some very specific surface mount components our supplier had been bought out of those components 7 years into the future by Tesla which required an entire board redesign which caused carnage and it was leeching engineering time away from the big sexy exciting projects.
That product eventually got released. A product I had been told time after time after time that we'd have thousands of people queuing up to buy it.
It sold poorly.
Satisfying niche but loud enthusiasts doesn't work for companies like Moog, it doesn't pay the bills and doesn't do much for your product line and reputation.
@@ewanmatheson4235
That does make a lot of sense and you do want your engineers to be excited about the job they're doing. They will put a lot more effort into it and it will be a better product in the end. That being said moog already made
the sirin. In the synthesizer world a desktop synthesizer that can be converted to a rack mount synthesizer is obviously the best choice. They sold a lot of minotaurs but for some reason did not want to sell the sirin as a regular product. The Sirin sold out very quickly and the demand for it was huge. It was pretty easy to see that because it was back ordered with pretty much every company that sold music equipment. The funny part is is that now Moog is making a new polyphonic synthesizer with presets that has been leaked and I guarantee you it is a lot cheaper than the $6,000 moog one. It's not that a few people said a few things in the forums. There have been numerous articles and thousands of postings about how people would buy a polyphonic Moog with presets.
In today's world a lot of small companies use social media like Facebook and UA-cam to put out surveys to try to understand the demand for products. While putting something out for a few people that email you is probably a bad idea. Doing your own market research through social media is not a bad idea. If they had put out a survey on whether or not people would have liked the Mavis or a reissue of the Sirin, I can almost guarantee you that people would have voted for the Sirin overwhelmingly.
Behringer does listen to their customers.
As someone that manufactures high end audio equipment and does so here in the USA, I have some insight into all of this. First off, the cost of compliance in the USA is simply unbelievable. California, for example, passes about ~1200 new laws per year and most of them are business related.
The pandemic also made a mess of things here in the USA as the government can decide who and what is "essential". Worse still, sanctions against Russia threatens my business as we still make items out of vacuum tubes and Russia is our #1 supplier.
As we continue to move into the future, the majority of fabrication of our products will move to Asia - not because we want to but because we have to. Feel free to have me on your show and I'd love to talk to you about it as much as you want. I'll break it all down for you.
Would love to see that video. Keep up the good work
JJ tubes are made in Slovakia. Maybe that would be a good source of tubes for your business.
pLandemic you write differently.
Oh so it’s those evil Democrats as I’m reading between the lines.
Lol
Seriously, just go away with that bs. Just go away.@@andrewnancarrow
Oh Ben. When will you ever address why VST version of synths that replicate the exact sounds of new and old synths are okay, but Behringer is not?
I want to know this too. Behringer sucks I agree, but I wonder why Arturia gets a free pass.
It might be that a VST has to be coded from scratch, whereas a synth can just be reverse-engineered and re-manufactured.
I've got a long out-of-print effects pedal that I've disassembled, photographed the top and bottom of the PCB, traced out in a paint program, created a schematic for, and designed my own PCB. It was a couple evenings of work. It would take me a lot longer to replicate that in code. (Admittedly, DSP is not my strong suit. Maybe it's easier for someone who has a library of filters and waveform generators already written.)
Now, if a VST's code was somehow acquired, and then another company published a clone of that software, we could have the same conversation about ethics, but purely in the software space.
I can give you one reason and it's called: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
@@nickwallette6201that makes no sense. The ultimate product is the sound. Not necessarily whether it's produced by hardware or software.
The main thing is they are different markets, whether the purchaser has the assets to be able to spend 5000 bucks on a premium product without it hurting them. If not then they will likely spend five percent of that on something that sounds just the same and be just as happy. Or spend even less on software and put up with it.
I remember when Rover was bought by BMW. They still make the Mini, but it's nothing like it used to be. It's a much better made, bigger and more luxurious car. The Ford Jaguar however 😉 What I'm saying is that this happens all the time and people have to deal with it. Time will tell, but I think the Moog name will go on and on and hopefully there will be better products delivered by them.
@@TheDavidPoole I think you're missing the point I was trying to make.
The OP asks, "why is it OK for software vendors to produce a VST that emulates the function of a given specific hardware synth, but it's not OK for another hardware manufacturer to do that?"
I say, it's different because the software vendor is creating a whole new product from scratch. You can't just copy the schematics into your dev environment and compile a VST. (Yet.) So there's a significant level of effort required to generate that software product.
It doesn't take as much effort to simply clone a hardware design, since the "source code" of an analog device is right there in the box for all to see.
It feels cheap to profit off the back of someone else's development effort. If you have to put in all that effort yourself to shift the product from physical to virtual, then you kinda earn the right. Or that's how I see it, anyway. You may not be able to call it "A Moog" but you can get the point across with clever wordplay and graphic design.
None of this has anything to do with the consumer's role in the transaction. The consumer has to choose what they can afford, what is available to them, and what inspires them to make music. That calculus yields different results for everyone.
Where did the other video go?
The more I think about this, the more I think that you can’t really blame Behringer here. Look at nearly any of Moog’s products, and it isn’t hard to find a less expensive option with more features from a company that isn’t Behringer. (And it isn’t like Subharmonicons are selling in great numbers without any competition.)
" it isn’t hard to find a less expensive option with more features from a company that isn’t Behringer. "
but it's really really really easy to find one that is.
that's the point.
@@brmbkl Still it is pretty far fetched to blame one company's mismanagement on another company. I have mostly Rolands, a few Yamahas, Waldorfs, one Nord, and I have a couple of Behringers, too. Although I think it would have been "interesting" to sometimes have a Minimoog Model D, I would never have bought one. But when a Poly D came up second hand in pristine condition, I thought, well why not, if I don't like it, I can always pass it on. Well, I really like the sound of Poly D and with the added features (sequencer, Juno-like chorus, sequencer, extra osc and more lfo possibilites) it is really great.
Counterfeit? No, Benn Jordan does not know what the word means, and this the point where he's anti-fanboyness, although many of his arguments are pretty valid (reseller power, small producers have no negotiation power etc). This is sort-of a clone on a 50 year old design, but with added features and 4-voice polyphony/paraphony. No, Behringer is not the reason for Moog's demise, that's giving Behringer too much credit. Hardware producers of course compete with each other, but so are they doing with software producers, where plugins are getting really good these days. Why does Jordan & co like to blame Behringer, but not other producers and neither software producer? Well, Benn made a video about brand loyalty and confirmation bias... maybe that's the reason?
I don't know, if it weren't for Behringer synths I wouldn't have gotten hooked on analog and modular, which later made me get a few Moog. So the push for me to buy Moog is mainly thanks to Behringer. So I guess depending on which way you want to look at it, you can reach a completely different conclusion.
i live off 10k a year with my social security. there is no way i could even think about owning a moog. i wouldn't be able to make music without cheap behringer kit and i am grateful. this video reeks of gatekeeping and first world elitism. I'm out. Just unsubbed even. never to come back.
@@Astronomaterbenn points out free synths that are more powerful than any of the hardware. Behringer synths are as much a 1st world luxury as moog.
If you can't buy a Moog you should get a free VST instead of a Behringer? That is a very elitist and oversimplified way of seeing things. So I guess if I can't afford a Bentley I should walk instead of getting a Toyota?@@mechuniversal
It's a bit like comparing a Tesla to a Nissan Leaf. Both are 1st World, but one is more affordable than the other.. @@mechuniversal
@@Astronomater secondhand is where it at. I have a nice modular, loads of it cheaper than Behringer modular gear and its "like new" . You cant buy it all on day one but over some weeks and months it all comes along at a good price. My Arturia Minibrute was cheaper than a B Model D. Its a myth that B is the only choice if you are on a budget.
Moog killed Moog by selling to a market that was propped up by creators living on the razors edge each paycheck. It was bound to fold when the price was so high and the average buyer had just a few percent inflation rise. Their costs were fixed until a parts shortage and supply chain bottleneck. It was either let go of a ton of staff or sell. They couldn’t just fire a load of employees who were all vested stock owner / employees as they would have to liquidate a ton of stock to pay them out if they need it, (and most likely they would) and that would trigger a stock sell off of larger stakeholders. They should have realized that synths are cool when you are living with friends, living with parents, or independently wealthy. They are not cool at all when you have debt, high inflation, kids, rising rent, rising mortgage rates, and $6 a gallon gas.
