The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
OTHER DISCUSSIONS => General Synthesis => Other Hardware/Software => Topic started by: LoboLives on December 13, 2017, 08:29:54 AM
-
http://www.synthanatomy.com/2017/12/the-bomb-has-burst-behringer-teased-6-new-synthesizers-wasp-deluxe-2600-cat-synthi-vcx3-ms-101-bk-gybu-k20.html
-
Some one had to do it. There have been such cries for the ARP 2600 that some one finally took the opportunity. I presume these are all full-sized instruments.
I owned a CAT SRM many years ago. It was a fabulous instrument - sort of a thicker fatter version of the ARP Odyssey. I've often wished some one would bring it back. Behringer certainly has an ear to the ground. If for nothing else, I'll congratulate them for that.
Is it certain these instruments will be produced, or is this just a rumor?
-
(https://assets-auto.rbl.ms/83d27e0bad5f2de2d7f251fb764085a3004077729c6e76b4d7a1a21029857808)
-
And again with drum machines.....LMX (Linn Drum) and OMX (DMX).
http://www.synthanatomy.com/2017/12/the-next-bomb-has-burst-behringer-teased-5-new-analog-digital-drum-machines-lmx-omx-rd-999-rd-808-rd-909.html
-
Some one had to do it. There have been such cries for the ARP 2600 that some one finally took the opportunity. I presume these are all full-sized instruments.
I owned a CAT SRM many years ago. It was a fabulous instrument - sort of a thicker fatter version of the ARP Odyssey. I've often wished some one would bring it back. Behringer certainly has an ear to the ground. If for nothing else, I'll congratulate them for that.
Is it certain these instruments will be produced, or is this just a rumor?
Not sure. What shocks me is that a lot of these are being assembled in the UK and Germany.
-
(https://assets-auto.rbl.ms/83d27e0bad5f2de2d7f251fb764085a3004077729c6e76b4d7a1a21029857808)
Heh heh. It's all tumbleweed to you, Paul. I know you don't care for these instruments, nor for Behringer. But it was only a matter of time before someone snatched up the 2600 idea. I've seen such a re-issue desired and discussed online perhaps more than any other vintage synthesizer.
-
You know my thoughts are. If there is a demand for a 2600 and nothing is being done to satisfy that demand Behringer has every right to capitalize on that market. I would much rather them focus on their own designs but still...not going to argue against a full sized 2600 sitting in my studio that has the name Behringer instead of ARP on it. If Korg wants to be lazy, screw em.
Now all that they need to do is a Jupiter 8 clone and embarrass Roland. The Behringer Saturn-8.
-
If I could somewhat simplify matters for a moment. There are two types of synthesists: those who want many new features, and those who want primarily the old fundamental features. The discussions on this forum fall almost exclusively into the first group. Everybody seems to want the latest and greatest features, things brilliantly original, bold, and ground-breaking. Hence, each time DSI releases a new synthesizer, as surely as the sun will set, there will appear on this forum in the new instrument's section a "New Features" thread. New, new, new; more, more, more. People will suggest, request, or even demand that DSI add new features to the instrument as it provides OS updates. Some times it sounds as if the instrument - in its released form - is barely playable.
A very few of us fall into the second category. Rather than many new features, we want primarily those rock-solid essential features of a synthesizer that suggest vintage instruments, together with a pure raw analog tone. It seems as if we're considered indifferent to the further development of the synthesizer as a do-everything sort of electronic gadget. But that isn't it at all. Rather, we happen to have such a strong liking for the synthesizer as a musical instrument that we're actually annoyed by the constant demands for new features. As if the synthesizer were crippled in its current state and needed to be made fit at last for use!
Whatever may be the authenticity of the above announcement, I would love to see such instruments as the 2600, CAT, and MS-20 in full size once more available. Not because they're retro, vintage, or provide a walk down memory lane, but entirely because they're excellent synthesizers that are strong in the fundamentals of synthesis, period. There's nothing more to it than that; it's an entirely musical preference. There's a pleasure in working with a relatively simple instrument that doesn't tempt you to wander off into unnecessarily complex sound design territory, that doesn't distract you with an abundance of features.
Sure, it can be thrilling to sit at a Prophet 12, where it seems you could create any sound you could imagine, and many you could not. But there's an equally gratifying experience in sitting at a synthesizer that provides just the basics, and, therefore, a minimum of distractions from the time-consuming work of producing beautiful music. So, I'm glad someone has finally decided to re-issue these classic synthesizers and spare those of us interested the many headaches of buying and maintaining used instruments.
-
Heh heh. It's all tumbleweed to you, Paul. I know you don't care for these instruments, nor for Behringer. But it was only a matter of time before someone snatched up the 2600 idea. I've seen such a re-issue desired and discussed online perhaps more than any other vintage synthesizer.
