The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Behringer Mini model D? A good idea?
Old 8th March 2017
  #661
Lives for gear
 
the_soulcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by reditec View Post
Why will it be without keys!?
I'm just guessing, but the announced price is $500 plus I'm refering to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli Behringer View Post
...
Someone here in the forum had a great idea to pack this synth into a compact Eurorack format and this coincides with some of our engineers' ideas. I will have our designers to come up with a quick design draft for you to comment on.
Old 8th March 2017
  #662
Lives for gear
 
WozNYC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
< the only post I found from you on page 14 was a comment about fiddlestickz' DM12. there's also something about dropping out in another post. That's it. If you have a detailed comment about the subject, and it got lost somehow, then I suggest you post it again. >
My opinion was a couple of paragraphs.
It was deleted as "off topic."
Then my question asking < deleted by moderator > got deleted.
< deleted by moderator >
Whatever.

Last edited by Reptil; 8th March 2017 at 10:20 PM.. Reason: -
1
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #663
Gear Addict
 
daviddever's Avatar
Godwin's Law strikes again.
2
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #664
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by reditec View Post
Hi, this is my first post in this thread, that's why it will be a little longer.

First of all, I'm a 19 years old student from Germany and love JazzRock, ProgressiveRock and German Krautrock. In the late 70s and early 80s a German band I'm a big fan of recorded a couple of tracks that fits into those genres and their keyboarder used a Minimoog and Rhodes. I really like his sound and want to play on a similar set. While it's very easy to get a good sounding Rhodes sound without using the real instrument (e.g. by using VST plugins), I couldn't find a proper Minimoog VST. That's why I'm interested in buying a Minimoog. However, I can't afford one (as they start broken at like 2000$) and then a German blog yesterday featured this thread. I'd love to play this clone you guys at Behringer are developing, but it MUST sound equal or very similar to the original one as I want to recreate at least one specific sound (the lead synthesizer starting at 02:26 of Seven Eleven by Carsten Bohn / you can find it on YouTube and Spotify / YouTube: https://youtu.be/pgoKkgXArNE?t=2m26s). I don't care too much about things like the keyboard and how it looks like, it should just sound like a Minimoog.
I totally agree with grasspike, most great innovations in the technology industry were actually stolen by someone and that's just great, because better things could be developed. I think I'd buy an enhanced version of the Minimoog AND a clone of the original on the long term (right now I'd prefer the clone, tho).

Besides of all that: I couldn't read every page yet and maybe someone could sum the most important things up to me? :-)

Thanks.
regarding minimoog VST i suggest checking out The Legend: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/elec...modelling.html
3
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #665
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astronaut FX View Post
You seem to have latched on to an indirect part of my post.

The main point I was trying to make, was that regardless of what type of product is being discussed, asserting that the value of that particular item can be stated solely as the value of the raw materials present in the final product, is a gross misrepresentation of its true value, and I feel it's irresponsible for a CEO to encourage that sort of valuation premise.
I can see your point, but software has only development costs and no material/assembly costs; that leaves the price gap compared to functionality to the materials and assembly. The rest of the cost goes to middle management, marketing, sales, and attorneys. Beside the attorneys, those departments are the first people laid off ever since GE's near collapse and resurgence in the 80's after the middle management was removed.

He's the name of the brand and is much more involved in the marketing aspect than a typical CEO would be; and he's even cutting the marketing costs by doing that himself. I'll take him coming here over the Roland 909 day all year!
1
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #666
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astronaut FX View Post
The only part of what Uli is proposing that I take exception with is the part about figuratively dumping a bag a components on the table and stating the value of the end product in terms of only the cumulative value of those components. That is a gross oversimplification, and is irresponsible for a CEO.

As an example, I was working at a mom and pop indie record store at the height of the Napster file sharing ordeal. I remember having discussions with people back then who justified stealing music, because in their minds, CDs were the overpriced. In their minds, a CD was only worth the 50 cents in plastic and paper stock it was made of. They had no concept of the work that went into producing the actual musical content.