100000% on point.
I concur doctor
Gonna sum that entire thing up: Capitalism is the issue.
@@Sidecutter No. If Moog used a strategy following capitalism, they would have price adjusted their products based off the market, and not a faux perceived value based on their brand name. Moog's competitors were considerably cheaper and provided nearly the same value. Moog's assumption that inflated value is sustainable forever created a false sense of security when forecasting the market. Once they allowed over paid assembly line workers to create a fake union and make unrealistic demands or refuse to work, all while many of those same employees held the leverage of stock ownership, the end of their story was written for them. Capitalism would have caused them to lower prices, lay off over paid workers, streamline processes, and meet consumer demand at a reasonable and measurable market price. Sure some of the 6 figure soldering job holders would have cried about it being not fair, but low skill jobs should only demand lower wages. Also let's not forget the abundance of "what about my needs" hires that would organize walkouts constantly. Employees exist to work in the best interest of the company, not their own personal agendas.
@@Sidecutter Yeah capitalism is an issue, its not an issue when you make a million plus a year . But one day in the future though, it will be for millionaires as they will be drawrfed by Trillionairs . So yeah capitalism is an issue.....can you hear the suck?
Behringer is no counterfeiter. He built a similar instrument to a keyboard long out of production. He ran with the premise. This is business.
Poor shaming has nothing to do with it. It is the poor decision to pay more for a brand name. They would not be fake Jordans. They are real Filas.
You missed the part where he said the crave was a clone and the model D was a counterfeit. Behringer built a similar instrument and branded it the exact same way. Trading off the moog name, That isn’t “ business” that’s copy right infringement. They are trying to pass their product off as the exact same thing. The Crave would be a fila. The model D is a counterfeit air Jordan.
The brand name is the one that spent all the money on research and development and design. When you off load that to another company and then just copy them the yeah… you can sell an item for much cheaper. When all the people doing the r and d go out of business who does behringer have left to clone?
@@hastyscorpionif it was copyright infringement, they would’ve been sued. Plain and simple.
@@hastyscorpion And you missed the part a little later, when he calls it a "ghetto ass counterfeit version" of a Mother32, contradicting himself after a few minutes.
@@hastyscorpion Patent laws exist to protect new designs for a while to allow a company to make their r&d investment back but patent expires to allow competition to keep the prices reasonable to keep the economy rolling. This is how capitalism works.
It’s sad to see the name Moog fade, but maybe it’s just a name! Even Bob himself had to rebrand for a while as Big Briar, and Dave Smith had to let go of the Sequential Circuits name for a little while. Maybe we might see a new group emerge with former talent from Moog called something like “R.A. Music,” “East Coast Synthesis,” or maybe just “Bob!”
I could enjoy enjoy playing a MiniBob synthesizer!
They didn't have to "let go" venture capitalists took them over and relegated them to virtual mailroom duties. There are already former Moog engineers who have formed their own companies: Asheville Music Tools, and Make Noise.
Chud comment. People like you just watch the world go to hell with no affectual response. Just play Behringer and keep your opinions.
I don't know how much I can say, but Cyril's (was chief engineer) over at Rhodes now, I spoke to him about making synths at Rhodes, and he said there wouldn't be any conflict. Think he's focused on delivering the new Rhodes keyboard, but you never know; there could be some bonkers new electro-acoustic shenanigans bubbling up somewhere :P
Cyril, like many other folks, left awhile ago. Dunnington is still there last I heard, and I regularly speak with a number of former enployees.@@MouldySoul
@@RhythmiconsMoog shareholders (including employee shareholders) decided to sell their stock to a competitor (not venture capitalists) because they were offered a high price. That price was high only because InMusic expected to make a bigger profit than Moog would have made by continuing to run Moog the same way. Now we see how InMusic planned to achieve that profit - it wasn't through selling more instruments that won in the market by simply being better designed. It was by cutting costs.
Where the Model D is concerned, people who buy a Behringer as their primary synth probably wouldn't buy a Moog to begin with. Just the same as if the people who are buying a $5000,- Model D reissue or a Modular reissue most likely won't be buying a $300,- Behringer. Those prices are just too far apart. They are catering to different markets. When it comes to the DFAM and Mother 32 vs Edge and Crave, maybe those sales might have hurt Moog a bit. As those markets do overlap a little bit.
From what I've been reading, it seems like the circuit boards with surface mount components for Moog products were already being produced outside of the USA. Then shipped to Asheville where it was assembled into a synth. If that's true, then Ben's argument of people working in factories not giving a crap leading to mediocre quality would presumably be equally true for Moog lower tier synths such as the DFAM and Mother 32.
Obviously that doesn't apply to Moog's premium "through-hole components"-products such as their Model-D and Modular reissues. As they are no doubt built by hand and soldered together in their American workshop.
the miniboog also competes with the mother32
clear as day
People that say "Don't finance music gear" are people that have money. If your retired, on fixed income or just starting out you have to finance the gear. I've financed everything in my home studio. No shame. No regrets.
Eh ***k this clown and his horse blind act. You play WHATEVER YOU WANT. PROBABLY BEST TO STOP LISTENING TO ALL CHODES MAKING VIDEOS FOR CLICKS AND MAKE MUSIC INSTEAD.
None of this clown's sentiment means jack squat today
Starting out with what: hobby or career?
If you need to finance a hobby, well, respectfully, you will run into problems.
@@brmbkl That's ludicrous, hobby or career you have to "start out". Respectfully, you must have all the money you need to pursue anything you wish.
Exactly, my biggest purchase was back in the '90s, it was a flight-cased E-mu sampler with a SCSI HD bought on 0% credit for around £2200, that's around £5.7k in 2023 money. I worked a reasonably low-paid, but secure position at IBM. At the time I would've never been able to afford a sampler that good if I'd simply saved up. I also didn't have friends or family that would've been willing or capable of lending me the money. It took 18 months to pay off and has given me over 28 years of use and enjoyment. At the time I had cheap musical instrument insurance, so I put an ad in my local classifieds, and at the weekends I'd hire out the sampler and my services as a hobby to small recording studios in exchange for stuff I didn't have access to like recording live drums, CD burning or whatever money they could afford, pretty good deal if you ask me.
@@Rr0gu3_5uture That is awesome! I bought equipment back in the early 90's from a local music store, don't even remember the interest rates, I bought a Roland U20 keyboard, a Roland R5 drum machine, Ensoniq EPS -16 sampler, ans varios effects processors.and computers.... Paid everything off, then I sold everything because I was getting married and having a baby. Two years later got divorced. Wish I had never sold any of my music stuff. I'm medically retired now. I've rebuilt my home studio with cool stuff, alot better then what I had, all bought thru Zzounds and Reverb mostly 0% interest. I have plans to buy a $2500 keyboard around the first of next year. No way I could buy stuff outright, unless it is a local FB marketplace purchase of $50 or so. 👍
Hi Benn, I’m hoping you’re considering doing a video about the recent mass layoffs of Bandcamp. I find you do a much better job of giving context into these sorts of important events in the music industry than what I tend to read in the standard music press. This video is a good example, as well as several you have done in the past that focus on M&A in the music industry. Thanks!
I suspect that the people who bought the Behringer Model D wouldn’t be able to buy the official Moog products, so the issue there more lies with the global financial situation of the people / clientele who normally would be able to afford a 5K luxury product. They (Moogs target audience) no longer have the disposable income or simply elect not to purchase Moog products, instead going for other luxury synth items, which makes sense as there is more competition in that market now. So when it comes to Behringer, It’s different target audiences. If the knock off situation were to be as you said, then LV etc would be bankrupt. I do not think Behringer is at fault for Moog having financial issues because they replicated certain designs. Moog as a brand however has declined, with the rise of more effective luxury brands in the same market sector ie The Super 6, Elektron stuff etc.
This entire situation is Moogs own fault. They had a strong brand and legacy (giving them all the marketing advantages of that) but they didn’t step up to a level that challenged other companies.
mostly you're right but you can buy a Moog Mavis for the price of the boog; and the desktop line (mother 32) is about twice the price of Behringer; not ten times so it's not outrageous either. I think it's more nuanced.
