7 ms·

Our critique of Behringer's proposed TD-3 variant with Devil Fish functions

45 points by pgreenwood 7y ago

blattimwind 7y ago
tl;dr Behringer did not want to double the price point of the product. The rest follows. The post mostly discusses royalty schemes.
- SN76477 7y ago
  I would love to have a $300 devil fish clone myself. That is where I want to see Behringer, making modern variants of classic synths. The poly D is the best example. A heavily modified 303 would just be insane as well.
dintech 7y ago
There are plenty of other mod designers for the original 303. I'm sure there will be a bunch of non-Devil Fish mods anyway.
- ptah 7y ago
  there are, eh devilfish mods are complicated but i've seen some simpler ones in facebook groups using 1EUR parts
vortico 7y ago
As with nearly all of the Behringer clones, there is nothing the legal system can do to provide what is "fair" to the original designers of their cloned circuits and interface likeness. In my opinion, there is no way to solve this problem. Perhaps design trademarks? This happens in every hardware industry, and China is usually the country that can provide the lowest prices for manufacturing a product.
- EamonnMR 7y ago
  The companies that own the original designs have abdicated their responsibility to produce them. It's sort of like abandonware. People have been making software clones of these machines for years, the only difference is Behringer is actually making them in hardware (and thus adding the much sought after premium analog halo.)
dep_b 7y ago
It’s super questionable what they did to Moog since creating an authentic enough version of the MiniMoog with modern parts takes quite a bit of research. This was not a 40 years old abandoned design like many of their other recreations.
- yeutterg 7y ago
  I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the original Moog company went through bankruptcy and a lot of changing-of-hands. So the current company is only vaguely related to the original. But on the other hand, they did come back to life, not only to recreate originals but to create new, interesting designs. So even though the Minimoog hasn't been in continuous production since the original, they do still sell it today. Plus, the new company is mostly employee-owned. If you're ever in Asheville, definitely check out the factory for a free tour as well as the Moogseum. On to Behringer. What they are doing is questionable, especially around the Minimoog and ARP, two models that are currently in production by the original manufacturers. However, I think there's an easier case to be made for the old designs that are no longer in production (e.g. the Juno 106, 808, 303, etc.). Even though Roland makes some modern products that include the functionality/sounds of the originals or mimic the look and feel, they are still generally based on virtual engines instead of analog circuits. Argue all day long about the sound differences, but synth heads tend to love analog. Korg has done a better job at cranking out desirable analog designs. What Behringer and Korg are doing, that Moog arguably isn't, is creating desirable analog synths that hobbyists can afford. Yes, they were never this cheap back in the 70s/80s. But it drastically lowers the cost of entry for people just wanting to get started and not wanting to use a DAW for everything. I'm excited for the 909 clone as that has the best pads to my ears. I'm considering getting a DeepMind, which is inspired by the Juno 106 but different in many ways. I could see a TD-3 in my future. I'm less excited about the Poly D and ARP, but that could be my own musical taste as well. Related note: why didn't Behringer include a batteries option in the 303 and 606 clones? I see these as almost perfect competition to Volcas, but Volcas have battery options and are way more portable. I know the originals were only hardwired, but still.
  - dep_b 7y ago
dmschulman 7y ago
After Robin Whittle wrote this piece, Behringer's president Uli Behringer decided to publicly air his entire private email exchange with Robin in order to tell "their" side of the story. I believe this was done to show they offered Robin some (abet paltry) compensation of $15k, but publishing their entire private correspondence seems like more of a bullying tactic than anything else. Behringer has very little to lose here and they know it, but the conduct is unbecoming. Should we allow large hardware manufacturers to bully and push around small businesses and DIY hardware hackers like this?
- nkozyra 7y ago
  I'm not seeing the bullying here. Two companies engaged on a partnership, it didn't work out and now they're both airing the laundry. The deal didn't make sense for either party. It happens. What I find interesting is that none of the clone criticism seemed to impact the excitement about working with behringer in the first place, assuming the deal made sense.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    “It didn’t work out” But behringer went ahead and used all the devilfish ideas in their product. It didn’t work out would be the deal collapsed and nobody made the clone.
    - cwzwarich 7y ago
      RWI doesn't own the Devilfish ideas (even if they were patented, they would've expired by now since Robin's been doing this since 1993), so the business deal was really over the Devilfish brand name and endorsement.
nkozyra 7y ago
Behringer has a very specific business model at the moment and it's the cheapest possible clones of classic synths. To be honest, they're an incredible efficient company now and if you contrast that with their reputation for building unreliable junk it's a pretty impressive evolution. Most of what they clone hasn't been in production in decades. Often the companies have changed hands or gone out of business. The clones are orders of magnitude cheaper than the real deal used and generally have more functionality (see: the new Poly D). In short, there's demand but not much realistic supply. It's possible Devil Fish has some patentable novel concepts but the skeptic in me says probably not. He's trying to operate in a different business space than behringer is. That seems to be the dispute (beyond the very fair critique of the word murder and the color)
- Tomte 7y ago
  I don't understand the color part. Black is standard for devices. I get that it's somewhat boring, but really, that's big enough to even get mentioned, let alone as a dealbreaker?
  - nkozyra 7y ago
    Literally every 303 clone ever made (and there are hundreds of these) looks like a 303 in some regard. And the 303 is an ugly synthesizer. Black, white, rainbow, transparent, the thing is ugly.
    - ptah 7y ago
      if you are sound-oriented, when you hear the sounds coming out of it your view of the thing changes to seeing it as one of the most beautiful things that humans are able to see
      - nkozyra 7y ago
        Most musicians should be "sound-oriented" ;) My point was the complaint tacked on here about aesthetics seems not only unnecessary but in the context of 303 clones kind of, uh, tone-deaf.
jccalhoun 7y ago
Just in case anyone is wondering, "murdered out" is slang for all black. The oldest definition for it on Urban Dictionary is from 2006 https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=murdered%20out https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=murdered%20o...
- ptah 7y ago
  i'm pretty sure it means "modded out" in this case
ptah 7y ago
just waiting to get my yellow limited edition td-3 and then i will look at modding the blue one i have now. the df mods are quite extensive, i would look to keep the machine simple. i've seen some diy td-3 mods floating around
llcoolv 7y ago
My experience with Behringer guitar effects pedals is that they are 1:1 clones of more popular ones (mostly by Boss). Here is an example list: https://www.tonestart.com/ultimate-behringer-guitar-pedal-clone-list/ https://www.tonestart.com/ultimate-behringer-guitar-pedal-cl... Basically, the components in a 80-250 EUR guitar pedal are worth around 5-15 EUR and the rest is intellectual property. So it is possible to pirate hardware as well.
- motogpjimbo 7y ago
  Just waiting for that 50 EUR Strymon BigSky clone...
S_A_P 7y ago
Ive had the pleasure of interacting with Robin via email a few times over the years. He is the expert when it comes to modifying your Roland X0X machine. I paid him for a few hours of consulting time to modify my TR-808. This guy was more than fair about what he shared with me, and gave me extremely detailed notes beyond the scope of what I asked for. I've been following the Behringer "synth wave", and Ive purchased quite a few of them(RD-8, TD-3, K2, and WASP). I purchased the RD-8 as the platform to try the 808 mods since I didnt want to really tear up my 808. The other things I purchased were all out of print synths, and I think it makes total sense for Behringer to revive these models. They have the scale and tooling to make it happen at low cost, and I generally support that mission. However, Uli has a cloud over him regarding his business practices that never really goes away. In this case, I cant support Behringer at all. Boutique gear is always going to cost more, and if you want to use his designs (patented or not) you need to compensate the responsible party. He may not be legally entitled to, but ethically and morally its the right thing to do. I dont have a window of the economics of building the TD-3 or any Behringer synth, but I would imagine that R&D is pretty low. Existing schematics are used and most of the R&D would be around finding suitable replacements for the circuits if the original parts are not available.(or in Music Tribes case, they can reproduce ICs) I may reconsider future purchases from Behringer in light of these events...
somesortofsystm 7y ago
The synthesizer world is a tempestuous, incestuous, hyperventilating hive of wannabe and actual rock star keyboarder/synthesis/tweaker/producer/dj/bedroomer barbarians. We should expect no manners from an industry which has, for 40 years, been copying itself. Innovation is really happening in the synth space, but what happens - and which is rarely accomodated for - is that these devices persist on into the future because they are musical instruments. If you attack ones right to copy, you may as well leave the music industries. Musicians Copy. Its a vital and necessary aspect of the culture and art itself, and the disallowing of it is a tragic attempt to thwart the art, itself. Now, does this apply immediately to the commercial musical instrument manufacturing industry? Like I said, its incestuous. Devil Fish are perfectly right to keep their ideas to themselves until they are ready to commercial it themselves, and this seems to be a breach of that trust. Tut tut, never talk to a bigger fish unless you've got a hook! However, Behringer are not to be feared! They bring new blood to the market by making the cheap stuff. Everyone knows, even if the kids buy the cheap stuff, good music gets made until it doesn't. And then, they buy the better stuff. The DF guys should just gear up the mod, and make themselves a better machine. Every single Behringer will be mod'able. My Neutron already has a firmware update that turns it into a poly-synth, FFS. Now .. Every 6 months or so, on average, the 'perfect musical instrument consumer' spends a quarter of their regular monthly income, on gear. GAS is a real thing, manufacturers know all about its harvest, and exploitation. (Disclaimer: sitting in a room full of synthesizers, oldest one was built in 1972, been making them myself personally for decades, love the subject to death, have a very strong opinion on the subject, see above.)
lazersharkman 7y ago
I had to stop reading when there was some moral tinge that Berhringer is somehow doing something wrong by producing technology for cheap that is out of patent, namely that somehow it's wrong for Berhinger to produce the Model D when Moog produces one as well. Author claims these "compete". Maybe. Different price points and different quality of builds. Moreover, this guy is a modifier not a manufacturer. Having his name on a product is a huge marketing scheme, probably providing him with more business than he could keep up with. I didn't know Studio Electronics until Roland. This just reads like he let something fall through, and he wants to blame berhinger somehow. It's not even as if his tech was patented, so, what's the point of writing this? IP is an abstract philosophical farce and no one really owns ideas.
- tlb 7y ago
  Customers care. Musicians are particularly sensitive to what's a value-adding improvement vs. a blatant ripoff.
- ptah 7y ago
  technically the modern moog model d's are clones of the original moogs too so equally unethical. EDIT: "After the sale of Moog Music, production of the Minimoog stopped in the early 1980s. In 2002, after founder Robert Moog regained the rights to the Moog brand and bought the company, the Minimoog Voyager, an updated version, was released. In 2016, the company released a new version of the original Minimoog." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimoog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimoog
jwildeboer 7y ago
When you think that doubling the price is a reasonable thing to ask from a manufacturer that is known to focus on exactly the opposite (low price) - you might be in for disappointment. When you add to that a demand for some running royalties per sold device that goes up when more devices are sold (thus making end price calculations unpredictable) AND ask for the final word on component selection - you just might be a bit too confident in what you think is the power you have in negotiations. To put it mildly. [Edit typos/formatting]
ogou 7y ago
This didn't have anything to do with how it looked or sounded. It was getting the "Devil Fish" association. Anybody who used a 303 back then coveted a Devil Fish mod. Whittle was right to ask for a fair royalty arrangement and to emphasize quality. His brand was at stake. More power to him. Losing brand is exactly what got Bob Moog into trouble. He sold the Moog name when he merged with another company and lost it for a few decades. Couldn't even make synthesizers with his own name on them.
Heinakroon 7y ago
For those interested, here's Uli Behringer's response in full: https://textuploader.com/16l0e https://textuploader.com/16l0e

45 points by pgreenwood 7y ago

tl;dr Behringer did not want to double the price point of the product. The rest follows. The post mostly discusses royalty schemes.

SN76477 7y ago
I would love to have a $300 devil fish clone myself. That is where I want to see Behringer, making modern variants of classic synths. The poly D is the best example. A heavily modified 303 would just be insane as well.

dintech 7y ago

There are plenty of other mod designers for the original 303. I'm sure there will be a bunch of non-Devil Fish mods anyway.

ptah 7y ago
there are, eh devilfish mods are complicated but i've seen some simpler ones in facebook groups using 1EUR parts

vortico 7y ago

As with nearly all of the Behringer clones, there is nothing the legal system can do to provide what is "fair" to the original designers of their cloned circuits and interface likeness. In my opinion, there is no way to solve this problem. Perhaps design trademarks? This happens in every hardware industry, and China is usually the country that can provide the lowest prices for manufacturing a product.

EamonnMR 7y ago
The companies that own the original designs have abdicated their responsibility to produce them. It's sort of like abandonware. People have been making software clones of these machines for years, the only difference is Behringer is actually making them in hardware (and thus adding the much sought after premium analog halo.)

dep_b 7y ago

It’s super questionable what they did to Moog since creating an authentic enough version of the MiniMoog with modern parts takes quite a bit of research. This was not a 40 years old abandoned design like many of their other recreations.

yeutterg 7y ago
I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the original Moog company went through bankruptcy and a lot of changing-of-hands. So the current company is only vaguely related to the original. But on the other hand, they did come back to life, not only to recreate originals but to create new, interesting designs. So even though the Minimoog hasn't been in continuous production since the original, they do still sell it today. Plus, the new company is mostly employee-owned. If you're ever in Asheville, definitely check out the factory for a free tour as well as the Moogseum. On to Behringer. What they are doing is questionable, especially around the Minimoog and ARP, two models that are currently in production by the original manufacturers. However, I think there's an easier case to be made for the old designs that are no longer in production (e.g. the Juno 106, 808, 303, etc.). Even though Roland makes some modern products that include the functionality/sounds of the originals or mimic the look and feel, they are still generally based on virtual engines instead of analog circuits. Argue all day long about the sound differences, but synth heads tend to love analog. Korg has done a better job at cranking out desirable analog designs. What Behringer and Korg are doing, that Moog arguably isn't, is creating desirable analog synths that hobbyists can afford. Yes, they were never this cheap back in the 70s/80s. But it drastically lowers the cost of entry for people just wanting to get started and not wanting to use a DAW for everything. I'm excited for the 909 clone as that has the best pads to my ears. I'm considering getting a DeepMind, which is inspired by the Juno 106 but different in many ways. I could see a TD-3 in my future. I'm less excited about the Poly D and ARP, but that could be my own musical taste as well. Related note: why didn't Behringer include a batteries option in the 303 and 606 clones? I see these as almost perfect competition to Volcas, but Volcas have battery options and are way more portable. I know the originals were only hardwired, but still.
- dep_b 7y ago

dmschulman 7y ago

After Robin Whittle wrote this piece, Behringer's president Uli Behringer decided to publicly air his entire private email exchange with Robin in order to tell "their" side of the story. I believe this was done to show they offered Robin some (abet paltry) compensation of $15k, but publishing their entire private correspondence seems like more of a bullying tactic than anything else. Behringer has very little to lose here and they know it, but the conduct is unbecoming. Should we allow large hardware manufacturers to bully and push around small businesses and DIY hardware hackers like this?

nkozyra 7y ago
I'm not seeing the bullying here. Two companies engaged on a partnership, it didn't work out and now they're both airing the laundry. The deal didn't make sense for either party. It happens. What I find interesting is that none of the clone criticism seemed to impact the excitement about working with behringer in the first place, assuming the deal made sense.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  “It didn’t work out” But behringer went ahead and used all the devilfish ideas in their product. It didn’t work out would be the deal collapsed and nobody made the clone.
  - cwzwarich 7y ago
    RWI doesn't own the Devilfish ideas (even if they were patented, they would've expired by now since Robin's been doing this since 1993), so the business deal was really over the Devilfish brand name and endorsement.

nkozyra 7y ago

Behringer has a very specific business model at the moment and it's the cheapest possible clones of classic synths. To be honest, they're an incredible efficient company now and if you contrast that with their reputation for building unreliable junk it's a pretty impressive evolution. Most of what they clone hasn't been in production in decades. Often the companies have changed hands or gone out of business. The clones are orders of magnitude cheaper than the real deal used and generally have more functionality (see: the new Poly D). In short, there's demand but not much realistic supply. It's possible Devil Fish has some patentable novel concepts but the skeptic in me says probably not. He's trying to operate in a different business space than behringer is. That seems to be the dispute (beyond the very fair critique of the word murder and the color)

Tomte 7y ago
I don't understand the color part. Black is standard for devices. I get that it's somewhat boring, but really, that's big enough to even get mentioned, let alone as a dealbreaker?
- nkozyra 7y ago
  Literally every 303 clone ever made (and there are hundreds of these) looks like a 303 in some regard. And the 303 is an ugly synthesizer. Black, white, rainbow, transparent, the thing is ugly.
  - ptah 7y ago
    if you are sound-oriented, when you hear the sounds coming out of it your view of the thing changes to seeing it as one of the most beautiful things that humans are able to see
    - nkozyra 7y ago
      Most musicians should be "sound-oriented" ;) My point was the complaint tacked on here about aesthetics seems not only unnecessary but in the context of 303 clones kind of, uh, tone-deaf.

jccalhoun 7y ago

Just in case anyone is wondering, "murdered out" is slang for all black. The oldest definition for it on Urban Dictionary is from 2006 https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=murdered%20out https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=murdered%20o...

ptah 7y ago
i'm pretty sure it means "modded out" in this case

ptah 7y ago

just waiting to get my yellow limited edition td-3 and then i will look at modding the blue one i have now. the df mods are quite extensive, i would look to keep the machine simple. i've seen some diy td-3 mods floating around

llcoolv 7y ago

My experience with Behringer guitar effects pedals is that they are 1:1 clones of more popular ones (mostly by Boss). Here is an example list: https://www.tonestart.com/ultimate-behringer-guitar-pedal-clone-list/ https://www.tonestart.com/ultimate-behringer-guitar-pedal-cl... Basically, the components in a 80-250 EUR guitar pedal are worth around 5-15 EUR and the rest is intellectual property. So it is possible to pirate hardware as well.

motogpjimbo 7y ago
Just waiting for that 50 EUR Strymon BigSky clone...

S_A_P 7y ago

Ive had the pleasure of interacting with Robin via email a few times over the years. He is the expert when it comes to modifying your Roland X0X machine. I paid him for a few hours of consulting time to modify my TR-808. This guy was more than fair about what he shared with me, and gave me extremely detailed notes beyond the scope of what I asked for. I've been following the Behringer "synth wave", and Ive purchased quite a few of them(RD-8, TD-3, K2, and WASP). I purchased the RD-8 as the platform to try the 808 mods since I didnt want to really tear up my 808. The other things I purchased were all out of print synths, and I think it makes total sense for Behringer to revive these models. They have the scale and tooling to make it happen at low cost, and I generally support that mission. However, Uli has a cloud over him regarding his business practices that never really goes away. In this case, I cant support Behringer at all. Boutique gear is always going to cost more, and if you want to use his designs (patented or not) you need to compensate the responsible party. He may not be legally entitled to, but ethically and morally its the right thing to do. I dont have a window of the economics of building the TD-3 or any Behringer synth, but I would imagine that R&D is pretty low. Existing schematics are used and most of the R&D would be around finding suitable replacements for the circuits if the original parts are not available.(or in Music Tribes case, they can reproduce ICs) I may reconsider future purchases from Behringer in light of these events...

somesortofsystm 7y ago

The synthesizer world is a tempestuous, incestuous, hyperventilating hive of wannabe and actual rock star keyboarder/synthesis/tweaker/producer/dj/bedroomer barbarians. We should expect no manners from an industry which has, for 40 years, been copying itself. Innovation is really happening in the synth space, but what happens - and which is rarely accomodated for - is that these devices persist on into the future because they are musical instruments. If you attack ones right to copy, you may as well leave the music industries. Musicians Copy. Its a vital and necessary aspect of the culture and art itself, and the disallowing of it is a tragic attempt to thwart the art, itself. Now, does this apply immediately to the commercial musical instrument manufacturing industry? Like I said, its incestuous. Devil Fish are perfectly right to keep their ideas to themselves until they are ready to commercial it themselves, and this seems to be a breach of that trust. Tut tut, never talk to a bigger fish unless you've got a hook! However, Behringer are not to be feared! They bring new blood to the market by making the cheap stuff. Everyone knows, even if the kids buy the cheap stuff, good music gets made until it doesn't. And then, they buy the better stuff. The DF guys should just gear up the mod, and make themselves a better machine. Every single Behringer will be mod'able. My Neutron already has a firmware update that turns it into a poly-synth, FFS. Now .. Every 6 months or so, on average, the 'perfect musical instrument consumer' spends a quarter of their regular monthly income, on gear. GAS is a real thing, manufacturers know all about its harvest, and exploitation. (Disclaimer: sitting in a room full of synthesizers, oldest one was built in 1972, been making them myself personally for decades, love the subject to death, have a very strong opinion on the subject, see above.)

lazersharkman 7y ago

I had to stop reading when there was some moral tinge that Berhringer is somehow doing something wrong by producing technology for cheap that is out of patent, namely that somehow it's wrong for Berhinger to produce the Model D when Moog produces one as well. Author claims these "compete". Maybe. Different price points and different quality of builds. Moreover, this guy is a modifier not a manufacturer. Having his name on a product is a huge marketing scheme, probably providing him with more business than he could keep up with. I didn't know Studio Electronics until Roland. This just reads like he let something fall through, and he wants to blame berhinger somehow. It's not even as if his tech was patented, so, what's the point of writing this? IP is an abstract philosophical farce and no one really owns ideas.

tlb 7y ago
Customers care. Musicians are particularly sensitive to what's a value-adding improvement vs. a blatant ripoff.
ptah 7y ago
technically the modern moog model d's are clones of the original moogs too so equally unethical. EDIT: "After the sale of Moog Music, production of the Minimoog stopped in the early 1980s. In 2002, after founder Robert Moog regained the rights to the Moog brand and bought the company, the Minimoog Voyager, an updated version, was released. In 2016, the company released a new version of the original Minimoog." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimoog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimoog

jwildeboer 7y ago

When you think that doubling the price is a reasonable thing to ask from a manufacturer that is known to focus on exactly the opposite (low price) - you might be in for disappointment. When you add to that a demand for some running royalties per sold device that goes up when more devices are sold (thus making end price calculations unpredictable) AND ask for the final word on component selection - you just might be a bit too confident in what you think is the power you have in negotiations. To put it mildly. [Edit typos/formatting]

ogou 7y ago

This didn't have anything to do with how it looked or sounded. It was getting the "Devil Fish" association. Anybody who used a 303 back then coveted a Devil Fish mod. Whittle was right to ask for a fair royalty arrangement and to emphasize quality. His brand was at stake. More power to him. Losing brand is exactly what got Bob Moog into trouble. He sold the Moog name when he merged with another company and lost it for a few decades. Couldn't even make synthesizers with his own name on them.

Heinakroon 7y ago

For those interested, here's Uli Behringer's response in full: https://textuploader.com/16l0e https://textuploader.com/16l0e