The Ulilarity: When Does Behringer Go Too Far?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- Make Noise Maths: www.makenoisemusic.com/module...
Arturia KeyStep: www.arturia.com/products/keys...
Benn Jordan's "Moog, Retailers, And Clones [Op-ed]": • Moog, Retailers, And C...
KeyStep teardown blog: sandsoftwaresound.net/arturia-...
Uli Behringer photo from: • Uli Behringer Intervie...
0:00 -- Introduction
0:24 -- Not going too far
1:33 -- Swing vs KeyStep
2:41 -- Abacus vs MATHS
3:22 -- The Ulilarity
4:18 -- Customer behavior
4:52 -- My suggestions
Here in Brasil, a Behringer clone (if even available) equals the price of boutique stuff in the first world. Now think what the price for boutique stuff is ... unaffordable.
let them cry..
I wish I was born in 2050.
Let's face it, Moogs could and really should be cheaper but they wanna live in NY Shitty. That's the price, for both the fans and engineers. I get why old Moogs cost a fuckton but.. come on, eh?
I've no issue with the Behringer cloning of Mutable Instruments modules purely because they're all open source.
The eurorack world is the epitome of a cottage industry, so I think Behringer has over stepped the mark cloning Make Noise and Intellijel modules.
don't you think profiteering off of an open source schem is kind of the opposite spirit of open source?
@@collinpeters3691 Open source has nothing to do with profits. Profit isn't even mentioned by most open-source licenses; only a couple recent and niche ones ever do, though creative commons has a couple non-commercial options.
What _is_ against the spirit is releasing a new version of an open-source module without making the new version also open-source. But given that Gillet released those modules under the MIT license, Behringer is under no legal obligation to do anything but include a copyright notice on any software they release.
@@collinpeters3691 not when the Euro market has literally _THRIVED_ off off marked up MI clones from respected makers for years now (most of which at most only change the name & faceplate, which if you read MI's sourcing requirements, apecifically list this as their only for-profit requirement), and only once they became accessible to all did it become "problematic"...
@@collinpeters3691 As long as whoever is using the open source material is honoring the license, anything is fair game. There are entire companies based on building off of open source (see Red Hat).
There's an irony too in that Eurorack started with Doepfer making a whole range of clone modules, and boutique builders have continued doing so. I do think Behringer crosses some lines that other companies don't but it gets messy about what they're actually being criticized for in the context of the rest of the industry.
5:51 actually, Strymon offers the Bluesky as a pedal and as a plug-in at two vastly different prices 😉
You can't clone a PCB. That's actually considered "art" [design], and is actually the only part that you *_can_* copyright.
not true. The code can be copyrighted too. And specific functionality.
Wrong. And even after someone critizized you for beeing wrong, and getting 15 likes from people that belived you, you don't seem to bother. So here is a short list:
- Nearly EVERYTHING can be patented, it just has to have some new or until the patend is requested unpatented technic, that is documented in the patend. And it has to "solve a task" or "solve a problem" in a "new or unprecidented way" so you build a synth that can only be played with a watergun, patend it, and no one but you can build and sell that the next decades or so.
- Art is generally copyrighted. In most places of the world an artist has to activly free their own art from the copyright protection, and also EVERYTHING can be art, you just have to defend that point of view succesfully. You desing a very special synthesizer, call it a "sculpture" and boom, it's art, it's protected.(see Love Hulten, marvelous btw)
- a certain design (not to be confused with art) can be under design protection, that can be "typical" for your product or company, so if others use it, customers could be "confused" so it's prohibited: (see the lawsuit between apple and samsung about the round corners of smartphones)
- Also companys can activly protect a certain design, nikes bow, McDonalds M, Legos Minifig and so on, even colors. So behringer can copy moog, but can not put moog on the box for sure, and maybe can not use the same exact forms or color sheme.
@@opal42opal. “Patend”???
Since I bought my Make Noise Shared System in 2016, which cost me four years of savings, and I've seen practically a dozen knobs deteriorate within the following 5 years, I can tell you that seeing Behringer delve into Make Noise modules makes me chuckle. Especially considering how Make Noise treated me when I started to complain. (I had to buy knobs from them and find someone in Europe to install them because they don't have any customer service on this side of the Atlantic.) As a result, my system is gathering dust because most of the modules are unsellable. I've even become allergic to modular because of them. So, if I had known that Behringer was going to release so many modules, I probably wouldn't have been as disappointed in the "friendly community" of modular.
I couldn’t two fuqs if Behringer clone another product and sell it at a third of the price, in fact I’m glad they do it, if it means I can get it!!
I really like your suggestion of modern clone of an Ondes Martenot (or just the Martenot) - and of Behringer looking to more unusual and esoteric instruments in general for future clones.
The music world has been all about cheap knockoffs of brand new products that purists can scoff at basically forever.
Shameless copies of Fender guitars enabled people who couldn't afford the original to start playing. Without them, we wouldn't have gotten the dire straits, for example.
Boutique effects are for people who care about craftsmanship and are at a point in their lives where they can drop that kind of money.
But if you get a Squier Strat Pack for Christmas and you're not Mark Knopfler you're probably going to drop the guitar off at Goodwill by June.
The Abacus is a clone of the Maths, and the Maths is basically a clone of a Serge DUSG. Everything is a remix, I suppose.
Some people say the Maths is a clone of the DUSG. Other's say it's a clone of a Buchla design. Do you know if anyone has actually taken it apart and reverse engineered it to confirm?
Well the 281 isn’t a slew limiter, like the DUSG and Maths. It also needs to be kickstarted in order to self oscillate unlike both others. It always felt more like a DUSG to me. With the addition of an attenuverting mixer.
I'm looking at the serge DUSG and the maths is NOT a clone of this; it has 4 channels with attenuverters; an expo /log knob; sum/or/inv; output; it's a different module that BUILDS on the cycling envelope concept and take inspiration from the DUSG. Now I look at the abacus I see every single knob; switch; connector you can find on the maths and; again; it's called the ABACUS; it's a blatant rip-off WHY IS THIS THAT HARD TO GRASP FFS?
Very well thought out commentary!
Thanks you for your kind words!
I'm in agreement with your take. The swing was too far, and Abacus is too far. Plaits is open source and they stop producing it before behringer stepped in and a number of eurorack makers have cloned it, so I think that's fair game. It's a shame, as most of their clones I think are fair, and as such there was no need to step copied these. I have no issue with the Minimoog being cloned, it was being cloned for years whilst Moog was out of business, by SE, and it's donkeys years old. But current stuff, that leaves a nasty taste.
as a person who isn't going to buy a boutique synth/rack module anytime soon, I really empathize with the small companies that are doing amazing work in the synth space, but I also find myself wondering what these companies think they're doing. Like, this is what competition is. I don't like big corporations as much as the next guy but as the consumer, you make the decision whether to support Behringer or not and that's just how things are right now. But again, whose fault is it that these devices are only made for and marketed to successful musicians and hobbyists? I can go to guitar center and buy a perfectly serviceable Squire start for $200. I can also buy a much more expensive guitar for thousands of dollars. No one died when big companies turned the work of handcrafted stuff into an economy of scale capitalist dream. Things had to change to be sure, but to me this tells me that there is a entry point for musicians who want to mess with this stuff but wouldn't have the money for it until Behringer came along, and I don't have any complaints about that.
I agree. I also wonder whether anyone at these smaller outfits ever bothered to develop an actual business plan. Accounting for competition is a super basic concept that anyone in any business has to contend with.