@@valdir7426 being two times more expensive would still put them in competition with other brands that offer more at that 600 USD price point.
"then LV etc would be bankrupt."
handbags are a signifier, more than a tool
I don't share your view and I am surprised you didn't mention ARP, Sequential and Oberheim, because Moog problems were the same as the other GREAT THREE before they went under also. One can NOT have a profitable business forever, based on SINGLE wonder product from the past!
It pisses me off when business are deityfied because they carry inventor's name or are synonymously identified with their founders. Pearlman, Oberheim, Smith and Moog were GREAT inventors - but they were not great businessmen.
Moog Music as a business was not a knight in shining armour it is often romantisized to be, and it wasn't because of some distributor or a Swiss army knife with a factory in China.
Moog Music is a business dinosaur and it should consider itself lucky to last this long. If anything, it is a tragedy that the idea, which set the standard for what we today think of as subtractive synthesis, was enveloped in some retarded ideology dictating that products had to be hand soldered like it's 1969.
Think about it: Minimoog went on sale in 1970 for $1500(?). It would have been over 6 years prior to Apple 1 being produced by two young guys in their parents' garage and sold for $666.66. Today Apple Inc is worth over 1 TRILLION $$. And where's Moog?? Soaking up sadness from youtubers bithcing about some water and DIY guy from Switzerland? Uhm... yeah.
Earlier this year I bought a Matriarch as my first synth (that's not a VST lol) and ever since then I've only come to love that decision more and more. Glad to be able to have gotten a Moog before shit hits the fan. I'm gonna treasure it forever.
...and it will always keep its value.
@@alexwestconsultingit will appreciate
Same, just bought a moog matriarch.
same for me with the Mother 32 i purchased a few years ago. I still want to get a dfam and subharmonicon
@@snuppssynthchannelgang gang
"Mike's decision to sell Moog was influenced by his advanced age and serious mistakes made on the supply chain side. The company had purchased excessive inventory, leading to significant cashflow constraints." What does that mean, too many PCBs were ordered in China, sales expectations were too high. This could particularly affect the One, possibly the main reason for the bankruptcy. Wasn't it the same thing with memory moog and norlin, dejavue?
Exactly, they made exactly the same mistake twice: developing a hugely expensive synth without having a market for it . The memorymoog was a flop, just like the source back then ( I bought a source ) and so is the moog one. Nobody in his right mind will pay 10k for a rather limited synth, with all the competition around from vst’s lower priced complex synths like Waldorf quantum etc. Also the whole business ignores that young people just see music as one of a thousand possibilities to spend their time and money on. 40 years ago that was different . Then also , plain venture capitalism is the real problem in many sectors, not just the music sector. These huge venture ( vampire) capitalists just buy companies like candy, in order to finish off the competition , whether it’s in electronics, clothing, food or any other business. It’s this extreme form of capitalism that is guilty for companies like moog going bankrupt in the end
Moog killed Moog. If you don't evolve with the times, someone who does will buy you out - unless you've become so obsolete even your name has become worthless. A lot of people who fight for the "originals" tend to be very similar to art owners. If it's not a Picasso, it has no value and if it has no value, it has no right to exist. A kid that draws a horse, well that's worthless but look at this misfigured piece of shit drawn by an adult man 50 years ago, this is the holy piece of art worth $100mil even if it doesn't even look like a horse.
Now, I do agree on the naming of the devices to make them appear something they're not. It's as pointless and stupid as is claiming that the other manufacturers with the capability to produce devices cheaper and in quantity are the reason Moog is dead. Based on your logic, everything past the first version of the device is a clone, counterfeit and the manufacturer is a thief. So up yours, manufacturers stealing from the guy who came up with the shirt. The wheel. The fire.
Indeed, every bolt-on neck guitar that doesn't have Fender on the headstock must be a counterfeit Fender. All those Tubescreamer clones out there... NO WAIT I don't like them so I'll call them cheap counterfeits.
“ other manufacturers with the capability to produce devices cheaper and in quantity are the reason Moog is dead.”
Copying is easier than creating, we agree on that.
“ Based on your logic, everything past the first version of the device is a clone”
Benn said that?
the badly managed company known as moog would have eventually died (as we know it) with or without behringer.
100%
I honestly don't think Behringer are the guilty party in this. Do you really imagine someone with the money to buy a $5000 Moog didn't because Behringer brought out the Poly D? Anyone that bought a Poly D was NEVER going to drop 5k on a Moog. I can't imagine Moog lost any customers to Behringer, they're just in two completely different classes.
I know multiple that did, unfortunately. The justification was “I can buy this *and* a bunch of other (list cheap Behringer ripoffs)”. Unfortunately a lot of folks now strive for sheer quantity over quality when it comes to instrument ownership.
@@adalundhebut it is a non-argument. The first iteration was a limited edition and sold out quickly.
@@adalundheI don’t think Behringer products have no quality to state that. Let’s be fair.
compare the poly D with the current Moog catalog, not an outlandlishly priced collector's item. I can get the Moog sound from 300 bucks actually from moog; it's called the Mavis. a Mother 32 is twice that price. then; even from an "ethic" standpoint it doesn't make this much sense getting the clone.
@@valdir7426 if they are the same than a Minimoog, then why a Minimoog costs usd5000?. I do think there is a difference among these products, at least according with what I have been able to check, and I do think Minimoog is probably overpriced (even a poly like Prophet 5 is cheaper).
Reminds me of the acquisition of Rane. A company that before it's buyout and factory closure sent me a ground nut for my mixer all the way to the UK for free, even though I bought it used, just because it was impossible for me to source one. I bought a couple more of their mixers as a result of the good vibes that gave me. Companies that care about customers often get rewarded with loyalty.
The original Minimoog patents expired which is why the current Moog Music (formerly Big Briar Music) and other companies can manufacture Minimoog clones/reissue. In a way, the Minimoog reissue can be considered “counterfeit”, as it was put. Prior to the current Moog Music, there was the Moog “Welsh” Minimoog (UK) and Studio Electronics Minimidi (Minimoog clone). Bob was never interested in building the Model D since returning with the Voyager.
Use that logic on Crave / Mother 32.
The ultimate irony is that the MiniMoog wasn't Bob's project in the first place and he was sceptical.
The environment was different around 00s though, DSI wasn’t doing even pseudo-reissues of Prophets yet either - they were on the Evolver etc train still. Both companies took their signature sound but applied new digital control and modulation, cos they still wanted to push the envelope just like newer competitors were doing.
But Dave Smith did approve Prophet reissues and outright sequels (not new ideas in the same concept like with the X or 08, but a straight-up 6 for the OG 5) later-on, and I would’ve been surprised if Moog wouldn’t have followed suit (had he still been alive). Especially because they were pals, and would’ve been talking about DSI/Sequential’s turnabout on the matter.
That’s all just supposition on my part, though. Perhaps I’m biased because I really like the Little Phatty and the Voyager (not that I own either, I have allowed myself exactly one big analogue).
Where is all the outrage over the smd-concept of an Oberheim OBX8, if that makes such a huge difference and then what does that tell us about its price tag compared to the Behringer stuff?
When you make counterfeits, you don't use your own brand name for that, you copy everything, also the name of the original company.
Hearing Benn talk about the working conditions at Behringer without offering a comparison to any other company seemed rather suspicious but when he talked about how and why they use the song "street life" my bullshit detector completely exploded! Sorry, but that's just laughable, dude...
So terrible to hear that rich audio collectors with upwards of $5000 will no longer be able to buy American made products from Moog! Not sure why American made means good though.
Benn's spent that just on Eurorack Novelties he hardly uses. (Has a video saying so). That include the Behringer Neutron, (used on 15% of patches and wouldn't trade) and 6 months ago exposed it great value.
@@lesterfalcon1350after the last 24 hours, I'm seriously interested in getting a neutron. It does look and sound pretty fun.
"Not sure why American made means good though."
for one; QC.
And it means good, because of the ripple effect. The final product is not the end all and be all. The US didn't make Moog better, Moog made the US better.
Thank you for the info regarding how the big music stores do the 0% financing deals. I had no clue. I am guilty of taking advantage of them from time to time and probably will not anymore going forward.
Ditto.