That's not fully true. I do like the sounds of an ARP 2600. What I don't care about is the king of vaporware and the questionable business tactics of this corporate troll. That's one thing. The other thing is that I do find this whole retro wave slightly absurd in most places, albeit it may be regarded as a natural progression from synthesizers having reached the same status as a Fender or Gibson guitar. I don't mind retro instruments per se and obviously not from a historical perspective, I'm just not interested in the consumerist attitude the whole retro market caters to because XYZ used to use exactly the same synth on records A, B, and C. That is purely fan culture, but no synthesist culture. It's where certain brands and fashions become more important than what these instruments enable the player to do in the first place. That's pretty much all I don't care about. And this is pretty much unrelated to older synths themselves.
If I could somewhat simplify matters for a moment. There are two types of synthesists: those who want many new features, and those who want primarily the old fundamental features. The discussions on this forum largely fall into the first group. Everybody seems to want the latest and greatest features, things brilliantly original, bold, and ground-breaking. Hence, each time DSI releases a new synthesizer, as surely as the sun will set, there will appear on this forum in the new instrument's section a "New Features" thread. New, new, new; more, more, more. People will suggest, request, or even demand that DSI add new features to the instrument as it provides OS updates. Some times it sounds as if the instrument - as is - is barely playable.
A few of us, perhaps, fall into the second category. Rather than new and more features, we want primarily those rock-solid essential features of a synthesizer that suggest vintage instruments, together with a pure raw analog tone. I suppose we're considered retro and indifferent to the further development of the synthesizer as a do-everything sort of electronic gadget. But that isn't it at all. Rather, we happen to have such a strong liking for the synthesizer as a musical instrument that we're annoyed by all the hype about new features. As if the synthesizer were crippled in its current state and needed to be made fit for use!
I do agree with that in principle. I personally have no preference that runs along the lines of retro and innovation. I'm neither interested in retro for the sake of retro nor in innovation for the sake of innovation. In the end, I'd like a device that can be interacted with like an instrument, which can include any type of synthesis, as long as it can still be operated without having to read the manual each time one likes to change a parameter. So ideally, it's about sound and featurs and a well thought out interface design for me. "More, more, more" or "can do it all" instruments will most likely never make it to the latter category - at least not in my experience.
-
Some one had to do it. There have been such cries for the ARP 2600 that some one finally took the opportunity. I presume these are all full-sized instruments.
I owned a CAT SRM many years ago. It was a fabulous instrument - sort of a thicker fatter version of the ARP Odyssey. I've often wished some one would bring it back. Behringer certainly has an ear to the ground. If for nothing else, I'll congratulate them for that.
Is it certain these instruments will be produced, or is this just a rumor?
Not sure. What shocks me is that a lot of these are being assembled in the UK and Germany.
Manufacture of the boards in China, with subsequent assembly in EU, keeps costs down (lower tariffs)–that seems to be the biggest complaint regarding the pricing (not yet official) for the Model "B".
-
To be fair a lot of the "Feature requests" are for things that are almost mind boggling why they aren't there in the first place. Better midi implementation, better sequencer functionality that other synths have had and currently have. The reason? Dave is a creature of habit and is hesitant to adopt them. Well that's fine, but that also makes the requests that much more warranted. It's not a case of the manufacturer not being able to do it but rather a case of the manufacturer simply not wanting to do it.
Eventually that only goes so far (especially at the price points being asked) until people start looking for alternatives....ask Gibson.
-
Paul, that's a rather harsh judgment, and it presumes an awful lot about those of us who would like such instruments. I believe you said you had always wanted a Prophet 5, and so, a Prophet 6 would be the next best thing. Good for you. But I'm sure your reasoning went a bit deeper than that. Likewise
I personally loathe being placed again and again in a category with devotees of this rock keyboardist or that. To put it lightly, if there's one group of persons I don't admire, it's certainly rock musicians. So, please don't presume that re-issued instruments concern a desire to look or sound like some one else. It may concern, instead, a negative feeling towards modern instruments, which are more complicated than many of us prefer. There's more to this issue than such pejorative terms as "retro," "vintage," and "old school" allow. Those terms are used to throw a group of us into a lunatic bin, and it's due to an unwillingness to take seriously our views.
I think there's a lot of merit in what you are saying but I also think a lot of it has to do with instruments from the past somehow having more functionality and features than modern gear but not having the reliability of a modern instrument. The issue I take from the "retro" movement is we aren't expanding on or bettering these things we are making them either exactly how they were or less than how they were.
-
I deleted that post because I don't want to argue over this, as I would have in the past. Make music with the instruments of your choice - old or new, vintage or contemporary. There's no need to justify to others such a decision.