The Make noise Maths was made after a Buchla module, so basicaly the math and the Befaco rampage are clones to
Yeah, I'd say a clone of a clone is a strange place to draw the line, that said, before the latest flurry of cloning classics the B has been at it for decades. If you look into their history it isn't pretty, with lawsuits about infringement going back 25+ years.
Maths is mostly inspired by a Serge module called DUSG (dual universal slope generator), and Serge modules were not being sold anymore when Makenoise started making Maths... (sure Buchla 281 is also similar, but it lacks some features)
If b had come out with their own riff on the dusg I think it would be a different story. It's definitely difficult to draw lines here, but by copying maths this closely there becomes very little reason to get a maths over this other than supporting make noise. There's a number of dusg modules out there, but everyone seems to gravitate towards maths due to it's widespread usage. An exact clone piggybacks off the success of make noise in a way the befaco/random source simply doesn't.
@@ngkktht774 MN has stated that their circuit was inspired by both the Buchla and Serge circuits. The DUSG and for example the Rampage go into audio rate and can be used as an oscillator as opposed to the Maths. So that might be what lead to the association with the Buchla 281 which only goes into LFO range, more in line with the 1kHz max of the Maths. Either way it is not an original circuit by any means.
Make Noise ripped off serge, serge ripped of buchla. Dat’s show business!
I agree with all of this. But I'm still going to buy the abacus. I could never justify owning a maths at full price, and the panel wouldn't blend as well with the rest of my case and modules. Actually, were it not for Behringer, I wouldn't own a eurorack synthesizer at all, and wouldn't have bought from other manufacturers, like Doepfer, CalSynth, Befaco, etc. . . . I see what everyone means when they say Behringer are undercutting the little guys, but then, it also feels like they're widening the market for those of us on the periphery who would never have taken the plunge if not for things like their Neutron, or their $1600 system 55 bundle. . . All that's to say, I'm torn and really don't know how to feel. I'm not going to let it stop me from saving $200 here or there... Money I then threw at an After Later Audio clone of Mutable Instrument's Warps, so. :)
I agree that Moog missed the oportunity to venture into lower price Markets. I think the Moog Werkstatt was a step in the right direction but yeah.. now that they where bought, things will be different anyway and the production process of Moog will more and more become like the one from Behringer. Less Handlabor, cheaper (but functional) parts and more automation. The cost will go down but i have the suspicion that the Products won't become significantly cheaper.
I mean, the Minitaur was $599 and that thing is a beast.
@@alexwestconsulting I always found the architecture of the Minutaur quite Limiting and uninteresting... But that said it's hard to get a bad Sound out of it. But for 600€ nah thanks. If Behringer would produce it it propably would cost 150€ :D
@@SenfSenferson 150€? Nah, it would cost at least as much as the Model D. It has a decent CC implementation, patch storage and an editor, never mind great encoders. I mean, the Toro costs $250 and it's as limited as can be, Minitaur kills it in every way. Anyway, more to the point, ,the issue is that Moog did have low-cost options. Frankly, I'd call the Phatty line rather low-cost as well. Moog did have options that were not more expensive than other vendors such as Korg, Dreadbox and the like, so in relative terms they did have low-cost options.
There was no difference in making the synth in China , or assemble (screw together)the China made synth in a boutique shop in Usa
@@alexwestconsulting yeah you're propably right i think i mixed up the toro and the minotaur. patch storage isn't behringers thing apparently :D
I'm glad Behringer is doing it. I can't just afford to drop so much money on a module
Well, the Behringer DX626 is a clone of the Gemini PS-626 Pro, originally released in 1996.
So this has been going on for a while. Understatement.
Any Behringer mixer is a Mackie mixer with cheaper parts and a tiny power supply.
funny, they announced a clone of MI ripples which has dissapeared from websites now, the OPA1679 opamps are on a long lead time and i'm guessing they can't get enough, but it's not like they can't just use a different one with some possible small adapations, but it seems they don't even want to bother doing that
If they did that they would have to have a whole R&D round to find the right chips, verify that they work with the circuit, etc, it would add some time to development, and these modules aren't gonna sell a ton. So I doubt it is worth it for them to clone a eurorack module if they expect that they will have to do more than one prototype.
I've decided to go product by product. The problem is the products that they've cloned that I wouldn't be happy about buying are not products I would buy anyway. It's mostly the modules but they don't fit the needs of my Eurorack setup (a sound engine for my Roland AE-30 wind synth).
Finally, a sane, measured take on Behringer’s instrument business.
Moog ladder filter was Patented, so after 17 years or exclusivity, it became freely available to be used ( or something similar ) most of the synths etc out there are not covered by patents?
I think Behringer's Crave is better than the Moog Mother-32 in some important ways. The Mother-32 has a lot of VCO tracking issues because of its design (impendence issue mostly, fixable with buffers). The Crave uses an off-the-shelf oscillator with high impedance inputs and behaves much more nicely with other modular synths. That said, the Moog sounds quite a bit different (better to most ears) than the Crave. But for someone looking to start with modular synth I'd recommend the Crave over the Mother-32 as its similar enough to fill the same role but way easier to use and a third of the price.
Agree with most of this. However I'd say the Moog Grandmother is a more affordable Minimoog. 😁
Make Noise Maths is itself lifted from other modules from Buchla if I'm not mistaken
That's the question -- some people say it's based on Buchla designs, others say it's based on Serge designs. Has anyone actually taken one apart and reversed engineered it to know for sure?
Read that Serge's was built from Buchla's design too, so that would be the chronology of events @@Lantertronics
@@yashnu The Serge slope generator circuit is pretty unique. There may be Buchla circuits that share some functionality but the circuit itself is Serge's original design as far as I can tell.
@@Lantertronics I wouldn't be surprised: it's just analogue processing
Source was an article on Perfect Circuit. It deserves some deeper exploration @@Lantertronics
I'm still getting a Neve 73 preamp clone by Warm Audio.
I have one of those. Really nice.
Warm Audio would claim that in some cases their clones are closer to the original units than modern units made by the "original" manufacturer. For instance, the modern manufacturer might just use a different transformer, whereas Warm Audio will actually get custom transformer made to match the original specs. (I'm not making any claims here on how accurate such claims might be). Which leads to an interesting philosophical question, given that even all the originals are clones of some prototype. ;)
Nice and balanced comment on the issue of cloning devices. I have no problem when Behringer creates a clone of an 'older' device. I agree with you that cloning modules like Makenoise Maths, Intellijel Quad VCA, Xaoc Batumi, is definitely NOT cool. I also guess that the legal department takes a very good look at what the actual licensing scheme for that module is. For example, the Makenoise Maths will probably have the same circuit design, but the PCB design is definitely different. And while they don't refer in any way to Intellijel or Xaoc, they do mention that for their module Brains they took heavy inspiration from Mutable Instruments Plaits. This last design is open source, but I guess it includes an obligation to mention its originator.
My problem with Behringer clones of old gear is that they clone them wrongly. That’s why they were blowing out the Moog/ARP/Roland Eurorack clones at bargain basement prices: they made numerous obvious errors in cloning those devices!
Behringer would only have had to mention the Plaits if they had built an open sourced version of it (there's a few on the market already). My understanding is Brains is actually a different module, running different software. They WANT you to know they cloned Plaits as part of their marketing.
@@dlabrador, I checked the license and as far as I can see, the MIT license is applicable, not the MIT-0 license. This means that you are required to give attribution to the author, and that you must include the license text in your own code, if you are going to use (part of) the author's code.