You aren't guilty of anything. Do you really think Moog has been coerced into this 0% financing cabal like Ben is suggesting? NO! Moog could easily tell them to GTFOH. Notice how he qualifies this by saying he asked a 'small pedal company' about this arrangement. A small pedal company Moog is not. You shouldn't feel guilty. The only person who should feel guilty about this upload is Ben.
Same
They mark up the product by the financing amount, or get a discount from the manufacturer to offset the financing charges. Sweetwater is a 1.5B company owned by an equity firm, they're not going to let a much smaller company (Behringer) force them into money losing deals.
@@zeitgeist909 Go away, Uli
Most parts were manufactured already overseas (china) it was only finally assembled in usa.
Not to defend Berhinger, but how are those counterfeits instead of clones if nearly ever non-IBM MS-DOS PC prior to either the Compaq386 or the IBM PS-2 series were clones?
Those looked identical to the IBM PC including cloning the IBM Model M keyboard layout which was not the standard prior to the IBM PC. That would have been either the VT-100 or the IBM 3720.
The Hercules graphics card even duplicated errors in the IBM monochrome graphics card, continuing a tradition dating back to Amdahl's mainframes that implemented the S/360 instruction set with the "it's not a bug it's a feature".
So, while I get your complaint I not sure synths are more like sneakers than computers.
And if they are, why is it the sound that isn't what is counterfeit not the look of the case. After all, Harley owns a trademark on the sound of a HD engine requiring other V-2 motorcycles to sound different. And if it is the sound, why aren't virtual versions counterfeits as well?
The level of self-delusion on here is incredible and another embarrassing testament to the collapse of critical thinking of this era. I suggest everyone get a copy of noted composer Albert Glinsky's book on the history of Bob Moog's role in the technical innovation of the analog synth as a real musical instrument--a tool--dispels nearly every single comment in this clip and in the comments here, all of them as pitiful as some old man insisting that using a 1928 Stanley hammer because, man, my great-grandfather and father used one...
Coming from the guitar community, I always find curious those kind of comments like "You don't really need that analog gear, there is a plugin you can use instead". A few days ago, a saw a video of another synth musician who explained he sold his moog studio because "it took too much sonic space". I'm not saying he was wrong, the thing just didn't fit in the sound he was looking for, but to me that comment sounded like: "I had to sell my marshall amp because it sounded too big and awesome. Now I prefer to use this amp simulator I downloaded, so now I only ask the sound guy to connect my laptop to the console and I'm ready to go..." With that customer mindset, what is surprising is that moog hadn't died earlier. Again, I'm not saying that there is any thing wrong with that thinking, but I think the biggest factor that keeps alive those legendary guitar companies, is the hype around "The Tone", that doesn't seem to be as important for the synths enthusiasts.
There’s just about as much reverence for tone in the synth community.
(and that dude was probably just coping)
Those “too much sonic space” comments are always funny to me. Use parametric EQ, people.
Hello Guitar Community! What people don't realize is that there's an organic element to the electric guitar tone/vibe. The strings, pickups, cable, amp (tube/no tube), speaker(s); and if those speakers(s) are in an open vs closed back cabinet - all work together to make the sound. Changing any of those parts will change the sound.
The early synths were similar in that they needed to be tuned, were affected by the weather, and basically fussy. Check out the live recordings of Genesis in the early days: the Mellotron had pitch fluctuations that give it a certain feel.
"You don't really need that analog gear, there is a plugin you can use instead"
"You don't really need that "irrational" woman, there's a blow up doll and AI generated moaning you use instead"
Some synth people definitely think a certain type of filter (VCF) sounds better than others, and will pay extra for a real analogue version if they care enough. But the biggest difference is we care about the circuit topology more than the badge - there’s plenty of excellent ladder filters that aren’t made by Moog now the patent’s expired.
That’s not _completely_ unheard of in the guitar space, a lot of people like G&L’s pickups better than any new “Fender” and sometimes even better than the vintage Fender pickups. But it’s definitely _rarer_ in the guitar community - there’s a handful of well-regarded other makes, even those who mostly clone Leo Fender or Gibson designs, but almost all of the well-regarded marques ones cost even more.
Whereas with synths it’s more like guitar _pedals,_ so long as they’re using good components and the right circuit you won’t mind (usually, as a musician rather than a collector) who actually made the pedal if it sounds right (especially if it’s a generic circuit design like fuzz or a BBD implementation). You might pay a little extra to support a hand made one or an extensively tested one, but when the results are the same you’ll probably pick the cheaper modern pedal rather than an original from the 70s or 80s.
@@andrewdunbar9771 Computer satisfy all human cravings. Bahahah!
I don't doubt Behringer had a big impact on what happened to Moog, but before you went on the Behringer attack/rant, I was hoping you would talk about the Moog One and the possibility of that synth also playing a major role in their downfall. I remember being really excited when they announced that synth, and checking all the demos I could find, and almost immediately being incredibly disappointed by what I was hearing. Even big name artists, like those in their Moog One marketing videos could not make that thing sound impressive or characterful. Hence, and especially at the price they were asking, I rapidly lost interest and I'm STILL yet to hear anyone make that synth sound anything but bland (actually, Lisa Bella Donna did some cool stuff with it, but that has more to do with her rather than the synth). In fact, I rarely come across anyone talking about or using the Moog One. I imagine they didn't sell very well, but I don't know for sure (I know it had some teething issues also), it just seems that way and if so, it makes me curious as to what that synth cost the company.
Lol, laughable comment
I'm also sceptical that Behringer would have a big impact on Moog. I mean someone that would buy a Poly D was NEVER going to fork out for a $5000 reissue. Moog and a lot of the upper end synths that Behringer rip off might as well be made out of unobtanium for most people.
I feel like a lot of the Behringer stuff is there to give people a hardware option for what would have almost definitely been a software purchase.
I'm not a fan of Behringer's ethics but they might not be the guilty party here.
Opinions! Which part is laughable to you? If you own a Moog One and disagree/think it's an awesome synth, then I'm happy for you. I'm not here to try and convince anyone to agree with my opinion. Besides, it's not really important what we think of the synth. But it could be important as to what effect the cost of the synth had on the company if any.@@rhythmsofprescott
When the other guy on the basketball court ends up kicking your ass, trying to make fun of his fake air jordans while wearing originals still won't do you any good, will it?
About Zero Percent Financing:
From my personal experience, I didn’t come from a well off family and had tons of debt from college and other mishaps in my life. Without that financing (which I’ve been doing through Zzounds & Sweetwater for decades) I would’ve never been able to acquire any of the gear I have, hardware or software. Through buying my gear like this and paying it off before time I have been able to increase my score substantially. It was a tool that I used that killed 2 birds with one stone.
Some of us love to make music and have wild ideas but do not have the financial support to do so. That being said, I’ve never bought any knock offs or counterfeits. No matter how well the build I just don’t think that’s fair to Moog or any boutique manufacturer.
I believe if you’re paying it off early the manufacturer sees more of the money too, if I’m interpreting the “manufacturer covers the actual interest” part correctly.
Where do you stand on the Studio Electronics MiniMoog, which is half the price of the Moog, but without a keyboard, or Rolands collaboration with'Studio Electronics with an affordable desktop clone. Or is it just Behringer who can't make one?
Benn has made it clear that he just hates behringer because they made some Facebook posts that hurt his feelings.
@@ForkySeven, Damn Cupcake, you REALLY didn't watch the video.
They killed them self, their synths after the SUB 37 where not special enough for the bigger public. The only synth I was adoring, but couldn't afford it, the Moog One was out of reach for most people. For me it was the built quality of the Sub Phatty, sticky side panels, wobbly knobs and a unusable filter knop. Couldn't sell it any more, but sold all my other Moog's, even my beloved Voyager.
@@dddayesq5061 I feel the same about their new products, they lost the consumer market and that they still sold their products was because of their fan base.
I see some folks are still crying about Behringer, even though the title is about Moog. TWO FACTS..If Behringer was such a horrible company and complete junk, then how come they sell their products???Next, if they were doing something illegal then how come they have not been shut down? I mean if the moral gatekeepers have facts and documented evidence, then how come they have escaped being placed in prison? Let's just keep it that simple...That's what happened to AMC Pacers, Toshiba computers, and the Beat Thang..they are all gone..Period..