-
Paul, your first paragraph was a rather harsh judgment, and it presumes an awful lot about those of us who would like such instruments. I believe you said you had always wanted a Prophet 5, and so, a Prophet 6 would be the next best thing. Good for you. But I'm sure your reasoning went a bit deeper than that. Likewise.
I personally loathe being placed again and again in a category with devotees of this rock keyboardist or that. To put it lightly, if there's one group of persons I don't admire, it's certainly rock musicians. So, please don't presume that re-issued instruments concern a desire to look or sound like some one else. It may concern, instead, a negative feeling towards modern instruments, which are more complicated than many of us prefer.
There's more to this issue than such pejorative terms as "retro," "vintage," and "old school" allow. Those terms are used to throw a group of us into a lunatic bin, and it's due to an unwillingness to take seriously our views.
To clarify: I didn't mean to be harsh towards musicians that want a simple, stable, and good sounding instrument, no matter whether it was first released in 1971 or in 2017. What I was writing about was the sheer consumerist interest in synths (or any instrument for that matter), most notably represented by an infamous and somewhat appropriately named forum (GS). And how this consumerist interest is more related to fan or retro culture than to idiosyncratic musical goals or the options a synthesizer provides you with in terms of the authorization of sound. To me this whole B*word phenomenon is just a manufacturer's equivalent of the whole Gearslutz forum, its logical outcome it you will. And this business is mainly about buying things that make you comfortable because of the nice memories you associate with them (all things retro) for the lowest possible price the masses are willing to pay. That's all. I didn't mean to put you in particular into that category, which would seem absurd to me.
So again, what I mean is: "I wanna sound like Vangelis!" - "What synths did Vangelis use?" - "Why can't company XYZ just build a reissue?" - "But the reissue needs to be cheap, I'm not willing to pay Ebay prices that are higher than the mortgage left to pay." - "But it needs to have wood sides!" - "Wood sides make it more analog!" - "Wood sides are almost as good as a third VCO!" - "But it needs to be the best wood for the lowest possible price! After all, we're so wonderfully cynic about how production works." - "If one can build a Minimoog clone for 10% of the price, I wanna CS-80 for $1,500. That's what I'm willing to pay!" - "Then I can sound just like Vangelis and die peacefully." - "Then we can all sound like Vangelis!" - "Amen!" - Curtain closes -
And I don't see how any of that is related to being genuinely interested in synthesis.
-
Paul, your first paragraph was a rather harsh judgment, and it presumes an awful lot about those of us who would like such instruments. I believe you said you had always wanted a Prophet 5, and so, a Prophet 6 would be the next best thing. Good for you. But I'm sure your reasoning went a bit deeper than that. Likewise.
I personally loathe being placed again and again in a category with devotees of this rock keyboardist or that. To put it lightly, if there's one group of persons I don't admire, it's certainly rock musicians. So, please don't presume that re-issued instruments concern a desire to look or sound like some one else. It may concern, instead, a negative feeling towards modern instruments, which are more complicated than many of us prefer.
There's more to this issue than such pejorative terms as "retro," "vintage," and "old school" allow. Those terms are used to throw a group of us into a lunatic bin, and it's due to an unwillingness to take seriously our views.
To clarify: I didn't mean to be harsh towards musicians that want a simple, stable, and good sounding instrument, no matter whether it was first released in 1971 or in 2017. What I was writing about was the sheer consumerist interest in synths (or any instrument for that matter), most notably represented by an infamous and somewhat appropriately named forum (GS). And how this consumerist interest is more related to fan or retro culture than to idiosyncratic musical goals or the options a synthesizer provides you with in terms of the authorization of sound. To me this whole B*word phenomenon is just a manufacturer's equivalent of the whole Gearslutz forum, its logical outcome it you will. And this business is mainly about buying things that make you comfortable because of the nice memories you associate with them (all things retro) for the lowest possible price the masses are willing to pay. That's all. I didn't mean to put you in particular into that category, which would seem absurd to me.
So again, what I mean is: "I wanna sound like Vangelis!" - "What synths did Vangelis use?" - "Why can't company XYZ just build a reissue?" - "But the reissue needs to be cheap, I'm not willing to pay Ebay prices that are higher than the mortgage left to pay." - "But it needs to have wood sides!" - "Wood sides make it more analog!" - "Wood sides are almost as good as a third VCO!" - "But it needs to be the best wood for the lowest possible price! After all, we're so wonderfully cynic about how production works." - "If one can build a Minimoog clone for 10% of the price, I wanna CS-80 for $1,500. That's what I'm willing to pay!" - "Then I can sound just like Vangelis and die peacefully." - "Then we can all sound like Vangelis!" - "Amen!" - Curtain closes -
And I don't see how any of that is related to being genuinely interested in synthesis.