So for a CEO to encourage this kind of thinking, I find it a bit irresponsible. I might agree with him, that in this particular example, Moog's mark up for the reissue may be a bit on the high side. But, encouraging consumers to value products solely in terms of the value of the raw materials, hurts all businesses, including Behringer.
Not really a good analogy here as the majority of the money went to the music companies and not the artists at all. So the original makers (artists) got ripped of to begin with. The reason why Napster was a success, because the industry kept going with a broken business model way too long. No, I don't approve stealing music but Spotify (and others) should have happened much earlier.

Back to Moog.
Can someone explain to me why a reissue of an existing synth that is 40 years old, still cost a ton of money with zero development costs and lower component costs?
1
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wozniak View Post
My opinion was a couple of paragraphs.
It was deleted as "off topic."
Then my question asking < deleted by moderator > got deleted.
< deleted by moderator >
Whatever.
< well.. what can I say. if you accuse people of something you got to show the goods. same goes for accusing us. which is what you did. to answer your persistent questioning "en plein public": we're not "whitewashing" since there are diverse opinions in this thread. this whole thing is hypothetical up to this point. (hype) I will allow negative comments about the subject, if these are 1. proven 2. or clearly an opinion about the synth 3. polite (you don't have to subject people to verbal abuse to make a point). let's see what tomorrow brings >
6
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #668
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
Ok Uli bring it on champ...
1
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #669
Gear Addict
 
Astronaut FX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gj67 View Post
Not really a good analogy here as the majority of the money went to the music companies and not the artists at all. So the original makers (artists) got ripped of to begin with. The reason why Napster was a success, because the industry kept going with a broken business model way too long. No, I don't approve stealing music but Spotify (and others) should have happened much earlier.

Back to Moog.
Can someone explain to me why a reissue of an existing synth that is 40 years old, still cost a ton of money with zero development costs and lower component costs?
Ugh. Still missed my point.

The point was, that whether we're talking about the 50 cents worth of plastic that it takes to physically make a CD, or a $200 bag of components that it takes to make a Minimoog, in neither case does the cost of raw materials represent the actual value of the finished product.
2
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #670
Lives for gear
 

I'm pretty sure 200$ of raw parts for Uli, would probably cost me 500$. I can't buy in volume like Behringer.
6
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #671
Lives for gear
 

Old 8th March 2017
  #672
330128
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astronaut FX View Post
The only part of what Uli is proposing that I take exception with is the part about figuratively dumping a bag a components on the table and stating the value of the end product in terms of only the cumulative value of those components. That is a gross oversimplification, and is irresponsible for a CEO.

So for a CEO to encourage this kind of thinking, I find it a bit irresponsible. I might agree with him, that in this particular example, Moog's mark up for the reissue may be a bit on the high side. But, encouraging consumers to value products solely in terms of the value of the raw materials, hurts all businesses, including Behringer.
Thank you. I am glad some people understand this!
2
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #673
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astronaut FX View Post
Ugh. Still missed my point.

The point was, that whether we're talking about the 50 cents worth of plastic that it takes to physically make a CD, or a $200 bag of components that it takes to make a Minimoog, in neither case does the cost of raw materials represent the actual value of the finished product.
Nope, quite certain we're talking about the same here.

But to keep the analogy:
Price of CD = Artist rights, studio time, advertising and cd production.

Yes, the actual cost is not just the materials and manufacturing but Moog believes you still need to cough up the studio time as well after 40 years.
Old 8th March 2017
  #674
Lives for gear
 
BassX's Avatar
I really don't see anything wrong whatsoever to transfer something expensive into something affordable for the average synth enthousiast.
1
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #675
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by gj67 View Post
Not really a good analogy here as the majority of the money went to the music companies and not the artists at all. So the original makers (artists) got ripped of to begin with. The reason why Napster was a success, because the industry kept going with a broken business model way too long. No, I don't approve stealing music but Spotify (and others) should have happened much earlier.

Back to Moog.
Can someone explain to me why a reissue of an existing synth that is 40 years old, still cost a ton of money with zero development costs and lower component costs?
Whoever shelled out for the rights to the Moog name knew there were no legitimate (legal not moral) intellectual property assets, so using a marketing model emphasizing emotional appeal rather than a practical or pricing model would best serve whoever owns that name.
Old 8th March 2017
  #676
Gear Maniac
 
Uli Behringer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discopotato View Post
He's the name of the brand and is much more involved in the marketing aspect than a typical CEO would be; and he's even cutting the marketing costs by doing that himself. I'll take him coming here over the Roland 909 day all year!
I appreciate your comment.