"Some folks?" You mean like Benn in this video? I thought it was wierd too, half the video was about behringer
@@neonblack211 It's so sad for any grown man to cry and complain so much yet do NOTHING to change it. It's almost as if they believe if they cry, insult,and yap about the company, they will get scared and run away.
@@michaels8607 this is the first video Benn has done that didn't sit well with me.... even his actual video about Behringer didn't bother me lol, this just felt bizarre
@@neonblack211Here's the thing that gives me clarity..Remember when it was revealed that where they made Jordans was a sweatshop? Remember when Timberland made a comment allegedly, or Tommy Hilfiger made about them and people of color? Remember what Roger Linn said once sampling to make beats became a culture? Did any of that shut down these companies, and don't people still buy the products? Here's my thing, it's my money,i buy what I want,just like he does and no one on UA-cam is the gatekeeper for ethics/morals..If you didnt buy it with your money,it's not your business. Having a creator's pinion on UA-cam does not make you deity that we should follow..
@@michaels8607 True, you are making a lot of sense
Seriously? The modern Moog company has nothing to do with Bob Moog. The company has changed hands multiple times over decades. By your reasoning, the Minimoog re-issue is also a counterfeit. Bob Moog never wanted to make the Minimoog in the first place.
But Bob sold the company and the design of the instruments to that company, not to Behringer... that was his decision to make that he profited off. Behringer deciding to make a fake one does have less to do with him
So Warm audio is a counterfeit company as well. Korg as well for counterfeiting the Odyssey.
I have several Moogs and love them. That factory was a complete mess - so inefficient - right out of the 1820's. They had to fix the issue if Moog was going to survive.
All these musicians who hate Behringer yet use Apple products. 🤔 My first Moog experience with Moog was having my Sub 37 arrive with parts audibly bouncing around inside it. I sent it back for a new one. The replacement I got had the easily breakable filter shaft due to the materials Moog used. So I had to then send that one out to get the filter shaft replaced. I had an Access Virus TI2 Polar whose motherboard went within a couple of months after buying it. It would emit ear splitting noise randomly where the only way to stop it was unplugging the power. Meanwhile, I've owned several pieces of Behringer gear for years now and have not had a single issue with any of them. 🤷♂️ It's not what people wanna hear, but that has been my experience. So when I hear how Moog is "made in America," I really don't care, especially when it's an American who assembled my synth with parts bouncing around. Also, Moog's parts and boards are still manufactured in China anyway, they're just assembled in the US. That's why Moog was threatening to leave the US when Trump imposed tariffs on China, because it was going to raise their manufacturing costs. And funny how no one mentions Moog's union busting attempts.
A voice of reason cutting through all this fruitless pivoting of nostalgia into some very false moral assumptions. No irony at all.
I get what you're saying and the thrust of what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but the one small point I wanna say is in an age where devices like smartphones are practically necessities, it's harder to try and ethically consume a product such as an iPhone than a synthesizer.
@@clarkharrell2227 I hear ya, but Apple has done some heinous stuff to its employees. Much, much worse than anything I've heard about Behringer. And it ain't like Moog isn't using Chinese labor for their parts as well.
That’s a frustrating story and I believe you but one data point does not a trend make. I haven’t heard or read that declining QA was a prime contributor to Moog’s demise. I also don’t hear Benn arguing that “made in the USA” equals perfect quality and unequalled support but it does mean more jobs for your friends and neighbours (under comparatively better labor laws, despite efforts to undermine those) which is generally good for your local community.
@@justinmccamish9059 I have heard about Moog's declining quality from others. Benn asked "who killed Moog?" Well, Moog killed Moog. And my Moog synth came with parts bouncing around inside. I'm explaining why being American made or higher priced doesn't always equal quality. I'm certainly less likely to buy another expensive synth from a company when my experience was not good. I don't care if a synth is assembled and calibrated by an American if that's the end result. I'd rather support a company like Dreadbox.
Moog's "made in the USA" has a huge asterisk next to it. They rely on parts and boards manufactured in China. Moog being "employee owned" also has a huge asterisk next to it. Their CEO can sell Moog off to whoever he wants and the employees had to fight to unionize in the end. Noticed how the CEO Moog sold the company shortly after employees wanted to unionize. I noticed you ignored my mention of Moog's union busting attempts. People have this nostalgia for old Moog that leads them to act like current Moog are some bastion of all that it is good in the world. When, really, Moog is a shadow of its former self. This focus on Behringer comes off as hypocritical when many musicians use Apple products to make music and is a company way worse than Behringer. Roland also make their products in Chinese factories. Yet Behringer are shamed for it. So yea, it all comes off as highly hypocritical.
I think Moog’s a part of music history so I hate to say it, but the answer to why they died is “Model D costs $5000”. If you take that 40% retailer mark-up off that’s still a $3000 monosynth. Resell prices shouldn’t be your benchmark for market value when those are determined by a revolving door of 500 guys who just sell vintage gear back and forth to each other. Moog could’ve gotten bigger or smaller and did neither. They could’ve developed an affordable product that addressed a market niche and they didn’t.
Most people can’t afford to be sentimental about their purchases in any category, and leaning on sentiment for sales is just bad business. Especially when your product is a luxury item that’s as expensive to make as it is to sell.
So the Mavis, the Minitaur, their Euro line, the Grandmother, the Theremini weren't affordably priced? They had products from every price point from software up to their modulars. Furthermore, I don't think 40% is accurate as a markup. A dealer back in the 2000s made about 800 dollars off the Voyager.
And for $5k you can buy a whole lot of synth of another iconic brands...
Like, they ended up being just the label. Does Moog One does anything competition costing half the price can't ? And anything below that is pretty much just some fresh paint on old synths.
There are literally a half dozen other products that cost less than 2k from Moog. They went broke because capitalism is shit and entitled consumers complain about synth costing the down on a nice car when the originals cost as-much-or-more than an entire luxury car. Synths are luxury goods. You are not entitled to own a Moog Model D, and any thinking otherwise is grossly out of touch with reality.
If a MAP agreement existed then Moog was setting the minimum retail price, obviously at a point where they believed they could be profitable. Two things have happened 1) cost of capital and access to capital has increased drastically as interest rates have risen. 2) Inflation has reduced the availability of disposable income to buy luxury items. Prevailing economic factors are likely why Moog had to sell, why Modal will die or sell, and the potential real-estate upheaval in China may take down MusicTribe.
I agree. This situation reminds me of generic medicines.
Behringer products are not counterfeit. They put the name Behringer on it. That makes a whole 9f a difference. You risk being liable for accusation of counterfeit when it is not.
After 25 years with my company and a lucrative promotion I decided to buy myself a brand new BMW . Up to that point it was Honda and VW. Real plain cars that got me from point A to B. No frills just the basics that I needed. It felt so good when I bought it. The first thing that came to mind was the attention that I was going to get. Then I realized something when I pulled in the parking lot. There were like 6 BMW and two were the same model and color as mine parked all in the same area that I usually parked in. I thought, "how will anyone know which one was mine" How do I let them know without sounding like a total douche? I know, someone was bound to see me drive in and will bring it up. That never happened. I know, I will wear the BMW shirt that the dealer gave me as thank you for shopping with them and someone will ask where I got it from. Yeah never happened. Then about 2 months passed and the car broke down leaving me with no car for two weeks. It seems that part that was needed can only come from the factory in Europe. I was given a loaner from the dealership. On the back window was the words " BMW courtesy car" All of sudden, everyone noticed. They wanted to know why I was in that car and when did I buy a BMW. I was ashamed to tell them mine had broke down , I didn't want to hear " Serves you right for buying a BMW" The horror stories I heard from current and previous owners was enough to make me trade mine in at a $10K loss after 4 months of owning it. I went back to Honda. You see , all I wanted to do was be in that ownership club. I really believed that having that car was going to make all the difference . It didn't. I was just another owner of a reputation and prestige that was marketed, created and eventually sold to another person who thought the same thing. Over the decades I have owned a Moog Voyager, Voyager rack. Prodigy and other Moog products. I have sold them all at a loss. Why? Because like my BMW, owning one was not that all that they say it is. They are a dime a dozen, literally. I know this was longwinded but I hope that people see where I was going with this. Companies come and go. Brands fall in and out of favor. Moog is no exception. BTW I was laid off from my company after 33 years. I thought that it could go till then end. We were bought, sold , rebranded and eventually became redundant over the years. Like Moog. I guess I am in a special club after all.