I mean obviously inspiration has to come from somewhere. Brian May loved Rory Gallagher and used Vox AC30s because Rory turned him on to it. A lot of blues players go for strats, ES 335s because that’s what a lot of iconic blues players played. I think there is some merit in using a standard to find your own voice. For instance I got into synths because of John Carpenter and I tend to model a lot of my patches and set up after his but then I’m also using it as a starting point to finding my own voice.
I do agree though that the people demanding it aren’t willing to pay the cost of their desire.
-
Paul, the problem is, even while you allow for a degree of integrity among those of us who like those old instruments, you quickly change and castigate the general movement that favors such instruments. Again, there could be more to it than you presently appreciate, more than just "fan culture." For all we know, there could be many of us who would like to contribute to "synth culture" by making music on what are unfortunately called "retro" synthesizers. I honestly don't know, because - thanks be to God - I don't surround myself with synth forums and synth culture. I simply make music with the instruments I've got, and, aside from this forum, that's the end of it.
There's much to be said for limiting one's exposure to the Internet's nearly endless universe of comments and opinions on everything under the sun. There's a lot of filth and stupidity that tends to gain a respectable and even an authoritative air when published online.
As for the Gearslutz forum, nothing says it better than the name itself. It was well chosen. Life principle number one: avoid sluts.
Even if GS is the largest online synth forum, don't view the synth world through its blood-shot eyes. Perhaps we're approaching the topic of the problems with synth forums in general. Like social media, they often give a misleading picture of reality, as interpreted through the opinions of a limited number of vocal and often belligerent individuals. It's better to keep your head down and focus on your own work, rather than daily sift through all of that rubbish and allow it to influence your own thoughts.
-
I mean obviously inspiration has to come from somewhere. Brian May loved Rory Gallagher and used Vox AC30s because Rory turned him on to it. A lot of blues players go for strats, ES 335s because that’s what a lot of iconic blues players played. I think there is some merit in using a standard to find your own voice. For instance I got into synths because of John Carpenter and I tend to model a lot of my patches and set up after his but then I’m also using it as a starting point to finding my own voice.
I do agree though that the people demanding it aren’t willing to pay the cost of their desire.
Oh, I'm not arguing over inspiration. Nothing comes out of nowhere and that can also influence what instrument one picks. I highly doubt, though, that the likes of Brian May, Rory Gallagher, or David Gilmour obsessed over gear the way it's common on certain forums now. Most of the time, those players just picked what was available, and when they were young and didn't have much to spend, they bought used gear or whatever else was available. Practice, performance, songwriting and achieving certain sonic results were the things at the center of attention, not a somewhat fetishized instrument or brand itself. In some cases, musicians from that generation are also bewildered by the current interest in vintage gear. John Carpenter, who's mainly playing a Kronos these days, is probably one of them.
-
I'm happy to see Behringer reviving some of the old classics. But I have never been big on Behringer so my question is essentially this: can anybody here speak to the build / sound quality of recent Behringer products? specifically synths?
About 15 years ago, I was considering a Behringer mixer, and a sales rep at Sweetwater who I trusted (and still trust) warned me away from them due to build and sound quality. Since then I have had that bias toward Behringer -- I've associated them with lower quality products. Has this changed? It is certainly possible. Over the years, a companies QC can change drastically (just look at Ford).
Any opinions from Behringer owners here??? (and thanks)
-
I mean obviously inspiration has to come from somewhere. Brian May loved Rory Gallagher and used Vox AC30s because Rory turned him on to it. A lot of blues players go for strats, ES 335s because that’s what a lot of iconic blues players played. I think there is some merit in using a standard to find your own voice. For instance I got into synths because of John Carpenter and I tend to model a lot of my patches and set up after his but then I’m also using it as a starting point to finding my own voice.
I do agree though that the people demanding it aren’t willing to pay the cost of their desire.
Oh, I'm not arguing over inspiration. Nothing comes out of nowhere and that can also influence what instrument one picks. I highly doubt, though, that the likes of Brian May, Rory Gallagher, or David Gilmour obsessed over gear the way it's common on certain forums now. Most of the time, those players just picked what was available, and when they were young and didn't have much to spend, they bought used gear or whatever else was available. Practice, performance, songwriting and achieving certain sonic results were the things at the center of attention, not a somewhat fetishized instrument or brand itself. In some cases, musicians from that generation are also bewildered by the current interest in vintage gear. John Carpenter, who's mainly playing a Kronos these days, is probably one of them.
Oh yeah Carpenter mostly uses Logic now. He said he’s a lazy keyboard player. Has no idea how to program or what any of the knobs do. “Push a key or button. I can do that.”
But I’m not interested his his opinion, only his music and movies.
-
I'm happy to see Behringer reviving some of the old classics. But I have never been big on Behringer so my question is essentially this: can anybody here speak to the build / sound quality of recent Behringer products? specifically synths?
