# Behringer Model D Clone Video



## Daniel James (Apr 22, 2017)

Just saw this....not sure how I feel about it yet.

I am all for new ideas inspired by older things but I don't know if I am too keen on clones. Thoughts?





-DJ


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 22, 2017)

I m not into it. i think its a cheap shot at making a buck at the expense of a small company that has worked hard to create a good name and equipment. there are clones and there are also products that build upon existing products. When they released deepmind12 THAT is a good _original_ product based on existing products. The model D is the normal synth architecture but you see korg and roland and novation coming with new types of synths. I mean, behringer could of done a $400 synth that is a substrative synth but have the arp/seq of the deepmind. or digital control of analog component... or whatever. just not a copy without the moog name. it just like a cheap knockoff purse or "raybon" sunglasses.
its a free market so they can do it off course. but its the same idea of going to walmart while other people think another way. i mentioned the same thing at gearlsuts and even though i haven't looked yet, im sure I've been chastise as its not a popular opinion. who would of guessed that a thought of being original and go towards innovation would be so unpopular. i guess its neve and neuman clones forever.
and heck , there are so many other synths companies out there that don't exist that would be awesome if they made close of those synths. even if its the old soviet era synths it would of been awesome.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Apr 22, 2017)

I can completely understand @gsilbers point of view on this, and I don't really disagree with it. At the same time, there's another part of me that can't look past the point that, if successful, and Behringer goes to market with this, how they'll be able to put that classic Minimoog magic sound in the hands of so many for whom it's been unobtainable thus far. And it is in a module format, which Moog doesn't offer.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 23, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> I m not into it. i think its a cheap shot at making a buck at the expense of a small company that has worked hard to create a good name and equipment. there are clones and there are also products that build upon existing products. When they released deepmind12 THAT is a good _original_ product based on existing products. The model D is the normal synth architecture but you see korg and roland and novation coming with new types of synths. I mean, behringer could of done a $400 synth that is a substrative synth but have the arp/seq of the deepmind. or digital control of analog component... or whatever. just not a copy without the moog name. it just like a cheap knockoff purse or "raybon" sunglasses.
> its a free market so they can do it off course. but its the same idea of going to walmart while other people think another way. i mentioned the same thing at gearlsuts and even though i haven't looked yet, im sure I've been chastise as its not a popular opinion. who would of guessed that a thought of being original and go towards innovation would be so unpopular. i guess its neve and neuman clones forever.
> and heck , there are so many other synths companies out there that don't exist that would be awesome if they made close of those synths. even if its the old soviet era synths it would of been awesome.



I'm leaning in your direction. A clone exists with the soul reason of undercutting and devaluing the original. Seems its would make more ethical sense to work on something new and push the envelope, innovate....cloning something is the laziest way to make money ever.

-DJ


----------



## R. Soul (Apr 23, 2017)

This video gives a better idea of how it sounds as it doesn't just have an arp running.


----------



## samphony (Apr 23, 2017)

Although it is a behringer synth don't underestimate the people behind its development. But then I'm leaning towards novation PEAK anyways.


----------



## AllanH (Apr 23, 2017)

It actually sounds pretty authentic, at least as far as the Youtube encoding allows for. 

I have no issue with Behringer making a modern version of a ~50 year old design. There really isn't anything in a Moog D that has not been replicated one way or another over the last many years. Behringer's brings modern engineering design and manufacturing processes; both of which Moog could also have chosen to do. 

The D, by modern engineering standards, is a relatively simple design so Moog could easily have done the same (imo), but they choose not to. In stead, the various instances of the Moog company has generally chosen to re-issue the same architecture (more or less), and it's not really surprising that someone as capable as Behringer chooses to modernize the design.

It'll be interesting to hear a comparison between a Moog D and Behringer D. Maybe the unique sound of the Moog D is, in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde style, due the (now wide) tolerances in the legacy discrete components.


----------



## novaburst (Apr 23, 2017)

AllanH said:


> There really isn't anything in a Moog D that has not been replicated one way or another over the last many years.



Yes I remember there was a time when Omnisphere went Moog crazy and they gave us a whole library of Moog in software, because of some Moog dedication or something.

But rightly so this sound has been replicated all over the place, a hardware version always gets a lot of attention.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 23, 2017)

AllanH said:


> It actually sounds pretty authentic, at least as far as the Youtube encoding allows for.
> 
> I have no issue with Behringer making a modern version of a ~50 year old design. There really isn't anything in a Moog D that has not been replicated one way or another over the last many years. Behringer's brings modern engineering design and manufacturing processes; both of which Moog could also have chosen to do.
> 
> ...



I get you but all those things that have taken from the Model D have gone in different directions. One could even argue that even a soft synth emulation takes the idea of a model d and provides you with something you dont get from the hardware. A direct clone however exists only to undercut the original

Moog created the original, put in the work to create and design it the way it is, its a real work of art. Then they decided what was fair compensation for their idea. The clone just takes all that hard work and goes LOOK! I can produce it for cheaper.....well yes of course you can because you didn't have to put in any fucking effort to design or create the thing.