However it is not about cutting marketing cost, but staying in touch with our customers. I have started my forum activity in 2012 (soundforums.net) and it has become a invaluable way for me to learn and improve.

Some time ago we completely stopped all advertisement for our 12 brands simply because we don't "pay to play", which means getting good reviews in return for advertisement. We decided to invest this money in hiring more people for our Care and Service centers as well as social media departments so we can better serve our customers.

This decade long "pay to play" practice among many established magazines has been the traditional business model and you'll find many articles about it.

As print magazines become less relevant due the fact that manufacturers like us communicate directly through social media, some of them have become even more blatant.

You now get punished when you don't "pay to play" which we have experienced recently again. A well-known UK magazine suddenly changed their tone when we informed them that we no longer advertise. The "very good review" they had indicated early on while asking for advertisement suddenly turned negative when we informed them about our direction and reason not to advertise.
We believe this is not in line with our values to empower musicians and I hope that people see through these practices. This is not to say that there are honest channels and I salute them for maintaining their integrity.

For decades we have encouraged people to test products for themselves or check out independent customer reviews at trusted online retailers. Or stay informed through forums like this.

Again we don't mind criticism and on the contrary we believe it is vital for us to learn and improve since we are far from perfect.

This form of communication is also very enjoyable for our people and me because it is a wonderful way to get appreciation for what we do - so I like to thank you for your feedback.

It often reminds me of the early days when I built products for my friends :-)

Uli

Last edited by Uli Behringer; 9th March 2017 at 03:58 AM..
15
Share
Old 8th March 2017
  #677
Gear Addict
 
daviddever's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Discopotato View Post
Whoever shelled out for the rights to the Moog name knew there were no legitimate (legal not moral) intellectual property assets, so using a marketing model emphasizing emotional appeal rather than a practical or pricing model would best serve whoever owns that name.
Are you referring to the current Moog Music, that Bob Moog himself founded as Big Briar, that is now owned by its own employees? The same company that still repairs vintage units from 40+ years ago?

Or something altogether different?
2
Share
Old 9th March 2017
  #678
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discopotato View Post
Whoever shelled out for the rights to the Moog name knew there were no legitimate (legal not moral) intellectual property assets, so using a marketing model emphasizing emotional appeal rather than a practical or pricing model would best serve whoever owns that name.
The person who shelled out for the rights to the Moog name was, ironically, Robert Moog.

He reacquired the rights to use the name in 2002, and renamed his company Big Briar to Moog Music, he remained with the company until his death in 2005.

It's now moving towards being 49% employee owned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/a...trol.html?_r=0

Sounds like a nice place to work.
8
Share
Old 9th March 2017
  #679
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
there are some real broken records in this thread.. don't you guys get sick of saying the same thing over and over, this thread is about a Synth that Behringer are releasing...everyone is well aware of what Moog music is by now..
Old 9th March 2017
  #680
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlestickz View Post
there are some real broken records in this thread.. don't you guys get sick of saying the same thing over and over, this thread is about a Synth that Behringer are releasing...everyone is well aware of what Moog music is by now..
Not Discopotato apparantly.
1
Share
Old 9th March 2017
  #681
Lives for gear
 
horseface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson View Post
It's now moving towards being 49% employee owned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/a...trol.html?_r=0

Sounds like a nice place to work.
It does sound nice.

But, quick! <deleted by moderator> because some people who can't afford one feel entitled!

Last edited by Reptil; 9th March 2017 at 12:41 AM.. Reason: please post some evidence
1
Share
Old 9th March 2017
  #682
Lives for gear
 
the_soulcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by horseface View Post
It does sound nice.

But, quick! <deleted by moderator> because some people who can't afford one feel entitled!
Besides you're O.T. - I'm happy for you that you could afford one - how about some tolerance to those who can't afford one and possibly have the chance to get the moog'ish sound for an affordable price?