About 15 years ago, I was considering a Behringer mixer, and a sales rep at Sweetwater who I trusted (and still trust) warned me away from them due to build and sound quality. Since then I have had that bias toward Behringer -- I've associated them with lower quality products. Has this changed? It is certainly possible. Over the years, a companies QC can change drastically (just look at Ford).
Any opinions from Behringer owners here??? (and thanks)
If it's of any help, I came across this video by a guy who repairs Moog synthesizers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pRiUSf_QFw
-
I'm happy to see Behringer reviving some of the old classics. But I have never been big on Behringer so my question is essentially this: can anybody here speak to the build / sound quality of recent Behringer products? specifically synths?
About 15 years ago, I was considering a Behringer mixer, and a sales rep at Sweetwater who I trusted (and still trust) warned me away from them due to build and sound quality. Since then I have had that bias toward Behringer -- I've associated them with lower quality products. Has this changed? It is certainly possible. Over the years, a companies QC can change drastically (just look at Ford).
Any opinions from Behringer owners here??? (and thanks)
Tried the Deep Mind in the store when it arrived and found it overly convoluted with a lot of menu diving. Build quality was okay, thing great but I mean Roland’s build quality stinks now and they charge an arm and leg.
-
I mean obviously inspiration has to come from somewhere. Brian May loved Rory Gallagher and used Vox AC30s because Rory turned him on to it. A lot of blues players go for strats, ES 335s because that’s what a lot of iconic blues players played. I think there is some merit in using a standard to find your own voice. For instance I got into synths because of John Carpenter and I tend to model a lot of my patches and set up after his but then I’m also using it as a starting point to finding my own voice.
I do agree though that the people demanding it aren’t willing to pay the cost of their desire.
Oh, I'm not arguing over inspiration. Nothing comes out of nowhere and that can also influence what instrument one picks. I highly doubt, though, that the likes of Brian May, Rory Gallagher, or David Gilmour obsessed over gear the way it's common on certain forums now. Most of the time, those players just picked what was available, and when they were young and didn't have much to spend, they bought used gear or whatever else was available. Practice, performance, songwriting and achieving certain sonic results were the things at the center of attention, not a somewhat fetishized instrument or brand itself. In some cases, musicians from that generation are also bewildered by the current interest in vintage gear. John Carpenter, who's mainly playing a Kronos these days, is probably one of them.
Oh yeah Carpenter mostly uses Logic now. He said he’s a lazy keyboard player. Has no idea how to program or what any of the knobs do. “Push a key or button. I can do that.”
But I’m not interested his his opinion, only his music and movies.
Right. In spite of his famous repertoire, I don't think he offers us an ideal in musicianship, composing, or sound design.
-
Paul, the problem is, even while you allow for a degree of integrity among those of us who like those old instruments, you quickly change and castigate the general movement that favors such instruments. Again, could there be more to it than you presently appreciate, more than just "fan culture"? Could there possibly be many of us who would like to contribute to "synth culture" by making music on what are unfortunately called "retro" synthesizers? I honestly don't know, because - thanks be to God - I don't surround myself with synth forums and synth culture. I simply make music with the instruments I've got, and, aside from this forum, that's the end of it.
I should maybe point out that I use the term "retro" in a rather descriptive sense, not in a derogatory sense. So it's rather based on observation, not on the opinion that "retro" in itself is bad. And I don't only allow for a degree of integrity among those who like old instruments. Neither do I castigate the use of old instruments. Questioning the integrity of a musician only because he or she uses an old instrument would be quite absurd and arrogant. The only thing I criticized was what I referred to as a sheer consumerist interest in those instruments not based on what these instruments can actually do, but whoever used to play them on records that are perceived to be significant now for certain genres. So I was rather talking about praising retro stuff for the sake of retro in the attempt to be like XYZ because it's currently considered hip. I was not criticizing the appreciation of a couple of old synthesizers for reasons that make them a good instrument to some. The latter is not driven by a consumerist approach, but by the search for an instrument that should guarantee maximum expression based on individual needs and preferences.
And yes, I was more or less referring to what usually happens in certain synth forum discourses. The latter is related to the main topic here. Because let's not forget that Behringer catered to the sheer consumer instincts by creating accounts in almost all big internet forums in order to do some market research and create polls.
Even if GS is the largest online synth forum, don't judge the synth world through its blood-shot eyes. Perhaps we're approaching the topic of the problems with synth forums themselves. Like social media, they give a very misleading picture of reality.
I completely agree. And hopefully the rest will just make music.
-
I mean obviously inspiration has to come from somewhere. Brian May loved Rory Gallagher and used Vox AC30s because Rory turned him on to it. A lot of blues players go for strats, ES 335s because that’s what a lot of iconic blues players played. I think there is some merit in using a standard to find your own voice. For instance I got into synths because of John Carpenter and I tend to model a lot of my patches and set up after his but then I’m also using it as a starting point to finding my own voice.
I do agree though that the people demanding it aren’t willing to pay the cost of their desire.
Oh, I'm not arguing over inspiration. Nothing comes out of nowhere and that can also influence what instrument one picks. I highly doubt, though, that the likes of Brian May, Rory Gallagher, or David Gilmour obsessed over gear the way it's common on certain forums now. Most of the time, those players just picked what was available, and when they were young and didn't have much to spend, they bought used gear or whatever else was available. Practice, performance, songwriting and achieving certain sonic results were the things at the center of attention, not a somewhat fetishized instrument or brand itself. In some cases, musicians from that generation are also bewildered by the current interest in vintage gear. John Carpenter, who's mainly playing a Kronos these days, is probably one of them.
Oh yeah Carpenter mostly uses Logic now. He said he’s a lazy keyboard player. Has no idea how to program or what any of the knobs do. “Push a key or button. I can do that.”
But I’m not interested his his opinion, only his music and movies.
Right. In spite of his famous repertoire, I don't think he offers us an ideal in musicianship, composing, or sound design.
I disagree. His compositions are very simple and repetitive but highly catchy and memorable. Kids are playing the Halloween theme like it’s the new chopsticks. Simple doesn’t mean bad..look at Johnny Cash. Can the same be said for other synth based performers? On one hand you have beautiful soundscape artists that tend to become indistinguishable after a while and the other side you have the Wakeman and Emerson fans playing a million miles an hour up and down the keybed but you can’t remeber anything they’ve played once it’s over. With Carpenter, probably because of the musics repetitiveness you walk down the street whistling the theme for Assault On Precinct 13 or soon as you hear the 10 note riff on the Black Keys you automatically go “Halloween”. Can’t really do that with Vince DiCola. Lol
-
If it's of any help, I came across this video by a guy who repairs Moog synthesizers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pRiUSf_QFw
This is actually an important video, as it shows you immediately why the Behringer D is not a Minimoog. No matter how identical both sound when compared to each other: The Minimoog was build as an instrument, the Behringer as a sound module. Perfomance concerns on one side (designing a portable and easy to adjust instrument), consumerist concerns on the other (cloning the same instrument for as cheap as possible).
-
Cool stuff they're making.... but unfortunately nothing that tickle my GAS... still waiting for that DSI sampler/granular synth...
-
If it's of any help, I came across this video by a guy who repairs Moog synthesizers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pRiUSf_QFw
This is actually an important video, as it shows you immediately why the Behringer D is not a Minimoog. No matter how identical both sound when compared to each other: The Minimoog was build as an instrument, the Behringer as a sound module. Perfomance concerns on one side (designing a portable and easy to adjust instrument), consumerist concerns on the other (cloning the same instrument for as cheap as possible).
Sure. But he gives his views on sound and build quality, both inside and out. I believe this is what Shaw was after.
-
If it's of any help, I came across this video by a guy who repairs Moog synthesizers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pRiUSf_QFw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pRiUSf_QFw)
This is actually an important video, as it shows you immediately why the Behringer D is not a Minimoog. No matter how identical both sound when compared to each other: The Minimoog was build as an instrument, the Behringer as a sound module. Perfomance concerns on one side (designing a portable and easy to adjust instrument), consumerist concerns on the other (cloning the same instrument for as cheap as possible).
Sure. But he gives his views on build quality, both inside and out. I believe this is what Shaw was after.
Indeed, Thanks! Still watching video now.
-
Cool stuff they're making.... but unfortunately nothing that tickle my GAS... still waiting for that DSI sampler/granular synth...
Hell I’m still waiting for better midi implementation and sequencer functionality from DSI never mind a new synth. Lol
-
If it's of any help, I came across this video by a guy who repairs Moog synthesizers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pRiUSf_QFw
This is actually an important video, as it shows you immediately why the Behringer D is not a Minimoog. No matter how identical both sound when compared to each other: The Minimoog was build as an instrument, the Behringer as a sound module. Perfomance concerns on one side (designing a portable and easy to adjust instrument), consumerist concerns on the other (cloning the same instrument for as cheap as possible).
Sure. But he gives his views on sound and build quality, both inside and out. I believe this is what Shaw was after.
I know. The comparison just illustrates (even if not willfully) aspects of what I was talking about before.
-
For what it's worth: B*word has taken down all the links.
-
You're right, in that the Behringer Minimoog module is not a performance-oriented instrument. Of course, it would be fine as an add-on to another instrument, as in stereo Minimoog!
"B-word?" Paul, I'm starting to suspect that you really dislike this Behringer fellow. ;D
-
You're right, in that the Behringer Minimoog module is not a performance-oriented instrument. Of course, it would be fine as an add-on to another instrument, as in stereo Minimoog!
"B-word?" Paul, I'm starting to suspect that you really dislike this Behringer fellow. ;D
Or a B*word Model D coming into the Ext. In of my Pro 2. That would definitely be, as Paul alludes, Bitchin'!
-
Or a B*word Model D coming into the Ext. In of my Pro 2.
Yikes! That would be a killer-combination. And while you're at it, why not throw in an ARP Odyssey as well?
-
"B-word?" Paul, I'm starting to suspect that you really dislike this Behringer fellow. ;D
What? Me? ;D
-
You're right, in that the Behringer Minimoog module is not a performance-oriented instrument. Of course, it would be fine as an add-on to another instrument, as in stereo Minimoog!
"B-word?" Paul, I'm starting to suspect that you really dislike this Behringer fellow. ;D
Or a B*word Model D coming into the Ext. In of my Pro 2. That would definitely be, as Paul alludes, Bitchin'!
I need a valium now.
-
Or a B*word Model D coming into the Ext. In of my Pro 2.
Yikes! That would be a killer-combination. And while you're at it, why not throw in an ARP Odyssey as well?
Only 1 audio in... otherwise....
-
"B-word?" Paul, I'm starting to suspect that you really dislike this Behringer fellow. ;D
Well, I guess I have to take some responsibility regarding that term:
https://twitter.com/dslsynth/status/895975827770408960
Do read all of the conversation and do check out who the other person is.
-
Or a B*word Model D coming into the Ext. In of my Pro 2.
Yikes! That would be a killer-combination. And while you're at it, why not throw in an ARP Odyssey as well?
Only 1 audio in... otherwise....
I was thinking rather of MIDI.
-
Or a B*word Model D coming into the Ext. In of my Pro 2.
Yikes! That would be a killer-combination. And while you're at it, why not throw in an ARP Odyssey as well?
Only 1 audio in... otherwise....
I was thinking rather of MIDI.
You’re trying to sell me one of those B-word mixers from the late 90s.... :)
-
The best bit about all this is Roland have spent 20yrs trying to remake their own gear and keep stuffing it up, yet Behringer are hitting 6's when remaking other company's synths (well one so far).
-
The best bit about all this is Roland have spent 20yrs trying to remake their own gear and keep stuffing it up, yet Behringer are hitting 6's when remaking other company's synths (well one so far).
I think I would have ignored The Wasp and the Cat and others and focussed on the 2600 and SH but I also would have released a Jupiter 8 clone this year. Just to see Roland lose their damn minds.
-
The best bit about all this is Roland have spent 20yrs trying to remake their own gear and keep stuffing it up, yet Behringer are hitting 6's when remaking other company's synths (well one so far).
I think I would have ignored The Wasp and the Cat and others and focussed on the 2600 and SH but I also would have released a Jupiter 8 clone this year. Just to see Roland lose their damn minds.
I don't think Roland would care.
-
By the way, has anybody come across an estimated time of arrival for these instruments? I mean, the total list comes to about ten instruments. This could take years to accomplish.
-
By the way, has anybody come across an estimated time of arrival for these instruments? I mean, the total list comes to about ten instruments. This could take years to accomplish.
In what is now being considered a purposeful or non-purposeful leak (it fulfilled it's purpose anyway), neither pricing nor release information was provided.
-
By the way, has anybody come across an estimated time of arrival for these instruments? I mean, the total list comes to about ten instruments. This could take years to accomplish.
Exactly. They've pulled the pages on their site, which makes me think they may have been trolling. Or they were doing a pre-NAMM tease, though if so, like you pointed out, the timeline for releases would be over years.
The best bit about all this is Roland have spent 20yrs trying to remake their own gear and keep stuffing it up, yet Behringer are hitting 6's when remaking other company's synths (well one so far).
I think I would have ignored The Wasp and the Cat and others and focussed on the 2600 and SH but I also would have released a Jupiter 8 clone this year. Just to see Roland lose their damn minds.
Heheh, I don't like to be anti-Roland although I may come across as such. I do wish they'd stick at one thing and make it great before moving on. They were headed towards complete drum machine domination with the Human Rhythm Composer range making each new machine more and more of a percussion workstation than an auto-drummer. Having owned an R8, an R-70 and a DR660 (pretty sure the Doctor Rhythm's were the basis for the HRC's), I was under the impression that all drum machines had song modes, boy was I wrong!
I do wonder though if the small number of 2nd hand MC303/505's etc on the market is because they are being kept for a reason by their owners, or like all of my digital drum machines, they have died.
Addendum:
Weird how the bathroom make one think of things they have over looked.
I just remembered a conversation a friend and I had about 'comfort' synths: synths people won't sell because they mean something to the owner, but don't use much if at all. For me it's my M1. I've pretty much replaced it, but I won't sell it as it was my first brand new synth and it means a lot to me. For him, his MC303 is never leaving his possession despite him not using it for more than a sound module for over a decade due to the joy he gained from it when it was a current device.