-DJ


----------



## Kyle Preston (Apr 23, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> The clone just takes all that hard work and goes LOOK! I can produce it for cheaper.....well yes of course you can because you didn't have to put in any fucking effort to design or create the thing



If we're talking quality, couldn't agree more. Though as @Astronaut FX said, people who can't afford to buy Moogs may now have an entry point to the synth world. Which is a great thing.

Buying my first Moog was a god damn right of passage. It's a lucky position to be in. That said, I'm not rushing out to buy this tinker toy. I'd encourage beginners to save their money and support quality when they can. Especially with how good software synths are.


----------



## J-M (Apr 23, 2017)

Clone has a bad ring to it, to me at least. I'd rather save up and buy the real thing. But on the other hand, my monitors (Truth B2031As) are just Genelec knock offs, so my opinion is irrelevant.


----------



## R. Soul (Apr 23, 2017)

I have been reading some 300+ posts on Gearslutz the last few days about this whole topic (thread has almost 2800 replies), so I'm not going to go into the whole ethical debate. 
For me anyway, I'm much more excited about the DM6 that they have announced for $699 with possibly an even cheaper desktop coming later down the line.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2017)

R. Soul said:


> I have been reading some 300+ posts on Gearslutz the last few days about this whole topic (thread has almost 2800 replies), so I'm not going to go into the whole ethical debate.
> For me anyway, I'm much more excited about the DM6 that they have announced for $699 with possibly an even cheaper desktop coming later down the line.


I agree. The dm6 and desktop deepmind is a very cool announcement. I might get the desktop version. They could of done a 4 voice dm desktop at $400 and I would d get it a synch. Just for the effects and sequencer and 4 voices would of been awesome.


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 23, 2017)

Clones or copies have always existed, not just of musical instruments but everything else. It doesn't seem fair to me to rip Behringer a new just because they too are doing it. Everyone here has most certainly used a cloned version of something at some point in their lives, so cut the hypocrisy.


Plus, this is not a 1:1 clone, it offers more features than a real Model D, like CV connectivity, an LFO so you don't have to sacrifice an oscillator, and its dimensions make it fit into an Eurorack system. You get most of that with Moog's Model D reissue, except that last part, which might be compelling to a lot of Eurocrack "whores" out there. :D


----------



## Astronaut FX (Apr 23, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Clones or copies have always existed, not just of musical instruments but everything else. It doesn't seem fair to me to rip Behringer a new just because they too are doing it. Everyone here has most certainly used a cloned version of something at some point in their lives, so cut the hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Plus, this is not a 1:1 clone, it offers more features than a real Model D, like CV connectivity, an LFO so you don't have to sacrifice an oscillator, and its dimensions make it fit into an Eurorack system. You get most of that with Moog's Model D reissue, except that last part, which might be compelling to a lot of Eurocrack "whores" out there. :D



Absolutely. As an example, there have been clones of the Fender Stratocaster being sold for decades. Some of those at price points well below Fender's current offerings, and some priced well above Fender's current offerings. Why would the Minimoog be treated any differently?

I do think Uli's attitude has been a bit of a factor on people's reaction to this, and I would agree that his presentation of the idea seemed dismissive of the legacy.

For others, I think the reaction is almost a reverse "sour grapes" reaction. Someone who may have laid out thousands for the real thing at some point, may be feeling a pang of jealousy that something that provides very close to the same experience may be available in the near future for much less. That sort of diminishes the value of their bragging rights.


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 23, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> That sort of diminishes the value of their bragging rights.



Yep. And this is what flips a metric shitton of people off at Gearslutz forum


----------



## JE Martinsen (Apr 23, 2017)

I don't really care if it's meant to be a Model D clone or not. If I were Uli I'd put whatever's inside of the "D" into a completely original case with creamy white oversized buttons, a joystick and a couple of antennas on top for good measure. And then dropped the clone/homage/replica/ marketing speak. Noone would've complained! And probably not after playing the synth : "I'm pleasantly surprised! This sounds almost like a Minimoog!" 

From what I can hear it sounds absolutely gorgeous regardless - and I'm getting one! But not because it's supposed to be a Model D clone. I'm not really digging the half-assed clone look so I would take great pleasure in giving it a dash of paint and some new knobs.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> Absolutely. As an example, there have been clones of the Fender Stratocaster being sold for decades. Some of those at price points well below Fender's current offerings, and some priced well above Fender's current offerings. Why would the Minimoog be treated any differently?
> 
> I do think Uli's attitude has been a bit of a factor on people's reaction to this, and I would agree that his presentation of the idea seemed dismissive of the legacy.
> 
> For others, I think the reaction is almost a reverse "sour grapes" reaction. Someone who may have laid out thousands for the real thing at some point, may be feeling a pang of jealousy that something that provides very close to the same experience may be available in the near future for much less. That sort of diminishes the value of their bragging rights.



Yes, neve, Gibson and neuman clones forever. And get them cheaper and cheaper. I'm sure that doesn't affect anyone.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Yep. And this is what flips a metric shitton of people off at Gearslutz forum


Dude. It's the principle. Ripping someone else is not that cool.


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 23, 2017)

It's not ripping. Schematics cannot be copyrighted, and patents only last for 20 years. Model D is how old now?