@@CapraObscura No, they were definitely clearing inventory of product that had sold poorly. You’re right about that. I have no idea what a “cap-licker” is, as that’s not a regional idiom where I live. But I’m sure Behringer had no shame about selling slightly defective modules. If they did, they wouldn’t be Behringer. So your comment characterizes my comment poorly.
Absolutely agree!
In regards to the Swing. I wonder if it's like getting a Costco brand, as opposed to a name brand. Costco has a lot of in-house brands that are actually supplied by known name brand manufacturers. Starbucks, Duracell (off the top of my head). It's the same thing, only packaged and with a name on it. It gives the appearance of choice, and the manufacturer still makes money. it's actually an interesting business tactic to have two seemingly competing brands, because you would control the competition. So long as there is the Behringer Swing, and the Arturia Keystep, you make it harder for a 3rd option to emerge because you kind of control both sides of the financial spectrum. In the case of Maths / Abacus. That was just shifty...
If I were to build up a eurorack setup, I would spend the money on the Maths over the behringer. I own the k-2 and wasp from behringer, I got em second hand and they are pretty cool, and I'm considering buying the pro 800. But, I don't long for a behringer product, I actually would love to replace them with high quality analog synths (like the korg ms-20fs even though I prefer rack mountable modules).
The cheaper maths module will work for the money but I suspect people are lusting after the real deal way more. That said I don't want to support them in doing that I agree with the points made about some being fine and others are just slimey.
*They need to leave the boutique brands and other tiny companies alone.* I'm on the poverty end of gear I purchase, but I did complete a year in an E. Engineering degree, develop my own equipment, and would like to launch my own audio company by the end of this year. I have some great designs that are unique and new, and fully expect to get ripped off by the Chinese and various companies out there, but it would be nice if I could actually get launched and my feet firmly planted before that happens.
*One critical point to make about Behringer is their analog guitar pedal clones tend to turn into a mess of distortion once you get around 60-65% of settings, even if it's only one.* It also needs to be known that the boutique brands doing well and not, *are also known for ripping off designs.* I also have criticism for them too though because their prices are pretty outrageous.
*300 to $500 for many pedals has me wondering wth their overhead is and how are they manufacturing so they end up at these prices.* I suppose I am overly hopeful, but I have a CNC mill, laser engraver/cutter and 3D printer. In my estimations even as a one man show, I should be able to produce a pedal for about $20 outsourcing the PCB's, purchasing parts and including my own labor and utility bills, sell for 2-3x that directly to the public.
Just giving my two cents, but when it comes to guitar pedals, cloning is often talked in a wrong manner. If you have a circuit that heavily resembles the original, it is mostly due to certain circuit design. Tube screamer will always have a similar topology. If one would extend this to amps, then Soldano would be just a Marshall clone. And then Peavey, Framus, Mesa and some others would have just clones this into some of their own amps. But I share the sentiment that when a large corporation copies smaller ones, it just doesn't seem fair.
I wanna make aklon clone and call it "The Prawn"
Instead of a minotaur, it will just be a shrimp.
This wins best comment on this video. :)
Politics aside, discounting the end justifying means etc. A lot of Behringer Hate goes out the window in the face of "HEY! I can get a Kobol Expander at sweetwater for 200 bucks!" details are called weeds for a reason and sure they are made by suicidal chinese kids just like the 20 dollar walmart sneakers I buy because thats what I can afford. My favorite analog synths I own are the Werkstatt and Gakken 150 mark II. The wekstatt is the only MOOG I will ever afford and the Gakken because I got it when it was 30 bucks on amazon. They both sound pretty good.
If Behringer followed the rule of "don't be an ass" and supported their products better, I think I'd be more a fan of them. As is, I generally try to avoid buying from them if I can, though sometimes they make a genuinely good product at a given price and I can't justify paying more. (sighs) If you can't afford something, it may as well not exist.
I assume that there will be an ONN version of everything as Walmart takes over retail : )
I suspect that's where everything is going. Just look at what it's like to search for something on Amazon vs. 10 years ago...
i wish theyd bring back the mixcube clone. that thing was great
Avantone makes one (I have one of their mics and it's nice).
exactly thats the clone they used to clone for 1/4 the price. Behringer Behritone c50a. @@Lantertronics
Kind of understood when Behringer was new up and coming…. But here we are few decades later and I feel they should be developing their own products.
I will give companies who make clones bit of a break on one thing: when they do make their own original products, they tend not to sell as well as the clones. So to some extent they're just responding to market forces.
What's funny is every instrument gets cloned. Literally all of them. Drum heads are meant to replicate more expensive or rare ones. Alesis makes an electronic drum kit to emulate Roland's v-series and no one bats an eye. Like you noted, guitars are cloned at half price all the time. Hell I have a Epiphone Thunderbird IV Gothic bass...instead of the 5x pricier Gibson.
So, it confuses me why people make a big deal about it in the synth community. I've been buying and selling and using synths since the early 90's. Does it suck some of my analogs are now clones? Nah. It doesn't hurt the fact I've used it for years. I'm more happy I can use the clone live and not have to sample the original to use it live or to risk dragging a vintage synth on tour. As for the cloning of modern things or even modifying, again, I don't see the issue. Clearly the devices can be made cheaper, so Behringer chooses to gouge the customer less. Why would you get mad at that? I really don't understand it. Look, I'm sorry you spent $500 on your maths. I'm enjoying my $100 Abacus. It does the same thing. I make the same music. Do I prefer if Behringer makes original gear? Sure! The Deepmind 12 and Crave were pretty great pieces of gear. Same with the Pro VS, which by all intents and purposes, is not really a clone as much as a re-imagining. However, getting huffy about the 2500 clones is silly. Same with 2600 or Odyssey. They're filling a void that no one else is willing to fill. Want to compete? Step up. Make something they can't clone. They have openly said they'll never clone anything mechanical (like what you listed they should). They also generally only go after the stuff that's either open source, abandoned, or like in the Maths and Swing case, they can afford to make cheaper.
I don't feel bad for Arturia. The Keystep pro is insanely overpriced for what it is. You can get far better controllers for the same price before the SWING came out. Maybe it forces the hand of competitive pricing and less of the ridiculous overpricing that exists in our instruments.
And in Behringer's defense, it looks like their clones sell better than their more original offerings like the Deepmind. So to some extent they're just responding to market forces and you can't blame them for catering to what people want.
Thank you for this video. I didn't know there was a Maths (always wanted one) clone by Behringer, jump on Sweetwater and ordered one. I said it before and I will say it again. I am 71 years in age and like making music and creating sounds. When I retired in 2014 I made an effort to get into modular synthesis but being on a fixed income it wasn't possible. The prices were crazy, There was one module (sequencer) that was $600.00, I brought two Behringer semi-modular synth for that price and then two more after that. The point is I can afford it and it works great. Behringer had their issues back in the day....they've fix them and some of us a benefiting.
"This is not cool..." 😂.