Are you really worried about people loosing their jobs, cause of the announcement of a Behringer synth with a moog'ish sound?

Last edited by Reptil; 9th March 2017 at 12:41 AM.. Reason: -
Old 9th March 2017
  #683
Lives for gear
 
Jamie munro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astronaut FX View Post
Ugh. Still missed my point.

The point was, that whether we're talking about the 50 cents worth of plastic that it takes to physically make a CD, or a $200 bag of components that it takes to make a Minimoog, in neither case does the cost of raw materials represent the actual value of the finished product.
Show me the quote of him saying the approximate cost of parts is equal to the value of the synth! This is why there can't be a decent two sided argument with different opinions because crap like that gets spouted from ass.

Not once has he said the D is a 200 dollar piece of kit.

Quote him word for word or stop spreading BS in each of your posts FFS
Old 9th March 2017
  #684
Someone told me they copied a Mackie mixer!


I dont believe it myself
Old 9th March 2017
  #685
Quote:
Originally Posted by horseface View Post
< deleted by moderator >


Old 9th March 2017
  #686
330128
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie munro View Post
Show me the quote of him saying the approximate cost of parts is equal to the value of the synth! This is why there can't be a decent two sided argument with different opinions because crap like that gets spouted from ass.

Not once has he said the D is a 200 dollar piece of kit.

Quote him word for word or stop spreading BS in each of your posts FFS
I respect what you have to say Jamie but Uli said just that both in video interview and posts.
1
Share
Old 9th March 2017
  #687
Lives for gear
 
the_soulcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcearl View Post
Someone told me they copied a Mackie mixer!


I dont believe it myself
Mackie sued Behringer but didn't win - A little more info I've found here.
Old 9th March 2017
  #688
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli Behringer View Post
I appreciate your comment.

However it is not about cutting marketing cost, but staying in touch with our customers. I have started my forum activity in 2012 (soundforums.net) and it has become a invaluable way for me to learn and improve.

Some time ago we also stopped all advertisement for our 12 brands simply because we don't "pay to play", which means getting good reviews in return for advertisement.

This decade long practice among many established magazines has been the traditional business model and you'll find many articles about it.

As print magazines become less relevant due the fact that manufacturers like us communicate directly through social media, some of them have become even more blatant.

You now get punished when you don't "pay to play" which we have experienced recently again. A well-known UK magazine suddenly changed their tone when we informed them that we no longer advertise. The "very good review" they had indicated early on while asking for advertisement suddenly turned negative when we informed them about our direction and reason not to advertise.
We believe this is not in line with our values to empower musicians and I hope that people see through these practices. This is not to say that there are honest channels and I salute them for maintaining their integrity.

For decades we have encouraged people to test products for themselves or check out independent customer reviews at trusted online retailers. Or stay informed through forums like this.

Again we don't mind criticism and on the contrary we believe it is vital for us to learn and improve since we are far from perfect.

This form of communication is also very enjoyable for our people and me because it is a wonderful way to get appreciation for what we do - so I like to thank you for your feedback.

It often reminds of the early days when I built products for my friends :-)

Uli
That's just my view regarding marketing and the eventual cost passed to consumers. Every decision I make is based on A)reviews and B) technical specifications. The DM12 has great reviews all around and thoroughly impressive specs both.

Business fascinates me but I LOVE music and music machines. When the two topics combine I just can't keep quiet. I might be a broken record, but the thread asks if it's a good idea and it is from both perspectives. Allowing people like me, one who is disabled with a limited income, to contribute to what they love that is not self-destructive in the long term; that trumps any moral argument as far as I'm concerned. Keep doing what you're doing because it is the rational AND moral thing to do, in my opinion.
2
Share
Old 9th March 2017
  #689
This is the first in my new range of vintage pedals pedals if anyone's interested

Took me minutes of R&D but I dont think theres much like this at its $100 pricepoint
Attached Thumbnails
Behringer Mini model D? A good idea?-img_2253.jpg  
3
Share
Old 9th March 2017
  #690
Gear Maniac
If this happens it will just make the synth market a bit more like the guitar market. It seems to work fine there, people still buy fender telecasters and random brand X telecasters.
Closed Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump