3 ms·

> They brought products that, while not top quality, had decent quality for an unbeatable price In my mind, Behringer didn't revolutionized anything, but rathe

> They brought products that, while not top quality, had decent quality for an unbeatable price In my mind, Behringer didn't revolutionized anything, but rather iterated their way to fame. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price, as your comment allude to. Not to say that isn't an achievement in itself, to build same quality gear for cheap, but I'm not sure "revolutionized" is a word I'd use to describe them.

glimshe 1y ago
The word has been historically used to represent a new group of people being empowered. And Behringer has empowered poor and hobbyst musicians like no one else in recent memory. That's a revolution in my book.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  Huh, I guess my history been different, I always understood "innovative" as something like "new and different". Making something cheaper can be innovative, depending on how you achieved that. But if you launched a product that is the same as a competitor only because it's cheaper, because your company is funded by VCs who can continuously inject cash to bleed your competitor, I wouldn't call that "innovative" at all. But if you instead had figured out a way to actually create the same hardware but in a cheaper way, so that's why the price is cheaper, then you did innovative in the creation process, but I still wouldn't call the finished product innovative, I'd be more focused on the process itself.
  - benediktwerner 1y ago
    The word used in the original comment was "revolutionized" and in reference to "the market", not "innovative" and not in reference to product functionality.
  - friendzis 1y ago
    One of you is talking about a technical revolution, that changes what things are or how things are made. The other is talking about market revolution, where market dynamics change, typically by lowering the price.
    - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      Yeah, I think that's a fair characterization.
- steve1977 1y ago
  One could make an argument that companies like Behringer, by „selling the dream“ - even if they sell it cheaper than others - are part of what makes musicians poor ;) Cannot afford a real Jupiter-8? Now you can! And finally you will have success! (Narrator: They did not succeed)
  - abuani 1y ago
    ... That makes no sense. The value of an instrument isn't what makes a successful musician successful. The best musicians can make the cheapest sounding instrument sound amazing. What cheaper instruments offers is the opportunity for someone to even have a chance.
    - steve1977 1y ago
      But Behringer is mostly selling clones of famous (and expensive) synths. You don’t need these expensive synths. But md point is that you wouldn’t even need the clones of Behringer.
      - mrob 1y ago
        Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture. E.g. if you want to make dance music it's likely you want 808- or 909-style drums. You could use samples or software simulations, but I think the hardware UI makes a difference. It's easier to follow the idioms of a genre when you're working in a similar way to the originators of the genre.
        CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        > Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture Not only that, many synths are expensive at launch because of R&D and production costs (considering the small amount they produce), and impossible they're already part of "musical culture" as they just launched. TE and Elektron stuff is expensive at launch as just one counter-example.
motorest 1y ago
> In my mind, Behringer didn't revolutionized anything, but rather iterated their way to fame. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price, as your comment allude to. Your comment reads like "IBM didn't revolutionize anything. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price (...)"
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  Well, did IBM actually bring something new to the market? As far as I know, IBM did have impressive technical innovations at first, like the Vacuum Tube Multiplier, but then at one point they stopped innovating and instead focused on basically business optimizations. So yeah, I guess a bit similar to IBM, but that isn't the full story.
MomsAVoxell 1y ago
All good musical instrument product development requires iteration. So this aspect should not necessarily be viewed as dis-innovative. Where they ‘revolutionized’ the ‘evolutionary iteration’ of product development, is they made affordable copies of other products that had already been through a few classic iterations. >Cheap/Price/etc. There’s the rub. First, it has to be affordable to the target audience. Second, it has to be available: i.e. can I just walk out of the shop with it right now? Cheap Behringer gear fits many a budding rock stars’ meager budget. Behringer has capitalized on their reach by developing that market at a clip which far out-paces the bigger/prestigious brands. What’s great is how much Behringer is agitating the Superbooth universe. It is so fun to see folks of all ages learning the old synth classic architectures, even if it is on re-implementations rather than the old planks, themselves. Synthesizers, thanks to Behringer and other players in the market, are now not so esoteric and inaccessible as they once were, but rather well established as a 21st century musical instrument standard. There is much mirth to be gained from observing a 9 year old kid figure out how to make the JUNO/SH101/etc. architecture do extraordinary things, without worrying about the drink-spill factor, or other antiquated notions.

glimshe 1y ago

The word has been historically used to represent a new group of people being empowered. And Behringer has empowered poor and hobbyst musicians like no one else in recent memory. That's a revolution in my book.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
Huh, I guess my history been different, I always understood "innovative" as something like "new and different". Making something cheaper can be innovative, depending on how you achieved that. But if you launched a product that is the same as a competitor only because it's cheaper, because your company is funded by VCs who can continuously inject cash to bleed your competitor, I wouldn't call that "innovative" at all. But if you instead had figured out a way to actually create the same hardware but in a cheaper way, so that's why the price is cheaper, then you did innovative in the creation process, but I still wouldn't call the finished product innovative, I'd be more focused on the process itself.
- benediktwerner 1y ago
  The word used in the original comment was "revolutionized" and in reference to "the market", not "innovative" and not in reference to product functionality.
- friendzis 1y ago
  One of you is talking about a technical revolution, that changes what things are or how things are made. The other is talking about market revolution, where market dynamics change, typically by lowering the price.
  - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
    Yeah, I think that's a fair characterization.
steve1977 1y ago
One could make an argument that companies like Behringer, by „selling the dream“ - even if they sell it cheaper than others - are part of what makes musicians poor ;) Cannot afford a real Jupiter-8? Now you can! And finally you will have success! (Narrator: They did not succeed)
- abuani 1y ago
  ... That makes no sense. The value of an instrument isn't what makes a successful musician successful. The best musicians can make the cheapest sounding instrument sound amazing. What cheaper instruments offers is the opportunity for someone to even have a chance.
  - steve1977 1y ago
    But Behringer is mostly selling clones of famous (and expensive) synths. You don’t need these expensive synths. But md point is that you wouldn’t even need the clones of Behringer.
    - mrob 1y ago
      Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture. E.g. if you want to make dance music it's likely you want 808- or 909-style drums. You could use samples or software simulations, but I think the hardware UI makes a difference. It's easier to follow the idioms of a genre when you're working in a similar way to the originators of the genre.
      - CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
        > Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture Not only that, many synths are expensive at launch because of R&D and production costs (considering the small amount they produce), and impossible they're already part of "musical culture" as they just launched. TE and Elektron stuff is expensive at launch as just one counter-example.

motorest 1y ago

> In my mind, Behringer didn't revolutionized anything, but rather iterated their way to fame. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price, as your comment allude to. Your comment reads like "IBM didn't revolutionize anything. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price (...)"

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
Well, did IBM actually bring something new to the market? As far as I know, IBM did have impressive technical innovations at first, like the Vacuum Tube Multiplier, but then at one point they stopped innovating and instead focused on basically business optimizations. So yeah, I guess a bit similar to IBM, but that isn't the full story.

MomsAVoxell 1y ago

All good musical instrument product development requires iteration. So this aspect should not necessarily be viewed as dis-innovative. Where they ‘revolutionized’ the ‘evolutionary iteration’ of product development, is they made affordable copies of other products that had already been through a few classic iterations. >Cheap/Price/etc. There’s the rub. First, it has to be affordable to the target audience. Second, it has to be available: i.e. can I just walk out of the shop with it right now? Cheap Behringer gear fits many a budding rock stars’ meager budget. Behringer has capitalized on their reach by developing that market at a clip which far out-paces the bigger/prestigious brands. What’s great is how much Behringer is agitating the Superbooth universe. It is so fun to see folks of all ages learning the old synth classic architectures, even if it is on re-implementations rather than the old planks, themselves. Synthesizers, thanks to Behringer and other players in the market, are now not so esoteric and inaccessible as they once were, but rather well established as a 21st century musical instrument standard. There is much mirth to be gained from observing a 9 year old kid figure out how to make the JUNO/SH101/etc. architecture do extraordinary things, without worrying about the drink-spill factor, or other antiquated notions.