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2017)

JE Martinsen said:


> I don't really care if it's meant to be a Model D clone or not. If I were Uli I'd put whatever's inside of the "D" into a completely original case with creamy white oversized buttons, a joystick and a couple of antennas on top for good measure. And then dropped the clone/homage/replica/ marketing speak. Noone would've complained! And probably not after playing the synth : "I'm pleasantly surprised! This sounds almost like a Minimoog!"
> 
> From what I can hear it sounds absolutely gorgeous regardless - and I'm getting one! But not because it's supposed to be a Model D clone. I'm not really digging the half-assed clone look so I would take great pleasure in giving it a dash of paint and some new knobs.


Exactly, if he would of done something to try to come up with his own version of it the it no problem. They could of said it's a deep mind mono and have the same or similar architecture and maybe add the sequencer or other things like it's own colors, look etc then cool but going all clone matching the original style and look is just a low blow and obviously trying to get a quick buck at the expense of someone else's hard work. 
No I don't have a real moog or ever will get one, it's just the principle of being cool with knockoffs no matter what industry.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> It's not ripping. Schematics cannot be copyrighted, and patents only last for 20 years. Model D is how old now?


Again. That's not the point. They can copy the inside and add some things and call it something else , different look , some additions etc and try to have its own merit. Which is what happened with deepmind12. Which is good synth imo.

I just don't understand why people don't get it . The principle of buying a knockoff. Maybe if I say that it's like me ripping off your music and sell it for cheaper. Wound you be cool with that ?

Maybe if I say it's the reaso. Some of us don't go to Walmart. 

Yes it's a free
Market and the law says it's ok but trying to slap a sticker of your brand on top of a cheap version of someone else's merit is just low brow. I'm not all mighty or anything but accepting that people say it's ok to buy knockoff and not understanding the history and merit of the original company it's a hard for me to accept. I'm not all righteous or think I'm better than anyone else and it's just as Simple of thinking and expressing my opinion of damn these clone la and try to do your own damn product to try and innovate. Again, they did it with the deepmind and they where moving away from this crap of cloning at the expense of currency manipulation and slave labor and the merits of other companies to suddenly give suck a low blow. 
You say they added some additional things and fits euroraxk etc , the why the hell cal it model d and have the same look?! Why just not change the look and cal it something new?


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 23, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Clones or copies have always existed, not just of musical instruments but everything else. It doesn't seem fair to me to rip Behringer a new just because they too are doing it. Everyone here has most certainly used a cloned version of something at some point in their lives, so cut the hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> Plus, this is not a 1:1 clone, it offers more features than a real Model D, like CV connectivity, an LFO so you don't have to sacrifice an oscillator, and its dimensions make it fit into an Eurorack system. You get most of that with Moog's Model D reissue, except that last part, which might be compelling to a lot of Eurocrack "whores" out there. :D



You seriously claiming that this entire product exists for any other reason than to ride on the desire for a model D? It intentionally looks sounds and acts like a model D. Had they created something that was inspired by a model D, added some real innovation (extra LFO is hardly pushing the bar for me) and pushed the tech a bit more I would be behind it more but lets be honest its a cash grab at the people who want but dont want to spend the money on a model d. Lets not act like this is anything but.



EvilDragon said:


> It's not ripping. Schematics cannot be copyrighted, and patents only last for 20 years. Model D is how old now?



Sure it's legal absolutely. Ethical, less so. He is 100% within his rights to create the clone, I just think its in bad taste. Its like buying a cheap Chinese iPhone...sure you can call people but there was zero effort in its creation which to me makes it ring hollow as a product.

Of course you don't have to define your spending habits on something like ethics and can focus on the price, I totally get that. Just for me I would rather save up and support the people who created the thing worth cloning in the first place.

-DJ


----------



## mike_solar (Apr 23, 2017)

FWIW, I just got a WA76. Sure, I would have loved to get a real 1176 and I only got hooked on wanting one from using the UAD emulation. The price was something I could afford right off and the reviews are pretty overwhelmingly great. Back to topic, I think Behringer would have been in better taste to come up with a more original name and then let the synth community make the connection. I otherwise have no problem with what they are doing.


----------



## Greg (Apr 23, 2017)

Uninspired, boring. Just like the rest of their products


----------



## TGV (Apr 24, 2017)

So how ethical is it to use a Moog, Prophet, etc. imitating VST not written by their original producers? Or the Hammond clones (hardware and software_? It's exactly the same. The only thing you could argue, IMO, is that it's a move just inspired by profit. You can't even argue it stifles innovation or anything like that.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 24, 2017)

TGV said:


> So how ethical is it to use a Moog, Prophet, etc. imitating VST not written by their original producers? Or the Hammond clones (hardware and software_? It's exactly the same. The only thing you could argue, IMO, is that it's a move just inspired by profit. You can't even argue it stifles innovation or anything like that.



The move to software is more of a translation than a clone IMO as without hardware components you can only get sorta close, thats why we have so many different software emulations of hardware that claim to 'perfectly' replicate the original yet sound so different from each other. So you are not really getting a model d, something like it absolutely but not the same thing. Also if there is no software equivalent of the product then you can argue that they are filling a void in the market that exists and people want/need for their particular setups (as much as I love a good ol 2a compressor fuck taking that thing around the world with me for my travel rig).

The model d already exists in the world as hardware, the market has what it needs and someone put in the effort to create it. Having and cloning the actual circuit design, then manufacturing a box which intentionally looks like the original is just taking someone elses work and selling it for cheaper. IMO of course.