All this fracas over cloning is silly. Where was the outrage when Oberheim put a direct copy of the filter and amplifier EGs from the minimoog into the SEM? After all ARP got sued by Moog for copying the ladder filter, prompting ARP to adopt a "sortof" ladder filter made from one of the oddest chips ever made, the LM3900, and potting it in epoxy-resin. With IC-based voice engines it becomes even less of a copy issue, the CEM chipset was used in something like 25 synthesizers of the 1978 to 1986 era, and were put to use once again in the 21st century as second-sources for the chips came online. Then they go further down the rabbit hole: "Oh but you can't clone the chips, that's not moral!" That is like saying TI can''t second-source a Fairchild op-amp. As an example, the new Berhinger ubxa uses the coolaudio version of the CEM chipset. Aside from the aesthetics of the instrument that is where the the similarity ends. The ubxa uses a completely different control system than the OBXa (four CPUs vs. 1) and it is built to ISO QA-compliancy with circuit boards made using what is known in the industry as "best practices." Anyone trying to talk up "inferior Chinese quality" are only fooling themselves; Shenzhen and other manufacturing cities got a handle on this long ago.
heh, where does your paycheck come from? ARP wasn't sued by Moog, that didn't happen, you should know that. ua-cam.com/video/tWS2ZQnS7q8/v-deo.html
If you don't mind having something you did cloned then by all means get a clone. I do like figuring out how people did things but that's just for fun
It's all heading toward Cherry Audio VA products anyway. That's why I'm moving toward 27" touchscreen PC's now. I do love my Deepmind, Model D and Pro-800.
I am eagerly awaiting my $1199 UB-Xa in January. Take a look inside an Oberheim OBX8 for $5k and you will see the greed factor, plus the battleship-grey paint job reveals the penny-pinching-squeezing of every dollar. I do wish Behring would realize they could make a mega mother end-all synth and stop doing clones. You are right about clone sales, they're better because nostalgia sells.
You think OBX8 is a greed factor because of what it looks like inside?
It's 3 synths in 1, so next you will say the latest PC compared to something 40 years ago is all about greed because of how it looks due to technology advances?
I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
Oh buh buh buh a company that spends so much on RnD is being greedy because they refined how something looks
LOL erm OK
@@dankeplace a 1500 bucks polysynth with super limited modulation in regard to modern standard; you can get a summit for the same price; or a polybrute for not much more. I would have respected them more if they had reworked the interface to modern standard and got rid of some useless peculiarities (give us a full mod matrix ffs). But they want to bank on nostalgia and that's all they have to offer.
@@valdir7426 it's 1200 and analog 16 voices with PAT, Summit is 2200 and digital. PB is 2600 and 6 voice.
They're all very different synths.
I'm not interested in politics, I go where my wallet says it's good for me.
I am not too keen on their keybeds, their DM12 was farcical when it was 1st released.
Cherry audio..I wouldn't put my money on that.
I notice that most of these anti-uli videos come from people who already paid for Maths, and I can sympathize. However, I see it similarly to how I view "watching pirated movies". I wasn't going to go see the movie in the theater or buy a DVD of it, so the studio didn't actually lose anything. I was never going to be able to afford a $500 module. I can easily afford the $79 I paid for Abacus.
See, I think Maths has been ubiquitous for ages in the modular market and at this stage it's fair for Behringer to make a similar product.
My question is: is the functionality just similar, or is the circuit an exact clone?
@@Lantertronics Clearly you know little about manufacturing electronic wares and do not seem to comprehend the simple fact that patents and “patent protection” simply don’t exist in consumer electronics… at all.
If companies were able to fiercely protect products via US Patent … we’d all be buying the exact same toaster (GE) and there would be no legal way to get a different toaster (or microwave, radio, phone, can opener etc. etc.) outside of building your own… in secret.
The reality of electronic design works due to zero protection on hardware and electronics. Engineers confer, cooperate, share and build on established designs… only the circuit board art and user interface are protected, and thats only via copyright.
Not patents.
Electronic components are uniformly designed, capacitors and chips etc. are sold in bulk to factories. The engineers are tasked with making the core idea actually work… its a very difficult task. They turn to other designs in the fields to see how to make it work. Its called “reverse engineering” and its a widespread common practice.
Make noise didn’t just “dream up” Maths… they looked at (reverse engineered) Don Buchla’s designs… without asking… and cobbled together Maths.
I’ve BEEN to Make Noise’s factory in Asheville NC -back in 2015- just kinda showed up (after calling)… its mostly a warehouse where they receive fully assembled product, built by off-site contractors (they wouldn’t say who or where)… they design upstairs in comfortable offices and drive new Land Rovers.
They have two or three young guys handling delivery and the owners (alone) make tons of money. Their profits are substantial as they have a straight forward, simple electronic product… knobs, potentiometers, chips, relays, circuit boards on a simple flat panel… machines can assemble & solder modular products in bulk.
No more complex than a 1960s AM transistor radio.
They are not suffering by having one of their most popular products “cloned”. Not in the least.
Stop misleading people.
Oh… i’m not a fan of Behringer. Cheaply made (thin circuits, small components), their products have low resale value.
[As proof of my knowledge on the subject,
I’m 64 and worked at Sequential Circuits in the 80’s working on the assembly line (matching resistors) driving product to and from the airport, have had lots of jobs in factories in Silicon Valley, known many electronic engineers that happily explained products and systems, talked to and prototyped with consumer electronics designers & entrepreneurs.
I like boutique gear and have a nice lil’ Pulp Logic 56hp case, Loquelic Iteritas a CalSynth uPlaits, two ES Distings, Happy Nerding MMF and even a MakeNoise 0-coast. Plus a Mac as i prefer the sequencer in Ableton Live.]
it's not a similar product. it's an exact replica functionnality-wise. there are many cycling envelope generator in the eurorack world; nobody is saying they ripped off Make Noise; but Behringer actually did.
It's such a double-edged sword for me.... Overall I am grateful for Behringer. They make a lot of reasonably-priced gear that I would otherwise be unable to afford. It does suck when they are taking from smaller companies like Make Noise... I love Make Noise and would rather purchase their original modules in that case. I own Maths and Wooglebug, I paid full price and they are definitely worth it. Do I care that Behringer clones Moog and Roland though? F no.
Yes
You win for Most Direct Answer :)
In the age of ChatGTP, which is nothing more than a giant plagiarism engine, is the idea of behringer cloned products good or bad relevant anymore? I mean we are going to have so much AI music, all cloned from other songs, played on synths cloned from other synths… heck, I am just going to start listening to the white noise generated from wonky transistors and then try to imagine any music that could be inside the noise.
If moog would make a cheap chinese mass produced version of the minimoog I would buy one asap. But they don't.. So I'm going to buy a behringer 🤷♂ I don't care about brand history or company philosophy, all I care about is function/features and price. 🤷♂ Although I do like the smooth and high quality knobs on moog but for me it's not worth the insane price premium..
Wow, there is a Behry Keystep?
I agree, except
- novachord is based on too many mechanical parts and vacuum tubes, they would not make a clone
- there is already a fantastic Japanese clone of the ondes Martenot called the Ondomo (so, I hope behri will leave him alone...)
The Ondomo is beautiful -- but it looks like they have a trouble with keeping up with production?
@@Lantertronics it's a one man job, Naoyuki is building everything alone (and is a really nice person)
people just need to be patient (i have one of the first 100 serie, I can't wait to test the full size model !!!)
we re discussing about intellectual property. should we also have cultural property? or biodiversity property? so there should no "italian coffee" cos coffee beans dont grow in italy.
People are still buying maths instead of abacus... I personally can't afford MN while abacus is totally in my range... So there are two options for me, staying without a module and replacing it with software modulators and expert sleepers, or buying behringers version... It's not like B stole a customer from MN...
100% agree
The Behrringer Swing has many upgrades and advantages over the Keystep.
Yes, like Ratchets. I use the Swing over my keystep.
@@intothewonderful As soon as I got the Swing, I sold my Keystep
A guitar is a long way from a complicated electronic circuit. Put yourself in the shoe of Make Noise or Moog. Moog is a great example: one wonders if Uli's band of cloners contributed significantly to their divestiture and sale? Cloneinger is not playing morally. Recreating 40+ synths of companies that are not longer in existence is one thing, but I assert that copying recent designs in a totally OBVIOUS way is crappy at best. I have a *real* MATHS and would never consider a Cloneinger version, until Make Noise discontinues production. I think we need to be fair by considering the real people that invented the real deal and spend your dollars towards supporting them. And to be clear; I'm not at all affiliated or associated in any way with any instrument producing organizations or affiliations.
Behringer did the same with mixers (making cost-reduced copies of competing products) in the 1990s. It's been B's business model apparently since the beginning.
I want to point a few things out. Same functionality does not mean same under the hood. Lots of products out there offer similar or identical functionality while employing unique means. When Crave dropped, everybody was quick to cry out that it was a rip-off of Mother-32, with disregard for the fact that while the architecture was similar if not the same (What, another analog mono using the same garden variety ubiquitous architecture with patch points that make sense based on decades of modular and semi-modular synthesis? How dare they!), the oscillator section at the very least was not in fact even close, being 3340 based. Oh, no, you cry, they cloned the 3340, too! Yep, so have several other manufacturers over the years. Nobody pretends that plywood strats are the same under the hood as a Fender American Standard. For that matter, nobody bats an eyelash at the myriad household items we all purchase every day which are in fact cheap clones of costly boutique products.
Anyway, I see many people cry in their soy latte about the little makers losing market share to "b-company" or other "he who shall not be named" attempts to not name Behringer directly as though somehow if they said it out loud three times, Uli would appear in your attic and wreak havoc, cloning all of your housewares to sell at a lower price point. What nobody wants to talk about is Behringer bringing new market share to those self same makers by bringing the world of eurorack into the common realm of affordability. A kid with a modest budget can buy a NiftyBundle, Brains and Swing to get a quick and dirty start in modular. How long will it be before that kid decides they can justify saving for that $700 boutique module that would never have otherwise been on their radar? If this sounds stupid, I will tell you right now: that is my story. I started with a Neutron, then a NiftyBundle, then Brains. Now I have Pam's, Muxlicer+Mex, Tesseract Polar8, Ochd+expander, Manis Iteritas Alia, Rample and more, and a wishlist that spans cheap clones to costly boutique modules, NONE of which I would have bought if not for the likes of Behringer, Cre8audio, Dreadbox and Synthrotek making eurorack accessible.
Brains is based on a Mutable Instruments design which is open source, so it's in its own category.
You make an excellent point about the Crave. In similar vein, the Behringer Pro VS Mini is nothing at all like an actual Sequential Prophet VS under the hood (the Pro VS Mini basically a virtual synth running in a dedicated box).
yes, this one was one clone too much for me... even if I love the vintage clones synths
God bless Uli!
Clones/remakes/reissues are de rigueur in the guitar world. Nobody thinks twice about it. Synth people need to just relax and go with the flow.
How much development is needed to manufacture guitars though? Small synth manufacturers invest a lot of time and resources into developing new products and in order to fund that they need to sell their products with a good margin. Do you see Behringer ever making something interesting and unique like Odessa from Xaoc Devices or Spectraphon by MN? Behringer didn’t even manage to do the bare minimum and expand on the modern modules they cloned. Function Generators are a Serge/Buchla concept but Maths added some basic analog computing functions (hence the name Maths) and the Befaco Rampage added similar additional features that are also distinct from the Maths.
Behringer’s vintage and open source clones are perfectly acceptable but cloning modern, in production modules, from tiny companies, just isn’t acceptable, whether it’s legal practice or not.
I think thats one sided to think that only people buy a 5k synth that dont care about how much it costs - a synth with a reputation like this - still a lot of people going to save up for it when there is no alternative even if they have low wages
Is it not for companies to decide whether Behringer should be sued for infringement? They should decide whether it is serious not you or we viewers.
mannnn fuck Behringer but I'm buying their clones cause I'm poor
You video title has a spelling error. It should be "...too far". 2 O's.
Good eye! Looks like he fixed it
Behringer was not the first to clone the Keystep, there were MANY clones out there some with random branding others were just generic looking... All manufactured in China (where trademarking and copyright don't apply).
The problem with singling out one single company and pointing to one exceptional product and effectively saying 'I have no problem with this practice, except this one product by this one company', is that you undermine your own point.
If it is okay it is okay, and as you have stated it is common practice for companies to do this...
It also completely bypasses the fact that there is high demand for all of the products in question, demand that is not being satisfied by the manufacturer. So it is only common sense that someone will come along sooner or later to meet the demand, and at a better price? with improvements too? That is a no-brainer for the consumer.
it should also be noted the common practice in business of 'selling exclusivity', this is where companies deliberately price their products far far above worth (and obviously cost), this gives the end-consumer a feeling that they are getting something exceptional. Some companies even restrict availability of product the create a sense of exclusivity, the practice has been around since at least the 50s.
Those practices backfire however when a competitor comes to the table with a superior product at a lower price point.
Why buy the Keystep, when you can buy a Chinese clone for 40-50? Why buy the Chinese clones when you can buy the behringer version for an extra 20? Regardless if you want the Arturia that is what you will get, but if you don't feel you are getting your moneys worth you will look at alternatives.
Show me one
Happy to see that Brave isn't your default browser. Delete it instead 🙂
You have an eye for detail! Yeah, I use Brave occasionally when I do the thing of capturing a full UA-cam screen including the thumbnails on the right side for flavor. If Safari is showing too many ads I can sometimes switch to Brave and it will show some video thumbnails instead.
I love how controversial Behringer is. Love em or hate em, they bring affordable music options to the everyday musician.
"This is not cool" is a pretty weak argument. If these existing products don't contain any patented or otherwise protectable IP, there is no reason why ANY company shouldn't offer a competing product. Almost every consumer product on the market has to deal with competitors. These small synth companies are no different. If competition is too much for them to deal with, they probably ought to develop a business plan that takes market realities into account, or close their doors.
If Behringer decided 6:05 to clone the OP-1, I'd be all in favor of it, because F Teenage Engineering and their absurd prices.
They would likely clone it incorrectly. I purchased some of their Roland Eurorack clones, and Behringer made some egregious and obvious errors, which is why they were blowing out those modules for $49-$79. If they can’t correctly clone simple 70s analog modules, I wouldn’t trust them to clone any modern software driven device adequately.
Doesn’t the behringer eurorack stuff use different voltage standards?
Isnt the Maths a Buchla clone, albeit surely tuned up?
That's something I've been wondering about... some say it's a clone of a Buchla circuit, others a clone of a Serge circuit (both of which are quite different from each other). I have a Maths; one day I'll probably let curiosity overwhelm me and take mine apart to reverse engineer it to figure it out one way or the other (or find if it's a totally new design).
@@Lantertronics the Make Noise website says it “builds on the tradition set into motion in the 1960’s when Don Buchla adapted circuits found within analog computers for musical purposes. Buchla’s Algebraic Processor, Model 257 and 281 changed the way music synthesizers utilize control voltages.” From that my guess is Tony has taken some from those designs and come up with something unique.
@@Cracked_and_Crunchy That is interesting!
heh, i thought the Behringer Abacus was modeled after the Buchla 257 and 281 analog synthesizers.
Some people say it's modeled after Buchla, some say Serge. I have no idea. If I really wanted to know I guess I could reverse engineer my Maths but I'm not sure I care that much. ;)
Pretty sure Behringer won't clone the Novachord or the Ondes Martenot, because even in the synth enthusiast scene those are not well known. As you touch on, people like buying clones above original designs, even when you consider smaller or more reputable manufacturers.