Wow. You should consider being a content creator on UA-cam . I actively read your entire comment, all while seeing where it was gradually leading. I enjoyed reading every word. Seriously, I did. Sorry about the bad times stuff, though. One of the best comments I've read. 👍
Moog Prodigy has the best oscillator sync going, I ain't never selling mine (which would now be at a huge profit!)
See, I on the other hand own a 1996 735i E38 V8 which growls and everyone looks up to see what that is as I start up or just crawl at 1200rpm's.. and as soon as I pull into any parking lot, numerous people men and women start asking questions in awe of this piece of engineering history. Not so much to any of the other new (and about 100x the price haha) BMW's parked around mine.
Same could be said about Moogs, and I get a feeling all of these people complaining how moog was replacable easily did not know how to play this tool... now was it too expensive as big screen tv's, mopeds from china, baseball cards etc were all equally or higher in price yet totally unnecessary - if you are really a musician. If you are a hobbyist then fine, but ANY pro in ANY biz pays good money for their go-to tools
There is no "would be" Moog purchaser who settles for buying a Behringer. As great as Moogs sound (and I've owned numerous of them), they're just as much about the brand and mystique as anything else. The large, large portion of folks who buy the Behringer equivalents are likely folks who simply would NEVER be able to justify the Moog price or simply cannot afford it.
Frankly, US tariffs are higher than they have been in many years, inflation is up, and UA-cam Synthfluencers are aiding numerous companies with creating a "fast fashion"-like market of electronic instruments. There is a seemingly weekly glut of new releases, and i just don't see how this is ultimately going to work out well for any individual company ultimately. This market is heading toward a collapse, IMO.
I have both an original 70's minimoog and a Behringer Poly D. They are both great sounding synths and Behringer did a really good job,
I can barely tell the difference between the original D and the Poly D....I love how the Poly D has more features, dedicated LFO, and that awesome octave switch for the keyboard...and...it stays in tune.
Having a limited space for Synth Modules, I have a Model D. I mainly play Hammond Organ, usually using a Clone at Present which allows me to Layer the "D" and other Module with the Organ Tones.
I'm not surprised to be honest. Times, people and technology changed a lot. Moog biggest mistake was not to adapt to it. If a hot-dog costs 90 cent you can't survive by selling it for $20 even if their better. It worked in the past! But not today anymore. And btw... I bought a Mother-32 and after a while I've found out that the cutoff knob was not a high quality original knob. After not even a few months, the knob caused an annoying scratching noise. So the Mother-32 was sent for service... the knob was supposedly replaced.... but this was not the case because after a few months the scratching started again. So I sent it to the service again with a letter from me and the request to please replace the knob with an original high-quality filter knob. This was done finally and since then no problems anymore. So Moog deliberately built inferior filter knobs and on the net you can find many threads about "fixing scratchy filter cutoff knob" from thousands of other affected people. A shame when you consider how much you pay for a Moog synth.
I feel a lot of Moogs appeal is just hype. Expensive and extremely limited. I found Benn's criticisms pretty lacking. He wants to say that Behringer is responsible for killing Moog. Which I just don't believe and he provided no evidence for it. If Crave isn't selling as he suggested then it isn't hurting Moog either. I believe Behringer makes a lot of its money from professional stage equipment and does take losses on its cheap synths, which no one talks about and I need researched.
I bought lots of hardware since the pandemic and none of it was Moog. I just don't see them as competitive as the other brands, 1k+ for a mono synth made with parts from Asia isn't appealing when you have opsix, mod wave, monologue, Nord, SH4D, Aira, cobalt , argon, micro/mini freak, motif, etc etc. It's not 1979 anymore and when I order a product made directly from Asia it doesn't have the quality issues Moog has. So I should just give Moog my money because of who they are?
Moog dies because of a lot of poor decision making at the top they went out of business in the 80s for a reason. Back then they blamed Japanese companies but overall It's a brand that can't adapt.
@@ChetHanks-eh1mdyou’re right and I don’t see Moog as an innovator, what innovated Moog the last 40 years? It is all the same nothing new the Minimoog comes three times and it has Midi hey what an innovation for 6000€. At this price point it has nothing to do with build quality, it is bad marketing
when you say "knob", you mean "potentiometer", right? Knobs don't have the ability to make your sound "scratchy." If you sent it in saying "my knob is broken" (insert beavis and butthead laughter) they may have just changed the knob, which as stated before, cannot affect the sound of a synth. When you sent it back in, they may have been like, "OHHH this dude meant the pot has issues, not the knob." and fixed the actual problem, which btw, could have been fixed by you with a can of contact cleaner spray, which you should probably keep on hand for regular upkeep if you own any audio equipment with "knobs."
@@ChetHanks-eh1md The Crave has been in the top selling synths on Thomann for months (position 9 as I write this), I thought it was very popular. At least in my country, its price has increased from 120-150 to 200 in one year. It doesn't seem "sold under cost" to me, and just a year ago was difficult to find in stores, so yes, it was "flying off the shelves". In fact, i find funny thinking that the Model D sells and the Crave doesn't just for the likeness (or lack of) with the cloned product front panel. I mean, we're not stupid.
@@directld exactly what I was going to say. The beavis and bit head laughter is real my friend
A lot of people hated Moog to be honest
It’s the Gibson of synthesizers
They rehash the same ideas over and over and over and charge the price of a car for it
A machine that uses the same schematic from 1979 should not cost $3500-$5000
Also not to forget the Moog One disaster that the firmware had so many issues that they decided to do a complete rewrite.
And Moog , after Bob unfortunately passed away, came only across as arrogant. Also I always had the impression that the Moog family is not particularly happy about how the company was run.
It’s a business. Their goal has always been to maximize profit. They used their brand to overcharge for their products. They sold the company for a huge pile of cash.
We need to stop conflating nostalgia with good intentions. They’re the Apple of synths. Their brand is what allows them to charge massive premiums for their products.
They tug at your heartstrings to pull more cash from your wallet. There are many companies, manufacturing great products in the US and other places with decent labor laws. They don’t have the name, so they charge reasonable prices and cut a respectable profit.
Moog milked their reputation as long as they could, then sold out as fast as they could. Good riddance, embrace the real innovators.
Counter-point: Stuff ain't cheap. Now, first, I'm not a Moog customer. I just don't need their products. So I don't have any first-hand experience with the build quality or complexity therein. But, speaking generally....
It's an interesting exercise to take some device -- any piece of electronics you care to examine -- and attempt to reverse-engineer it, then build your own. Just give it a shot. A Boss guitar pedal from 1985, a mic pre, whatever. Once you've got the the parts identified and made your own schematic from it, you're basically in Moog's position, right?
Now. Try to make your own. Go to Digi-Key and Mouser and fill a cart with the parts -- pots, switches, battery clip, XLR connectors, etc. Don't forget the knobs -- those are often more expensive than the pots they're attached to. Then, go grab the design software from Front Panel Express and get a quote for how much it'll cost to manufacture the part you look at.
Even for something small, it doesn't take long to bust right through a $3000 budget. Consider how many things you can buy -- things that do quite a bit of a real, productive work -- for less than two hundred bucks. Less than one hundred. Think about what it might've cost them, even with economies of scale, to make that thing, ship it to a distributor, and warranty it, and contemplate how it's possible to sell it with some non-zero profit margin.
You read everywhere on the Internet "this should've been $49" as if that assertion was based in some actual analysis. No. It's a race to the bottom, and we're pretty close to the bottom now. Congratulations. Everybody lost. Even the likes of Behringer can't actually sustain the model they've made for themselves.
Poors detected
honestly I missed the day when Behringer was just synonym with "shit audio gear but I'm broke and it's so cheap so let's go for it anyway"; and not "the robin hood of synths" or whatever. It's true there's been an increase in quality since those days even for basic audio gear (mixers and such) but I wish B and Uli would at least now their place.
As a Sweetwater employee, before we sold to private equity, "Do the right thing" was a motto, taking care of a customer over short term profit was the strategy for long term success. Luckily there hasn't been too much turnover and we've been able to keep a lot of that culture, but there's definitely been a push toward more profit-seeking behavior, and I'm sad to see it.
I went to high school very near the Moog factory in Williamsville NY. When they did demos for visiting musicians they would open an overhead door and you could hear the music from the school grounds. My friends and I would sometimes walk over there. One of those times we actually got to see Keith Emerson toying around with one. They were only in that location for a few years and then moved to a much larger facility in an adjoining town. It has since been torn down and replaced by a Walmart.
Oh man. To have seen Bob and Keith noodling around with R&D synths... Thats like accidently spying god and the angels hunched over a blueprint plotting the construction of heaven.
There is still a Moog here in the Buffalo region, Moog Inc. They do aerospace something something. Bob's cousin, I believe was the founder? Often I'll get really excited at the beginning of someone's sentence, then realize they're talking about the "boring" one.
My first ski bindings were made by the Moog you're talking about. I navigated the slopes at Kissing Bridge on theirs ,while listening to the other. Unrelated companies as far as I know. Perhaps they shared a carefully modulated hiss . They did for me.
There are dozens of manufacturers who have copied the minimoog over the years, and most people raised no issues with this, or were supportive. Behringer does it at a budget, and all hell breaks loose.
My own feelings are that Moog was just too expensive during a cost of living crisis, and given that their prices were rapidily increasing rather than decreasing in this same period, then this would lead to a perfect storm.
Average Joe on a tight budget is not going to shell out £5,000 for a Minimoog, even if the Behringer Model D was not available; they're just going to buy one of the countless other budget monosynths that have a ladder filter and sound broadly like a Minimoog. They can't afford to be snobs. And no, they're not going to turn to software synths, because if that argument was at all valid then everyone would be using free software rather than hardware, and no one would be buying a £5,000 synth, or a £200 one either. And even if the person who could not afford a £5,000 synth did indeed use free software instead of buying a Behringer Model D, then Moog still wouldn't be shifting units, and would still go out of business. So it's hardly Behringer's fault.
It all comes down to Moog not being competitive - counting on the elite market which ultimately didn't pay off - and being too slow or reluctant to change.
It's the same reason why you are not filming this video on a Nokia phone, and editing it with a Commodore Amiga. Both those firms ulitimately didn't give their customers what they wanted at the right price point, made stupid mistakes, and both went bust.
And it's wasn't all rosy at Moog for the workforce either. There were news reports of the staff being treated poorly and underpaid.
What is it with American companies that think their name and products they designed 50 years ago will keep them going! Harley Davison and Gibson spring to mind. Companies need to innovate to survive these days, reputation means nothing if you don’t move forward. Moog could easily done what Behringer did themselves but decided to produce a $5000 reproduction. Why didn’t they outsource production for a product that came in around $300-500 as well as their boutique ones? Guitar companies do it all the time and do very well. You can buy a made in Korea Fender Squier for $400 or a custom shop Fenter USA for $5000. They’d have sold a shed load of cheaper ones and maybe a few less of the expensive ones but they’d have all the money. To me that’d make good business sense but sadly, Moog didn’t think so and caused all their staff to lose their jobs.
That argument about getting a better deal getting VSTs for people that are not willing to spent on overpriced physical monosynths is missing the point on why people are getting Behringer gear. I thought you knew that since you own a lot of physical gear. And as for Behringer being counterfeits? That would have been correct if they were using the same brand name; when they made the Solina, legally they actually acquired the name fair and square. In other cases they use an abbreviated name that alludes to the original name of the product they are trying to recreate like the RD-9 or the Pro-800. It would have been nice if you talked about the small companies that are actually trying to do replicas like DynSync and STEDA Electronics.
It was saddening to hear of Moog’s demise in its current form. I’d have bought their stuff if I could have afforded it.
…aaaand THAT’S the reason they failed and had to sell. This is exactly what Trump was doing in bringing back manufacturing jobs into the US. Oh well.
I was still working in retail when the 'Chinese wave' hit in the early 2000s and Mackie were complaining about them all the way back then, they sued them for a direct mixing desk clone (8-bus), easily provable because they even copied a circuit mistake, but Mackie still lost in court, we were told they had to move production to China or go out of business. That's nearly 20 years ago it's been there MO from the off.
Yup. The difference is that Sweetwater and other retailers didn't carry Behringer products due to the cloning and poor quality control.
First, Moog instruments are amazing and I would never part with my Matriarch. I loved that they were small and a co-op, but it wasn't a good business model. Second, Berringer instruments are wonderful and I've owned many. They have a business model that works. Third, InMusic provides great musical instruments and I loved my MPC. They also have a business model that works. Fifth, the same can be said about David Smith and Sequential. So really, we should be thankful there are so many great companies and instruments.
I love Behringer. I use them on my live videos.
It's ridiculously short-sighted that we've let almost *all* our manufacturing get moved abroad. But to some extent: If you can't beat them, join them. I think every premium Made-in-America brand should create their own outsourced budget alternative. Like Fender and Squier. Because if you don't, someone else will.
That ship sailed a very long time ago.
did a blind sound test with a mini and a model d... if there was any difference at all, it was so slight that it was a non issue
I got quite a few Behringer clones and don't regret it one bit, Moog wants to overprice their instruments.
I love my flea market moogs and my actual moogs,Safe to say all modulars are a knock off of Moog also....yea.
Those Chinese workers made money to support their family....working at that facility doesn't change that...like most everything in your house is china made.
Moog should have made better business choices.
This would have happened regardless of Behringer. The new owners are a cold hard acquisition vehicle who's only goal is to maximise profit. You can try and work out what went wrong but the point is, the soul just got ripped out of the instrument
It was not a surprise to anyone but a few romantics who still believed Moog was a small time business. And it was obvious that a bigger corpo will "optimize" things to turn in max profits. Sequential is next.
It was until they where bought out...
I think that the horology (wristwatch) term might work better here. Behringer makes both homage (products that hint at the originals) and outright replicas. I think of counterfeit products are ones that are labeled and packaged identically like an original with the express purpose of conning an unsuspecting buyer, like counterfeit shoes.
there have been countless model-D hardware clones over the years. There are a trillion VST clones. The model-D was designed and sold over 60 years ago. Moog should have spent the last few years trying to innovate out of their crisis instead of trying to turn into a boutique style brand charging way over what the instrument was actually worth. There are countless examples of businesses that fail to innovate in a new market. Moog is just the latest. Blaming Behringer for everything is just calling out the boogeyman. I have a Behringer 2600. I paid £450 for it. It was designed and sold 50 years ago. Before Behringer I would have paid over a grand? So should be able to get it a reasonable cost? Or always pay over the odds against the cost of manufacture? I love behrigher and I wont stop buying them just because some rich dude with a studio full of expensive hardware doesn't like it when he realises that he could have gotten half of his studio at a fraction of the price. Also, this guy does have a history with Uri - that's all I'm saying.
You also should not forget that at least older people often bought the gear used at a time when it was not a collector’s item. In the 1990s or even 2000s a lot of vintage gear which is now super expensive was sold for a small price. Now Behringer is filling this gap. Even though I try to avoid them, but more because of their very questionable marketing practice. With the 2600 I could get weak.
@@mudi2000a I have the 2600. It sounds amazing, and I am learning so much about modular synthesis. Just buy it. Don't be swayed by this gaslighting bullshit. It's an amazing synth. And an amazing teaching tool - which was the entire point when it came out. It was supposed to teach people how subtractive synthesis works. And if you can get it for less than £500 - I don't know why we are even arguing at this point. hopefully, we aren't. This whole hating Behringer thing is really getting on my last nerve.
Man, I really wanted to visit the factory one day. Thank you for that moving tribute at the end; I miss Bob so much.
Selling us their name, and not the sound we came to love in the 70s. Modern Moog sound has only a distant resemblance to the rich organic quality it used to have. Ok, they did start to address this, somewhat.
Only the fittest of the fittest shall survive. Hundreds of talentless musicians suffer the loss of Moog, collectors and posers. But only the talented make music with anything at hand.
As someone who has never owned any real good fancy piece of audio equipment, never practiced on well-known, branded electronic music machines (but often made my own), let me say this very important information I am sure everybody was waiting for here, my heartfelt comment:
*_“It sucks to see a good name like Moog being left to rot in a ditch for the sake of money”._*
There. I ❤ you, Moog.
Didn’t the owners of Moog just want to cash in?
When I watched your video for the first time, I skipped the financing part, thinking it was an ad.
"Don't finance luxury items"
Yeah that's why I buy Behringer products because I can actually afford them. I would LOVE to be able to afford Moog and all these niche companies that send you stuff for free. I still want to be able to enjoy the fun workflow of some hardware before I die so it's either Behringer or bust. This felt like a lot of poor-shaming, company defending, and consumer bashing. Just because you addressed poor-shaming in the video doesn't make what you said NOT poor-shaming.
You don’t need hardware synths. Let’s put a spin on this “I couldn’t afford Prada so I bought Shein” - or you could just realize you want but don’t need a $5k luxury item that is limited edition and the mark of professionals, instead going for their $299 Mavis or just (gasp) waiting.
I don't know how many times I need to emphasize that, regardless of the company or income-level, we don't need the collector's items mentioned in this video to make music.
@@BennJordan Yeah. But they are fun and offer different work flows and creative inspiration. So, it seems like those options should only be available to people who can afford to not finance luxury items.
@@BennJordan but the accessibility that behringer provides goes far beyond just hardware synthesizers. For example, I needed a keyboard amp to be able to go to live gigs. I was looking at a Roland amp, or a behringer one that was identical in specs but several hundred dollars less. I'm not rich, and the amp is something I can use to take with me to gigs to try to make some money. Of course I went with the less expensive behringer option. Not everything behringer clones is a luxury item in the first place. And if the barrier to entry into playing music is so costly that only the privileged can afford to buy the flashy brands and be taken seriously, then frankly, the artform no longer deserves to be called art. Am I a "fan" of Behringer and their business practices? No, certainly not. But I don't stan any corporation under capitalism. There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism, and placing the burden of guilt onto the consumers by telling them they should never buy this brand, or never finance gear is unfair and elitist when there are no other affordable alternatives. If the prerequisite to being allowed to take part in the world of hardware synths is to be rich, then all of the art coming from that space is pay-to-win.
The mic at the end cracked me the fuck up. Thanks Benn for making this type of content. You are literally the only person/creator etc I know of that has the background to comment in an informed way on this stuff. We need to learn about how these systems work on the macro and micro and there is a serious dearth of content that speaks to it. Thanks.
What background is that?
He didn't realise, apparently, that Moog CEO had offered to sell the brand to Behringer. That doesn't sound like a toxic relationship..
@@KentBuchlathe background of luxury Chinese manufactured keys usually behind him, lol
Mannnnn. Modal going under is the buried headline here. I love their stuff.
as much as i hate stuff being bought off and made to be manufactured in china i gotta be real my ass couldnt afford a moog product at all and their offerings were way more pricey than equivalent products by other brands, moog is a big brand name, you were in part paying for the label
Yes, but the (tenuous) view of a lot of ppl is that you are paying mostly for a label. But this isn’t fashion apparel.
The branding figures way less in price than people think. You pay for the brand, but only in so much that you can view it as a guarante for quality, and a seal of approval in both directions where you know you invested in the future of the company.
Big difference in your cloned iPhone comparison. Clones are general not as good as the orignal; but in the case of Behringer they are often better than the original. Moog made some great gear, but they also made some dumb decisions, like not including MIDI or Reset of DFAM. Expecting customers needs to spend hundreds of dollars to purchase basic features from after-market sellers is kind of inexcusable. Why couldn't Moog make a faithful product at a fraction of the cost but with the features that customers want? If Behringer was able to do that, what prevented Moog from doing it first?
So this was just a Behringer hate video and you're even trying to tell us how to buy things by the end when Moog made a lot of bad business decisions. They were just luxury products, they refused to make anything affordable(I don't care if it's made in the USA, $5000 is way too much for a fucking monophonic synth), they haven't made anything new in god knows how long, they don't even have any digital synths and couldn't even get close to the usability of much better synths by other companies.
Someone sold the company out of greed and is probably the reason they were too expensive.
i have a 1950s counterfeit fender bass master tube amp. this has been happening since the inception. and for a nearly 70 year oold counterfeit, it sounds great
Everyone saying Moog is no more need to quit. Moog exists, employees still exist in Asheville. By saying that Moog is no more you are sealing their fate too. Let’s see what inMusic does with the brand. Moog as an employee owned, manufactured in US Company no longer exists, but Moog will continue in some form.
That’s the whole point of the video, doofus. Ofcourse (some) employees exist, and the name exists.
But it’s not the Moog of the last 40 years.
@@brmbkl you do know Moog ceased to exist once before. Moog has not operated continuously for 40 years, dingbat!
behringer is a great company. You and other detached youtubers forgot that this company innovates the exact same way as it rethinks great classics. I have many original synthesizers and drum machines like a minimoog, 808 303, linndrum and so on, but I am excited when behringer releases a new piece of gear. These guys innovate!! You are just a chatter who doesn´t produce anything people can put their hands on. Shit talking is easy in case you didn´t know, having a solid presence on the world market is not.
Moog was in my hometown. Sad to see em shut down.
To say that the recent state of Moog was manufactured entirely in America just is not true. They also had some things manufactured overseas as well.
I know some insiders in the Moog factory who said sexual misconduct and quiet internal lawsuits was at the core of this whole debacle, nothing else. And Let’s all be brutally honest, Moog was charging quadruple what everyone else was, because they could whore their name out more than anyone else based on their legacy. A lot of bad juju if you ask me.
All of Behringer products are carrying Behringer's logo. I am not sure if a product with a different logo is legally a counterfeit.
There is a huge difference between somebody selling a counterfeit Louis Vuitton bag, which has the company's logo and is for the average consumer indistinguishable from the original, and somebody selling a Moog clone, with a slightly different design and a their own company logo on it.
Who cares if a musician uses a Moog clone, when the music sounds great? Are these the same people, who would bully a player over his no-name shoes, after he scored the winning points for their favorite team?
Was "CorkSniffer" really an anti-Semitic meme? Afaik, Peter Kirn is not Jewish, and the shape of the nose resembles more Pinocchio's as those used in the anti-Semitic propaganda you are comparing it to.
I agree with you, that Behringer pulled quite a few questionable actions, and the "CorkSniffer" is right up on that list. Though, somebody has to make music gear for those, who can't afford high priced brand name products. If Behringer does not make clones for this target group, then real counterfeiters will fill the gap with super low quality garbage carrying fake logos of the originals. Is this good for the consumers and the original Brands? No!
Companies "copy" from each other in one form or another since forever. Some find loopholes, some license and some win or loose in court over it.
You will find similar looking and performing products across various categories. If things are not right, companies can battle this out in court using patents, copyright, trademark laws and so on.
I feel bad about Moog's employees and hope that they find new employment quickly. It's unfortunate, that small companies often don't have a fair chance in today's global economy with private equity sharks just waiting to tear them apart by any given chance.
You are being *incredibly* generous to Behringer regarding the corksniffer thing. There is a very clear similarity even if it wasn’t the intent. At the very very least a German company should be extra sensitive to those sort of things and stay far away from that line.
@@hastyscorpion I am very sure that Behringer had no intention to release images which can be perceived as antisemitic. Exactly because some people are super quick to play the Nazi card on Germans whenever they have some disagreement. Yes, Behringer's "Korgsniffer" was absolutely stupid, childish, mean, petty and whatever you want to call it, but antisemitic is super far fetched. As of my knowledge, there is actually no public statement of any Jewish person, who felt offended by Behringer, in this case. Though, people, who seek attention or are just happy about another argument against Behringer, are all over it. What's next? Banning German companies from using the "+" sign on volume buttons, because it's too close to a swastika? Give me a break! It's important to call Behringer out for that what they do wrong, but those, who play the Nazi card at any given occasion, discredit themselves.
Even if im not a big fan of Berhinger, ok i have a Deepmind 12 , but thats not a moog clone but more a roland one. Anyway , my poiint is that we can’t realy blane Berhinger for whats happening to moog, its more that they sticked to a business model that doesnt work anymore in 202x. Even French wine producers came up with a solution to foreign competition which is give the customers what they want, some cheap products along with high end products. As far as i know they didnt try really hard or maybe the mavis, but seems more a reduced version of an highend product at a reduced price that only collectors would buy
Spot on, there is so much good competition these days who wants another 70's inspired monosynth ?
Been waiting for you to make this video for a while!