-DJ


----------



## novaburst (Apr 24, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> It's not ripping. Schematics cannot be copyrighted, and patents only last for 20 years. Model D is how old now?



Well that says it then, there should be no bitter grapes here at all, you can say its all legit or clear conscience for the developer and the consumer.

Would just add that in some cases you need a license to do copies, so the original developer still rakes in the cash, also developers that do copies work along side the original developer so there is a lot of harmony going on too.


----------



## JoeBarlow (Apr 24, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> You seriously claiming that this entire product exists for any other reason than to ride on the desire for a model D? It intentionally looks sounds and acts like a model D. Had they created something that was inspired by a model D, added some real innovation (extra LFO is hardly pushing the bar for me) and pushed the tech a bit more I would be behind it more but lets be honest its a cash grab at the people who want but dont want to spend the money on a model d. Lets not act like this is anything but.



I think any company that creates these cheaper clones is doing it to purely for the profit of undercutting the competition, but it's nothing all that new or shocking. The Bugera 6160 is a Peavey 5150 clone, the WA76 is an 1176 clone and even looking at the world of guitars companies have been making cheaper replicas of known guitar models such as the Stratocaster and Les Paul for the last few decades. 
Christ, just pop down to Lidl and grab a box of 'Coco Snaps' for 80p to see how common place this practice is hahaha. 

You simply just create as close of a replica as possible for as cheap as you can while riding of the brand image and advertising of the original, but just saying 'But we're cheaper!'. I wouldn't go as far to say it's unethical and I doubt it is going to damage the brand image of Moog. People that can afford a Moog will do so, and people that can't may grab the clone.


----------



## Karsten Vogt (Apr 24, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> Sure it's legal absolutely. Ethical, less so. He is 100% within his rights to create the clone, I just think its in bad taste. Its like buying a cheap Chinese iPhone...sure you can call people but there was zero effort in its creation which to me makes it ring hollow as a product.
> 
> Of course you don't have to define your spending habits on something like ethics and can focus on the price, I totally get that. Just for me I would rather save up and support the people who created the thing worth cloning in the first place.
> 
> -DJ


I hope you bought a Minimoog and don't use Monark. I hope you bought an LA-2A compressor and don't use a NI VC2A. I hope you bought an 1176 and don't use a IK Multimedia's Black 76. I hope you bought a Neve 1073 and don't use Waves Scheps 73. I hope you bought a Bricasti M7 and don't use LiquidSonic's 7th Heaven.

Wait, I see a pattern here.

Enthusiasts won't buy the clone ("it's not the real thing"), others will buy it because it sounds close enough to the original and costs far less. Win-win situation for me. It's great to have a choice.

The world would be a lot poorer without companies who "get inspired" by their competitors enabling musicians to create something they never could have done because the stuff was so damn expensive. Just like electric bass guitar clones made in China (Chickenbacker ) or Fender guitar clones. I don't miss the days where a synth was available for 10000$ solely to an elite circle of rich guys.


----------



## JoeBarlow (Apr 24, 2017)

Karsten Vogt said:


> I hope you bought a Minimoog and don't use Monark. I hope you bought an LA-2A compressor and don't use a NI VC2A. I hope you bought an 1176 and don't use a IK Multimedia's Black 76. I hope you bought a Neve 1073 and don't use Waves Scheps 73. I hope you bought a Bricasti M7 and don't use LiquidSonic's 7th Heaven.



I think it could be argued that the plugin versions of hardware aren't really the same thing as hardware replicas.


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 24, 2017)

Yes, it could be argued, but in reality a lot of these plugins are, in fact, clones, as well. Especially when circuit modeling is the common buzzword.


----------



## Karsten Vogt (Apr 24, 2017)

Well, I guess that's mostly due to differences of the hardware: they also don't sound the same.


----------



## novaburst (Apr 24, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> The principle of buying a knockoff. Maybe if I say that it's like me ripping off your music and sell it for cheaper. Wound you be cool with that ?



developer who create original stuff do go with the idea that it can only be copied after an x amount of years, so they them selves are saying yes you can do it but after a certain number of years.

call it what you want they have given consent, if a copy has been developed during the copyright time then you can call it a rip off or undercut but after the copyright is finished the original developer is saying *ITS OK GO AHEAD KNOCK YOURSELF OUT* or they or there legal team would prolong the copyright


----------



## Epicomposer (Apr 24, 2017)

Kyle Preston said:


> If we're talking quality, couldn't agree more. Though as @Astronaut FX said, people who can't afford to buy Moogs may now have an entry point to the synth world. Which is a great thing.
> 
> Buying my first Moog was a god damn right of passage. It's a lucky position to be in. That said, I'm not rushing out to buy this tinker toy. I'd encourage beginners to save their money and support quality when they can. Especially with how good software synths are.



Absolutely agree. Though it may be a nice starting point to make some first experiences with hands-on analog synthesis, I think it's much more worth it investing in a proper quality synth and have something to work with for years to come. Also a bit irritated by the rather small controls to be honest.


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 24, 2017)

Controls are fine. There are synths with MUCH smaller controls than that (Korg Volcas, say).


----------



## Epicomposer (Apr 24, 2017)

Yeah, you're right on that. I was just comparing it to the original controls and felt the Behringer ones might be a bit more fiddly to use. But since it's designed as a sort of 'desktop synth' I can comprehend the reduced size.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 24, 2017)

Karsten Vogt said:


> I hope you bought a Minimoog and don't use Monark. I hope you bought an LA-2A compressor and don't use a NI VC2A. I hope you bought an 1176 and don't use a IK Multimedia's Black 76. I hope you bought a Neve 1073 and don't use Waves Scheps 73. I hope you bought a Bricasti M7 and don't use LiquidSonic's 7th Heaven.
> 
> Wait, I see a pattern here.
> 
> ...



Did you not read my post? I said that working with hardware is great and all but its not always practical. I have moved across 4 countries in the past year and a half and fuck taking hardware that expensive/brittle with me. As I mentioned software differs from a hardware clone in that its filling a void in the market for those of us who are not bolted to one location. They don't replace the original they offer the means to get something close (but not quite). If the manufacturers made their own digital version and someone cloned that THEN I would be with you more on that one. Whereas a hardware clone is trying to undercut something which we already have.



EvilDragon said:


> Yes, it could be argued, but in reality a lot of these plugins are, in fact, clones, as well. Especially when circuit modeling is the common buzzword.



Circuit modelling and literally copying the circuit physically are two completely separate things....I imagine if it wasn't we wouldn't have so much variation in different results between developers.

Also Electricity in a physical space will always produce different results to 1's and 0's (I mean you even have to warm synths up before they tune correctly xD). Sort of like saying that a convolution of a hall is just as good as recording in the real space. Physical factors are what make hardware units unique (Mick Gordon had a good video somewhere where he talks about using guitar pedal fx over vst's as it produces different results) So while you can in concept capture what the unit is doing it will be like a sample, a snapshot of what it really is. (even then my point about the difference between software and hardware above still stand to your point)



EvilDragon said:


> Controls are fine. There are synths with MUCH smaller controls than that (Korg Volcas, say).



Have you used one? if so was its existence saying anything other than I am a knockoff model d for less cash?

-DJ


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 24, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> So while you can in concept capture what the unit is doing it will be like a sample, a snapshot of what it really is.



No, that's a very wrong comparison there. It will not be like a sample. Circuit modeling strives to duplicate the behaviour as well, not just some static parameter values at a certain point in time (which is what sampling is). Same inputs are supposed to produce same outputs, this is what SPICE is all about. Now as with hardware, another unit of the same circuit will produce slightly different results, due to component tolerances and so on. Different developers focus on different aspects, and do different optimizations to make their models able to run in realtime. That's why 1176 from Softube vs UAD vs whatever else sound different. However the whole comparison to a snapshot, a sample, is still patently wrong.



Daniel James said:


> (I mean you even have to warm synths up before they tune correctly xD)



Old ones, yes, for a variety of reasons. New ones, if done properly, not really.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Apr 24, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> As I mentioned software differs from a hardware clone in that its filling a void in the market for those of us who are not bolted to one location. They don't replace the original they offer the means to get something close (but not quite).
> 
> -DJ



One could make many of the same arguments in favor of Uli's synth. Except instead of software as a surrogate for those with the challenges of travel, like yourself, Uli is addressing the challenges of funding. He's filling a void as well. He's offering an experience to those who might otherwise not be able to afford it....close but (maybe) not quite. Why is one void legit and another not? Because one serves your needs?

I'd also add that if Moog wasn't currently making the reissue, and some boutique synth maker, other than Behringer was doing this, and it was priced at around $4k USD, no one would bat an eye. Full bragging rights would be in tact. 

Also, Bob had been dead for 12 years. He wasn't involved with the reissue. Is there anyone currently at Moog who was involved with the original? I honestly don't know. But if the answer is no, then you really could ask how the reissue is any less disrespectful. The only difference is that it's being done by a group of individuals who are legally able to use the same logo as the original. 

Don't get me wrong, I truly do see both sides of this. I just like challenging people to look at this from different angles rather than having an emotional response. 

Is what Uli is doing all that different from "following the temp?"


----------



## Kyle Preston (Apr 24, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> Old ones, yes, for a variety of reasons. New ones, if done properly, not really.



My Moog Mother (2016) takes roughly 10 min to warm up. Are you saying it's not made properly?


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Apr 24, 2017)

I don't see this as a competitor to moog and I don't think it will devalue the originals.

This is clearly aimed at those who can't afford a couple of grand for a real moog. 

I doubt that those who want a moog and have the disposable income for one will be lured by a cheaper version.


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 24, 2017)

Kyle Preston said:


> My Moog Mother (2016) takes roughly 10 min to warm up. Are you saying it's not made properly?



Just means it doesn't have digital control over tuning or temperature compensation, which is kinda normal for VCOs. However, it is possible to have VCOs perfectly tuned from the moment the unit is turned on. Korg Minilogue shows how.


----------



## Living Fossil (Apr 24, 2017)

Puzzlefactory said:


> I don't see this as a competitor to moog and I don't think it will devalue the originals.



I don't think it's a competitor to Moog's Minimoog. However, it's a competitor to the minitaur e.g., or to softsynths like the Legend. Or other hardware synths like the Pulse 2, or the Bassstation 2.

Somebody who really wants a "real" minimoog and can afford it, will always buy the real thing.

Discussing the ethics behind the whole thing is more complex than black or white, i can understand both sides.
Like it or not, but copying is a main part of culture; I don't know if there would be Moog synthesizers without Leon Theremin.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 24, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> No, that's a very wrong comparison there. It will not be like a sample. Circuit modeling strives to duplicate the behaviour as well, not just some static parameter values at a certain point in time (which is what sampling is). Same inputs are supposed to produce same outputs, this is what SPICE is all about. Now as with hardware, another unit of the same circuit will produce slightly different results, due to component tolerances and so on. Different developers focus on different aspects, and do different optimizations to make their models able to run in realtime. That's why 1176 from Softube vs UAD vs whatever else sound different. However the whole comparison to a snapshot, a sample, is still patently wrong.



Well you are kind of explaining my point for me. Software has limitations of its own so developers must look for ways to get a similar vibe to the hardware but can not perfectly recreate it. Where as literally using the same physical circuit design and components will result in a machine that will create every bit the same result as the same circuit and components from another creator. Also by comparing it to a sample I didn't mean literally a sample, I meant it as an analogy.....samples capture a real world manipulation of the physical world and then allows you to closely replicate it. Software emulating a hardware unit is taking how electricity interacts with the physical components, taking notes of the results then translating that into 1's and 0's. Sure they may account for many different results, much in the way RR samples account that every note sounds slightly different.....but by changing it to 1's and 0's you are no longer dealing with the electrons bouncing around the circuitry to create your results, you are dealing with 1's and 0's on how it CAN create the result.



EvilDragon said:


> Old ones, yes, for a variety of reasons. New ones, if done properly, not really.





EvilDragon said:


> Just means it doesn't have digital control over tuning or temperature compensation, which is kinda normal for VCOs.



Well its not that they are not built properly is it. I feel you worded it that way just to make a stronger point.

Also you didn't answer this but have you used a Behringer Model D clone yet? you sounded like you have experience with it ?



Puzzlefactory said:


> I don't see this as a competitor to moog and I don't think it will devalue the originals.
> 
> This is clearly aimed at those who can't afford a couple of grand for a real moog.



By creating a product which for all intents and purposes clones something else and sells it for cheaper, it becomes a DIRECT competitor. Thats why I am saying it feels unethical. One company puts in the effort in R&D and design. Creates a popular product that people love and want. Then someone comes along and just takes that work and figures out how to sell it for less. Thats my main issue.



Astronaut FX said:


> One could make many of the same arguments in favor of Uli's synth. Except instead of software as a surrogate for those with the challenges of travel, like yourself, Uli is addressing the challenges of funding. He's filling a void as well. He's offering an experience to those who might otherwise not be able to afford it....close but (maybe) not quite. Why is one void legit and another not? Because one serves your needs?



One is creating something that doesn't exist, the other is creating something which essentially does but undercutting the people who took the time and effort to design it. Like I mentioned above, emulating circuit design digitally and making it accessible virtually is a completely different world to literally taking the circuit design and figuring out how to make it cheaper. 

I personally don't think making something cheaper is filling a void. Undercutting the competition just for the sake of making it cheaper I just feel is in bad taste. I mean even with things like samples you are not replacing the instrument you are making it more practical to use in more situations....however if you are going to hire a cello player then one says I will do the same job but undercut the last guy, that becomes and ethical question...because from that point on you devalue what a player is worth....that will lead to another player undercutting that guy until the value of a player is less than is should be. To tie that back to the model d clone, undercutting the competition is just de-valuing a product so that they can take the money for themselves....which will eventually lead to cheaper and less innovative synths. 

I honestly do think its worth supporting the people who create the products worth cloning in the first place. They are the ones making things people want, sure they are expensive but, to me at least, thats what design, creation, innovation and originality are worth. 

To your point also about why is one thing legit and another isnt.....because thats how I feel about it from an ethical standpoint. You can absolutely disagree with me and buy all the knockoff iphones, designer clothes and synths you want. I am just putting forward how I feel about taking someone elses work and figuring out a way to sell it for less for your own profit.

-DJ


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 24, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> Also you didn't answer this but have you used a Behringer Model D clone yet? you sounded like you have experience with it ?



I didn't, I wasn't at Superbooth. But it's obvious from the video that controls aren't THAT small.



Daniel James said:


> but by changing it to 1's and 0's you are no longer dealing with the electrons bouncing around the circuitry to create your results, you are dealing with 1's and 0's on how it CAN create the result.



And those 0s and 1s CAN create exactly the same results as the hardware unit being modelled. It's what SPICE is made for. Except it's not realtime, which doesn't matter for engineering purposes, but matters to us.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 24, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> I didn't, I wasn't at Superbooth. But it's obvious from the video that controls aren't THAT small.
> 
> 
> 
> And those 0s and 1s CAN create exactly the same results as the hardware unit being modelled. It's what SPICE is made for. Except it's not realtime, which doesn't matter for engineering purposes, but matters to us.



Well it can replicate expected results I imagine however I would think the unpredictably and physical characteristics of the natural world do not apply to the digital domain in the same way. You would have to account for every conceivable physical condition that the electrons were subjected too. By that I mean the fact circuits are physically moving around electrons means that things such as temperature and electrical/magnetic interference will cause the electrons to acts in a specifically contextual way. The 1's and 0's of a computer will render the 1-0 the same way every time regardless of outside factors. But now we are getting needlessly micro level. 

I still stick to my opinion that the digital version of hardware provide a service not covered by the original and if the actual manufactures were the ones releasing the software I would go there first. Whereas literally taking the same circuit and case design, then sticking your name on it is considerably more un-ethical. But hey thats my opinion. It feels like you are here just argue semantics than actually provide a view point on the topic so if you comment again please do so in the knowledge that its really boring typing the same thing again. So if you disagree at least acknowledge the points you keep weaving around.

-DJ


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 24, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> But now we are getting needlessly micro level.










That kind of ultra micro stuff is not covered by software emulations for obvious reasons (computation time and resource requirements). However, temperature IS a parameter covered in SPICE, if you didn't know. And effects of magnetic interference on a circuit can also be showcased:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/801408/?reload=true


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 25, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> That kind of ultra micro stuff is not covered by software emulations for obvious reasons (computation time and resource requirements). However, temperature IS a parameter covered in SPICE, if you didn't know. And effects of magnetic interference on a circuit can also be showcased:
> 
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/801408/?reload=true



Thats actually pretty cool! You learn something every day. It still doesn't change my opinion on software instruments being a separate world from the hardware though.

Also once someone starts talking in memes, its time to respectfully move on from indulging that person. Just saying.

-DJ


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 25, 2017)

Memes are funny. Brighten up.


----------



## novaburst (Apr 25, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> Somebody who really wants a "real" minimoog and can afford it, will always buy the real thing.



Is this a loyalty thing, or is there nothing that surpasses it, there are other alternatives that are just as good


----------



## zolhof (Apr 25, 2017)

I think there's a big market for live players. Not only those who can't afford a real D, but specially those who don't want to risk theirs on the road. It warms my heart to think that Rick Wakeman has four Model Ds on the road + five as spare, and a top-notch service guy available 24/7 (they do need quite some love), but I'm definitely not him.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 25, 2017)

novaburst said:


> Is this a loyalty thing, or is there nothing that surpasses it, there are other alternatives that are just as good



Loyalty to the degree that you support those that create and design the product worth cloning in the first place. For the record if Behringer made an awesome synth and Moog cloned it I would have the exact same reaction. I think its better to give the money to the people who demonstrate the desire to create new things, push barriers, to innovate. For me cloning is not that.



zolhof said:


> I think there's a big market for live players. Not only those who can't afford a real D, but specially those who don't want to risk theirs on the road. It warms my heart to think that Rick Wakeman has four Model Ds on the road + five as spare, and a top-notch service guy available 24/7 (they do need quite some love), but I'm definitely not him.



I do totally get that there is a market for cheaper knockoff items. I'm not suggesting that its specific to hardware synths or anything. Just to me I try to support the creators best I can. Of course you don't have to base your purchasing habits on anything even related to my personal opinion or ethical standpoint, to each their own. It is cool that more people will get into synths. I can see reasons why to some this is an awesome thing.....its the expensive thing made cheap..... I just dislike its at the expensive of the people who put in the effort to actually design the thing.

-DJ


----------



## Astronaut FX (Apr 25, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> Loyalty to the degree that you support those that create and design the product worth cloning in the first place. For the record if Behringer made an awesome synth and Moog cloned it I would have the exact same reaction. I think its better to give the money to the people who demonstrate the desire to create new things, push barriers, to innovate. For me cloning is not that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do completely see that side of things, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But if you think about it, the people at Moog today, who are making the reissue, are not the people who developed the Minimoog in the first place, so you really could make the argument that they themselves are cloning someone else's work.

Is there anyone at Moog today who was involved with the development of the original? If not, they get a pass because Bob allowed them to continue to use his name?


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 25, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> I do completely see that side of things, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But if you think about it, the people at Moog today, who are making the reissue, are not the people who developed the Minimoog in the first place, so you really could make the argument that they themselves are cloning someone else's work.
> 
> Is there anyone at Moog today who was involved with the development of the original? If not, they get a pass because Bob allowed them to continue to use his name?



I totally get your point, and its definitely fair. I think with Moog its sliiightly different as they are carrying on the legacy of the company. If they start making shitty synths then my decision on whether or not they are worth supporting with my money is a topic for a new day.

BUT when you buy a Moog branded product the 'brand' comes with an expectation. When you buy a Ferrari the brand has an expectation. Thats what brand is about. If you goto work at a company like Moog the chances are you are there because you know what that company stands for and what their brand represents....and will continue to forward it into the future. Whereas literally copying someone elses work and throwing your name on it is not something I personally like supporting with my wallet.

-DJ


----------



## R. Soul (Apr 25, 2017)

For those that don't know - this is just the first of many. Behringer is also making an ARP2600, an OSCar and a bunch of others. They have 4 synth development teams simultaneously working on 20 synths, drum machines etc.

More info here:
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2...curtis-chips-reincarnating-oberheim-classics/


----------



## Puzzlefactory (Apr 25, 2017)

The thing is, it's not like it's new technology or that Moog haven't had the opportunity to cater for the mass market.