I don't think it's about the capabilities or the sound at all. It's about the feeling of having access to a certain level of prestige. I can have a model D, I can have a Maths, I can have an OB-X, and I can even be smug about having made a smart business decision and save money! Pretty sure the music gear market targets collectors above musicians, especially in the mid price segments.
Most of the Really Serious Musicians I see doing their thing are working with something like Ableton Live and a nice midi controller or a nord stage. You can do almost anything you can imagine inside a laptop now, and many people do. I think you’re right, clone gear is aspirational, not critical.
I’ve been happily buying Behringer gear because I’m a hobbyist and will never make money from it.
If Behringer is able to make a module for one third of the price, perhaps the module was highly overpriced to begin with. If it hadn't been then there would have be less incentive for Behringer to clone it to begin with.
Behringer are able to do that because they have a huge manufacturing infrastructure and can shit out bulk batches of devices extremely fast with relatively low overhead. That's the only way these things can be made cheaply whilst also supporting the people making them. Conversely the vast majority of module manufacturers are 2, 3, 4 person teams building the things largely by hand or have to outsource a lot of components and manufacturing steps at great cost. Making modules is not something people get rich off, despite the high prices.
There's space in the market for Beringer and cheap modules is a good thing, but they'd be a lot more widely accepted if they supported the builder scene rather than trying to squash it out of existence.
@@alexblunt7493 I appreciate your perspective. How would you say they could support "the builder scene rather than trying to squash it out of existence"? By doubling their prices?
@@stefanhansen5882 Eh. I'd be living in fantasy land if I believed they'd do any of these things because they only care about fat stonks. But a couple sleepy thoughts off the top of my head.
The main one being that they could provide a cheap manufacturing service via their Musictribe factory in china, allowing smaller module makers to function as module designers with a more cost effective route to release and therefore cheaper for us. This would be beneficial to both sides.
They could offer a partner programme, providing music business advice, assisting in R&D, marketing etc in exchange for a smol percentage cut. They have the capital to offer this at a loss 100x over.
They could provide learning resources, schematics, and maybe open sourcing certain platforms to boost growth of new and existing builders who would otherwise find it hard to get a good start or even just keep the lights on. Knowledge should be free (opinion) and the knowledge they have is largely gained by leveraging other people's hard work anyway (snark).
Not ripping off other people's designs would be hugely supportive in itself though.
If a company truly has a new and innovative product that they don't want copied, they can apply for a patent. Given our broken system that awards patents for old ideas applied to new products (e.g. new mountain bike suspension patents based on decades-old automotive principles), they should have no trouble. But I guess it's just easier to weaponize outrage online when Uli eats your lunch.
unless you are a corporate with $billions in your pockets you are extremely unlikely to get that patent through. And it likely will take many years, too.
Have you ever tried applying for a patent?
Getting a patent does takes several thousand dollars and several years, but it's a waste of money for an "ordinary person" because the real cost comes later. The problem happens when some company thinks it's a good idea - they'll go ahead and make it without even acknowledging the patent, something they never do when the patent is held by a large company. This happened most infamously to Robert Kearns with his intermittent windshield wiper patent, and only his determinism of spending literally decades in court made it pay off for him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns
I recall the late Don Lancaster writing about patents decades ago, he said a patent isn't worth it unless you have at least $12 million to spend on attorneys to defend it.
Genuine question: if Berhinger manages to build a Maths clone and sell it for 100€, why can't Make Noise do the same ?
Even though I don't like Behringer's agressive business practices, the debate they've created surely proves a point about overly priced music gear.
It's difficult to find out for sure if Make Noise produces their stuff in the USA, but they seem to hint at that here and there. Behringer have made their own almost dystopian giga-factory in China, where they take care of many of the needs of the workers and get cheaper labour. Also, economies of scale.
economies of scale
Most PCB/Pick and Place manufacturers sold their equipment to China back in the 90's then when out of business. China carefully numbered everything, shipped it to China, then reassembled it. You can get an American company to 'make' your PCB, but they just make them in China then ship them to you. It is part of the push, back then, to a service oriented economy from a manufacturing one. BTW most of the parts of an American car are made oversea.
Because workers in North Carolina get paid more than workers in China.
@@needfortweed8734 They have a factory in Asheville, NC, that you used to be able to visit. I don't know what percentage of their production is outsourced.
I have seen the swing & the keystep next to each other IRL, & the owner pointed out to me that the swing has several improvements over the arturia. but no-one mentions that.
problem I have with the way behringer do their business is that even when he does make life a little better for the end-user (by costing less, being a slightly better functionality set & so on), it's still going to leave a nasty taste in my mouth because he's knocked off someone else's idea. he's like that git at school who would steal your homework & get his copy of it to the teacher with neater handwriting or whatever.
let's not get into build-quality or longevity though- I wouldn't want his loyal customers to start having nightmares about non-reparability, lack of spare parts, tons of weee-waste landfill....
I will happily volunteer to do a teardown of any Behringer product that is delivered to me. I cannot guarantee, however, that the device will remain functional after my teardown process, which involves the backend of a hatchet.
You could look at this from a different angle. For example, maybe the Moog Mother 32 isn't worth £650 and the only reason its that price is because it says Moog on it. The Crave sounds exactly the same and is pretty much same build quality for £150. I suspect if Moog had sold the Mother 32 for £299 then no one would have looked at the the Crave, but they didn't. So you could argue that over pricing your gear just because you can is making it out of reach and people will turn to a cheaper alternative. If Behringer can make it to sell at £150 then Moog could surely be able to make it to sell at double that. Saying "oh but its hand made in the USA" isn't really an argument as thats not the end users problem. Its up to the manufacturer to work out how to make and sell their products at a reasonable price that people can afford.
Mosky Audio, Demonfx, Movall, Irin, Rowin Dolamo, Mvave etc are making fantastic analogue clones.
Oh, Hell No. Sorry Make Noise. You can pry my Maths out of my cold dead, still wiggling hands. I will not buy Behringer
Looks like a good proof of concept. I see the abacus is in stock. So let's check the health of Make Noise one year from now. Perhaps we should also track a few eurorack module makers of similar size to Make Noise, but not entertaining the compliment of cloning. So far Behringer is a cheap gateway into Eurorack and semi-modular, which is helping grow the pie....maybe. No clone subject I can think of has done anything but gain status. Meanwhile the Evil B is spewing out mics and mixers, like the XR18, which let alot of people into audio production. Once they succeed, they can afford to swap out for the real thing and take a moral stand, like you. It's really a multidimensional service of libertarian techies amok. The real downsides are not unique to Behringer.
I"m not really meaning to "take a stand" here per se, just kind of providing some food for thought. You make really interesting argument that didn't occur to me: if cheap Behringer clones get people into the game, that may ultimately increase the total "size of the pie" and help everyone in the long run, even the companies they're cloning.
Since I posted this I've sort of softened my view on Behringer cloning a bit; I realized that despite my statement that I was just going to focus on their cloning practices, I can't fully separate my view of their cloning practices from the various other ways Behringer is problematic. I think if they would just chill out a bit (stop threatening to sue, or actually suing, people that criticize them, for instance) people would view them more favorably overall.
@@Lantertronicsyeah... you're just surfing the clout.
@@alicelaranjeira3127 Sorry, what is your point?
@@Lantertronics exactly what you read
Now I kinda hope they steal the Clouds too. Iit's discontinued
The Clouds design is open source, so in no sense is that stealing.
@@Lantertronics It... it is!? O.O
@@Hannie.Schaft Yeah most of the Mutable Instruments stuff is open source.
Hi, I was a working musician for 45 years, I owned a 1974 Mini Moog and it literally transformed the band I was in, out of tune or not. Now have a Behringer Poly D. Controls are Mini Moog, the sound is close enough and it has other features like a sequencer and an arpeggiator. I love it, compact and stays in tune way better then the Mini.Will buy the OBX-A clone as well.
Well summed up!! In raising children, it is often wise to initially meet unwanted behavior with ignoring it and positive behavior with attention/reward. If we all stop rewarding Behringer's ethical abuse with our money, hopefully their deplorable behavior will stop. Rather, save a little longer and buy products from people with talents and ideas.
One reason synth lovers like "original vintage" equipment is because of it's rarity. As a lover of classic synths, I still cannot afford an original set of Moog Model 55 modules or an original Model D. But I can afford to buy "serious clones" made by "serious Moog devotees". (AJH, Aion, Studio Electronics, and others). I think vintage synth lovers do not view Behringer clones as "serious" or quality clones, Like me, they view them as Chinese knock-off clones, closer to a toy, than an instrument. They are just another wasteful product within our growing throw-away culture. Behringers are (generally) "financially unserviceable" - it is easier and cheaper to buy a newly manufactured one.
There is the idea of "how people value things they own". For me, I want to own stuff that is of the highest quality I can afford. I will over-spend for quality, instead of quantity.
Example, an Aion VCA module ( Moog 902 eurorack clone) lists for $230, whereas the Behringer 902 lists for $60.
For the 902, I could get "one" Aion module....or "three" Behringers.....and I chose the single Aion. In this instance (to evaluate my decision) I did also buy one Behringer 902, to listen and compare build-quality. Fact is, they sound almost too close to discern one from the other. The circuits look nearly the same (but not exact). However, the quality of the parts that will wear-out, are very different....guess which unit has the better jacks, pots, (more and better) trimmers, pcb material/copper trace thickness ??
There is also the psychological factor. I will trust and enjoy the Aion more - I will KNOW that these were built with more care than the alternative. The Aion was built by Moog instrument lovers -- for Moog instrument lovers.....that will always be inside my head when running signal through it. Sure, the placebo is in full effect here, but I know it....and it is satisfying.
The problem with Behringer is they're not a very ethical company, it's not just the blatant rip offs, it's the appalling behavior they exhibit on social media towards other real individuals.
They treat their audience like they're stupid and this is what makes their rip offs more questionable.
Stick with making instruments, leave individuals alone, posting apologies then deleting them just makes your whole business model an absolute joke within the synth community.
Yeah, Behringer is a problematic company for many reasons that have nothing to do with their cloning practices.
Who cares what stupid shit they posted on social media? Grow up. Seriously, in the scale of "unethical business practices" that doesn't even rate mentioning. We're talking about a scale where dumping industrial waste into a water table and giving a whole town cancer is somewhere in the middle! Or how about selling AIDS-contaminated blood-clotting drugs to the third world after they were banned in the US? This is run-of-the-mill behavior in the corporate world. So bringing up a mildly insensitive joke on Twitter that people got recreationally offended about for 10 seconds is just adorable. You COULD maybe make a case that using Chinese slave labor to undercut a US manufacturer is veering towards "unethical" -- but then you'd have to boycott Amazon, Walmart, and just about every other company on the planet as well.
Every western pedal brand makes clones, made with cheap 'standard grade' components with big fat profit margins (most gain pedals have a $15-35 build cost, but an rrp $230), this is common practice.
Asian pedal brands do exactly the same thing but sell them for sub $50.
Most valve-amps are clones, Fender ripped of some wireless amp section, Marshall ripped off Fender, Mesa modded a Marshall, and every western amp maker clones/mods Fender and Marshal (with big fat profit margins).
Do you think a $6000 western brand guitar costs even half that to manufacture ? (Go talk to some luthiers).
As long as greedy brands are going to rip off their customers with insane profit margins, lets hope their will always be a Uli who will make the same thing but for an honest price. The sad truth is western brands are very greedy and plagiarisic, and it's been going on for decades.
Then you have folk who buy the overpriced stuff whining when an honestly priced clone comes out.
The only mistake Behringer made was making an exact copy with a retro midi-kit instead of improving on the originals, adding an extra VCO/LFO/EG/FX/etc - what a missed opportunity, they could have been so much better.
That's my biggest gripe with their clones: they don't do much to improve, more interested in grifting the design of the OG than making it better. The most obvious example of that to me is when they were more interested in making their 808 and 909 clones look like the tanks that the OG's are for absolutely no functional reason, just so they looked the same.
Which of the pedal company owners are getting rich selling overpriced pedals? Any boutique pedal company billionaires? The high prices are because of low production numbers and high cost of local hand assembly. Now you might not value those things, so those products aren't for you, but they aren't being "greedy", at least not by any measure of greed compared to bankers or finance people. Uli's prices are only "fair" because you are used to "fair" prices being set by objects that are made in the millions, and even then they take massive advantage of an underclass of chinese laborers, who pay a price unseen by the end customer. Most eurorack modules are very very lucky to see more than 1000 of them made and sold. That completely changes the economics. And again, you might not value the innovation of someone taking a risk working on something for a year to only sell 200 of, but that risk is fueling Behringer, because they will need things to copy. If anyone in this situation is greedy, it is Uli Behringer, the only billionaire in the space as far as my eye can see.
you're using a lot of generalities, simplifications, & one- time examples. Which Fender is the Marshall 2203 cloned from? how about the SuoerLead model 1959? only the initial model was cloned. the rest were developed independently & sound very different from a Fender. Very few people have $6k guitars. the fact remains, a US made guitar will be superior quality to most foreign made guitars.
what if behringer would pay a dollar (or so) to the original (!) inventors of the cloned instrument for every sold unit...
or, hear me out; they could hire an r&d team and come up with their own original take on the cycling envelope generator. but that's not what they want to do; they want to rip off popular module and benefit from the name recognition.
Interesting discussion. We must see that there are a lot of (becoming) musicians who are not able to pay the high prices of original manufacturers. But they want to make music. That is where Beringer comes in. But I would always go for a Keystep rather than the Swing because they are not so much away from each other pricewise and Arturia offers an interesting community and support.
We *could* steal everything. Instrument designs, rhythms, entire lyrics why not? What stops us?
The edge is better than the dfam cuz it’s got midi and the the layout is better I prefer the crave and dfam but the poly d was crap 💩
I would 100% agree if Maths had been created in the vacuum. It's well known that it is itself a partial clone of Buchla modules. Isn't MakeNoise undercutting Buchla?
Bingo
Inspiration and cloning are two very different things though, it's not like make noise started making 1:1 reproductions of buchla modules right after they started releasing eurorack format stuff with tiptop.
Some people write that Maths is a clone of a Buchla module, some write that it's a clone of a Serge module. I haven't seen a schematic and don't feel like taking my Maths apart to reverse engineer it, so I'm not sure what's true.
@@LantertronicsThe maths function generators are probably closer to the buchla 281 because having an EOR on channel 1 allows you to patch up something that mimics the quadrature function on the buchla module. Neither the serge DUSG or any versions of the 281 include the voltage mixer or analog logic outputs of maths, which I'd consider significant enough features to call it more than a partial clone.
This makes sense if you never actually bother to look at the modules involved.
Behringer is nothing but a godsend for musicians with limited funds.
which would be laudable if the products were original.
the only thing uli behringer is good at is getting around the laws governing other people's IP.
nobody is entirely innocent in this racket- I've heard stories about the true hardware cost of (e.g.) some of the newer moog instruments, vs what you actually pay for them, what they pay their employees & so on.
but for someone to come along & say "well, I'll get my chinese sweatshop city to make the same thing at cost" & just copy the look/feel/sound of a product.... can you see why some people think this is unethical?