The synth architecture is basically the same as all subtractive synthesisers that have come since. And Moog have been successful enough over the years that if they wanted to set up mass production of their synths, they could. Especially in this modern times when analog synths have had a real resurgence in popularity. They are obviously opting for a low turn over, high profit margin business model that keeps scarcity value high. I don't think you can blame another company for opting for the polar opposite model.

Also in terms of R&D, we're talking about a synth architecture from the 70's. I think it's had it's run.

I still maintain that this won't affect Moog sales. At least not on the big synths. It probably will be a competitor to the Minotaur and maybe a sub37 rack (if they ever make one). But i still think the Moog brand name will pull a lot of weight with synth enthusiasts (expectation bias and all that).


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 25, 2017)

Puzzlefactory said:


> The synth architecture is basically the same as all subtractive synthesisers that have come since. And Moog have been successful enough over the years that if they wanted to set up mass production of their synths, they could. Especially in this modern times when analog synths have had a real resurgence in popularity. They are obviously opting for a low turn over, high profit margin business model that keeps scarcity value high. I don't think you can blame another company for opting for the polar opposite model.



I agree that synth arcitechture is similar for subtractive synths and thats pretty much a cornerstone element of my point. They COULD have gone and designed and awesome subtractive synth which takes some inspiration from why the Model D is loved the way it is, added some innovation, some new ideas. But instead they are literally cloning a model d. For no other reason than they know people want a model d and they can make it cheaper.

For me its not so much about it hurting Moog's sales as much as it is about showing respect to the creators of the original.

When this clone is an inevitable success it will send out the message that if you want to make money as a hardware developer you only need to clone other popular synths and throw your name on it for instant sales. It will lead to more of the same and less innovation. But again this is just how I feel on the subject I am aware that looking forward isn't for everyone. (Edit- talking about the hardware creators not you there)

Just as another note. I have nothing against Behringer. Just a dislike of cloning. I would rather they spent the time creating awesome NEW things 

-DJ


----------



## babylonwaves (Apr 25, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> I didn't, I wasn't at Superbooth. But it's obvious from the video that controls aren't THAT small.


the controls are okay. not as big as others but, if you keep the price in mind, totally workable. i've played with it for 20 minutes and it sounds and responds like a minimoog. if there's a difference, we should define which minimoog model we are referring to first. maybe they do define it, i didn't check.
i'm personally not super interested in the clone, i was never a big fan of the minimoog. but nobody should take this as a judgement, i'm just saying that because i don't know every tiny aspect of how a minimoog sounds.

but the DM6 is interesting. it sounds great and i believe the effects are very potent as well. it reminds me a lot of a Juno 60. that one was a pleasant surprise.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 25, 2017)

As a Eurorack user, the price for this is excellent. And yet, as a mad fan of synths, and given that we're in 2017, this is about as exciting as getting a new clone of the original iPod.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Apr 25, 2017)

Daniel James said:


> Just as another note. I have nothing against Behringer. Just a dislike of cloning. I would rather they spent the time creating awesome NEW things
> 
> -DJ



We definitely have some common ground on that point. After a couple of decades of catering to the low end market, while slowly building their financial power, and accumulating new talent through acquisitions, Behringer demonstrated with the Deepmind 12, that they were able to bring something to the table that was more than a less expensive knock off. Yes, while clearly inspired by Roland's Juno series, they delivered something that was original in that they took the spirit of a vintage classic, and married it with modern technological advances. 

I agree with you that, as a next step, I'd rather see them continue on that trajectory rather than follow the DM12 with clones.


----------



## zolhof (Apr 25, 2017)

The world of synths is full of clones and tributes. Where were the torches and pitchforks when MiniMOD was released? Remember the "heavily inspired" SH-101 by Intellijel? TB303 knock off? System80's TR-808? Erica Synths' DYI Polivoks? 

And brace yourselves because Behringer also plans to clone the ARP 2600 and OSCar. I had my share of expensive synthesizers over the years, and let me tell you, quite a few of them were overpriced (gone now, phew). Some folks feel it's cool to be the guy with the expensive/exclusive toy, but I couldn't care less... sound + price = deal! Not convinced about the Behringer Model D though, have to wait, Youtube sucks.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 25, 2017)

Speaking of Behringer, I just tried the DeepMind in a store, with headphones on. Too flat-sounding, even more so with FX on, and far too much (ugly) menu diving. I moved on after 10 min.


----------



## EvilDragon (Apr 25, 2017)

FX in DeepMind are just great. It's, after all, TC Electronics legacy in there, among otherse. Those reverbs are sublime.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Apr 25, 2017)

Ned Bouhalassa said:


> this is about as exciting as getting a new clone of the original iPod.



Shots fired. This might be the harshest thing I've read on the forum. Pretty accurate though.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 25, 2017)

EvilDragon said:


> FX in DeepMind are just great. It's, after all, TC Electronics legacy in there, among otherse. Those reverbs are sublime.


Yes, you're right about the quality of the FX. I just found that they did nothing for me in the context of this particular synth/sources. Or maybe it's something else in the signal path that makes me go 'meh'.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 25, 2017)

Sorry for derailing the thread, though, as it should be about the Mini clone.


----------