I mean, they're also antisemitic and abusive to their customers and general synth community. They are that as well.
Musicians with limited fund can get software, always could. People are so entitled they'd had you believe they couldn't make music with a good plugin and a daw.
well, what a weird analogy... you started off ok with the strats. but grocery store goods?
there *were* many lawsuits, cease-&-desist orders & whatnot during the 70s when it became apparent that guitars from the far east weren't just cheap knockoffs, & deals were done... when fender was first struggling to restore its reputation in the 80s, they outsourced some production to japan because they could not (initially) achieve the consistent quality in the USA. meanwhile ibanez & the rest had started lines of their own to replace the cloned designs.
what behringer have done- especially with the more esoteric modular designs like 'maths', is more sinister, though. make-noise is a handful of people, not a giant corporation, & there's a very real chance that they'll go under or just pack it in because this IP ripoff affects their sales directly. when this was happening to fender, under CBS ownership, nobody gave a damn. CBS didn't care what happened to a forty year old guitar design, & couldn't appreciate why people still wanted to buy a well-built strat or telecaster. tokai, ibanez & yamaha all made hay for a while.
but this isn't like that. this is behringer, a huge corporation, stealing ideas from a handful of enthusiasts making esoteric modules, & not even offering them a licensing deal. it's shabby, only-just-legal, & there's absolutely no reason for it. another comment on this thread suggests that the more appropriate 'budget' path to music making is through plug-ins, rather than feeling 'entitled' to cheap hardware versions of the classics- I'll not get into that. as I have said elsewhere, moog & others are guilty of boutique pricing, gouging. that's not right either.
your groceries analogy falls apart when you start to consider the creative process involved.
in fact, there *have* been "look & feel" court cases over packaging & recipes in the more elaborate grocery product lines. own-brand packaging withdrawn & redesigned when it was too close to kelloggs or whatever.
but that's not the world we're in here. we're not talking about household essentials with little or no IP attached to them....
let's say for the sake of argument that you, arpman, develop a eurorack module that's unique & has an appealing design. you spitball it with a few mates, & come up with a PCB layout, a front-panel design, & you sink a load of your savings into getting a few hundred built & packaged, after months of testing & refinement.
imagine you & your mates pulling fifteen hour days to make that happen- perhaps holding down day-jobs while you're at it.
you get the thing into schneiders, a couple of other specialist outlets, & you think that €300 per unit is fair. in fact, you're making about €5 euros back on each one, because you don't have a giant chinese factory full of minimum wage slaves to build them, & (ethically) you'd rather not go that route anyway.
but you'll live with that... first module you've made, things will get better.... you're proud of it, seeing your name out there in some well-known artists' systems.
then one day, your man at schneiders emails you- "have you seen what thomann is listing?"& the clever punning name your module has, even that has been copied by behringer on their €99 version, which is flying off the shelves because *your* module was so effin cool BUT the kids can't quite afford it.
sales dry up. the money you were hoping to use towards dev & test on your next idea doesn't arrive.
NOBODY is protected against this, while behringer go unchallenged. not moog, not oberheim, not EHX, not even boss. certainly not make-noise or arpman-modular-designs.
have a read about the curtis chips too; you'll note that uli's tone is defensive, for once, perhaps because there's a widow involved. again, he's at pains to make it clear that he hasn't broken any laws. it's a grey area, morally, & many of the people supporting his activities prefer to stay away from the moral questions, or pretend that they're not relevant, which is massivly ironic given the music-making context of this drama. if his factory in china was making EDM, say, rather than the instruments to make it, & he kept knocking off ideas from independent artists or big-name artists (he doesn't discriminate here!), then saying things like "well, it was out of copyright!" to defend releasing & profiting from his own releases, I'm pretty sure there'd be a bigger outcry.
macprovideo.com/article/audio-hardware/curtis-family-speaks-out-against-behringer-synth-clone-plans-using-cem3340
Make noise >Behringer any day
Unfortunately behringer choose to be obnoxious, they don't have to be ... moog, dsi , oberheim are all bereft of new ideas and all hang on to the idea, a keyboard should cost the same as a house. They could challenge the greed in the eurorack market without being underhand.
So they should innovate, and also lower prices? How do you propose that they achieve that? It doesn't seem like Moog could afford to do both, they just laid off most of the US staff. Innovation takes time, development time needs to be recouped with money, otherwise the company goes away. So should they be innovative? Or should they have lower prices? Or should they keep their staff in Asheville? Because they can't do all of those.
Behringer clones of products still in production:
Arturia Keystep clone: It's just one of many midi keyboard controllers out there. Arturia doesn't have a monopoly on midi keyboard controllers. Behringer just checks what the customer wants and what is proven to be the best and they use it in their version. Clearly Arturia did a good job.
Make Noise Maths clone: It's open source. This means it's meant to be produced by anyone who wants to, with room for adjustments and improvements. No copyright. This is what open source is. If you hate it, don't go open source.
Moog clones: It's all old circuit. No new inventions, R&D or technology. Behringer isn't the only company using this old circuitry in their machines. Behringer uses the same principles but improves it with midi and USB, and a pod meter extra here and there. Again, listening to the customer and producing what people want and need.
So, there are no issues as far as I'm concerned. Behringer also buys small companies and makes production for them easy and cheap, keeping those companies alive (like Midas). Behringer makes the music production scene alive, sexy and affordable. When people want original and special machines, they can still buy them from other companies. There are tons of synths Behringer doesn't make and tons of companies doing R&D onto new concepts. Like Roland, still innovative, alive and kicking. So people need to keep some perspective with Behringer and what they do. There are loads of companies making the same kind of eurorack module and no one is complaining about that. Doepfer makes budget modules for example, are people complaining about them too? Dreadbox makes amazing stuff for an affordable price, but it's not innovative, other companies do the same. Just because Behringer has their production line super efficient makes people hate Behringer as their products are much cheaper then what those people paid for their original module/machine. Whether you want to pay 5000 for one synth or 1500 for 5 synths is up to the customer. There will be a market for both. If you don't like the clones, just don't buy them. But all the hate is useless. Focus hate towards Russia and Israel instead, makes much more sense. Unless you find copying open source worse then war crimes.
uli- pay a licensing fee to the people you've appropriated ideas from. it's that fucking simple. stop nicking stuff. you know it's wrong.
a voluntary license fee, offered to the actual designers or donated to charity, would get this PR nightmare out of your face & silence some of the critics.
the rest of you uli fan-boys, read about mackie, boss, EHX. think about R&D, development, testing costs.
it ought to be possible to find a middle-ground where the people who had the ideas, who invented these things, are at least acknowledged as the creatives behind these instruments & effects.
I seen another brand idk midi man or sumtin like dat in Taiwan had beatstep pro too
Yes, the Maths is a clone as well, go dude, spend three times as much if you prefer that. If you wanted to cut somebody down for a good deal, you should be complaining about Fakes of popular microphones and headphones, last time checked forgery is still illegal? Behringer fills a gap between, at least for me, and I don’t have any problem with it, at least not enough to do a video about it.
I’ve pretty recently got into eurorack and I’ve bought some expensive modules so far and some behringer stuff to compliment it. I don’t see anything ethically wrong berhringers practices i think it’s great for people who don’t want to spend so much money on already rather expensive hobby. Not to mention it’s not what you bought it’s what you make with it, and frankly most of us will never be heard.