-
Addendum:
Weird how the bathroom make one think of things they have over looked.
I just remembered a conversation a friend and I had about 'comfort' synths: synths people won't sell because they mean something to the owner, but don't use much if at all. For me it's my M1. I've pretty much replaced it, but I won't sell it as it was my first brand new synth and it means a lot to me. For him, his MC303 is never leaving his possession despite him not using it for more than a sound module for over a decade due to the joy he gained from it when it was a current device.
I can appreciate this sort of sappy sentimentalism with musical instruments. I still remember my first synthesizer. It was a Univox Minikorg; my father bought it for me from some guy in East Hartford, Connecticut for a whopping $200 when I was just a sapling. It sounded like a symphony to me at the time, even though it was only a glorified toy. I've often thought of buying another one from Ebay - for purely sentimental reasons - but I've always resisted. Still, I know how old synthesizers can carry strong meanings and memories, and for that they are pacifiers of sorts.
-
Bruce Hornsby I believe still has his Korg M1 on top of his grand piano. Ironically some of the sounds in there’s sound better than some of the modern workstations out there now.
As far as Roland. I’m more frustrated with them than anything else. They often hype up their products and reissues but then when finally released they are majorly lacking. Could Roland do a proper analog drum machine? Sure but they choose to do a digital emulation and take away things like individual outs. Along comes stuff like Korg’s volca series and even Arturia’s Drum Brute And they eat Roland’s lunch.
Roland’s whole motto is “we design the future” but some of their recent products are lacking the abilities and quality of their past products. The RD 2000 was hyped up that it had a V Piano inside of it but it’s lacking a lot of the features the V Piano had. The System 8 has no aftertouch. Like what is going on here? The build quality of their stuff has declined, the features and capabilities of their gear seems to be regressing instead of progressing. Paul is right, Roland doesn’t care.
-
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2017/12/13/behringer-synth-and-drum-machine-clone-announcements-an-unfortunate-error-minimoog-clone-still-missing-in-action/
-
Egads! Paul is going to get great satisfaction out of this glitch. Isn't this typical of Behringer? Quite irritating.
-
Egads! Paul is going to get great satisfaction out of this glitch. Isn't this typical of Behringer? Quite irritating.
Honestly, look how much buzz it got. Uli is great at hype.
-
Egads! Paul is going to get great satisfaction out of this glitch. Isn't this typical of Behringer? Quite irritating.
No satisfaction, just confirmation. I also believe no word about this so-called glitch. Because sure, you just upload a couple of specs of synths you may plan to develop to your website to double-check how nice your website is going to look with all these offerings. It was all just about cheap attention seeking again after they already failed to deliver their pseudo-exact Model D clone in time: Goals not reached, let's create a little distraction and disrupt the market with nothing. They already did the same sort of thing precisely three years ago with their Odyssey mockup after Korg announced that they plan to bring back ARP. On top of that I hope they'll be sent season's greetings from Korg's and Roland's lawyers. Behringer being forced to come up with their own ideas, that would be satisfying.
-
You're right on this one, buddy.
-
:-X . o O ( clone wars )
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/dcd6b28c10a1de2dd9cf8986f8ab2448/tumblr_ol360dqrtb1r7kq8oo1_500.gif)
-
(http://forum.davesmithinstruments.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2157.0;attach=1448;image)
-
It was exciting for a few hours to think of these instruments being revived. I'm quite disappointed. The 2600 and CAT had especially made my day.
-
(http://forum.davesmithinstruments.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2157.0;attach=1448;image)
Are you going direct to the board or placing mics on keyboard amps?
-
(http://forum.davesmithinstruments.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2157.0;attach=1448;image)
Are you going direct to the board or placing mics on keyboard amps?
I was told they only used recording devices by Behringer in this shot.
-
It was exciting for a few hours to think of these instruments being revived. I'm quite disappointed. The 2600 and CAT had especially made my day.
I though virtual instruments were a hot topic! . o O ( :o :-X :o )
-
Well, that's all they are right now.
-
Well, that's all they are right now.
not even. I can load virtual instruments into my computer.
-
not even. I can load virtual instruments into my computer.
Yeah, B-word just managed to invent a new type of virtual instrument.
-
not even. I can load virtual instruments into my computer.
Yeah, B-word just managed to invent a new type of virtual instrument.
The Un-intentional Virtual Instrument?
The Hypothetical Virtual Instrument?
-
How about the non-existent instruments?
-
How about the non-existent instruments?
But those aren't virtual, are they? :)
-
The Hypothetical Virtual Instrument?
I was thinking more in terms of Hippotheatrical (https://youtu.be/22PBS-qD5iY) Instrument.
:o . o O ( fun in the market place )
-
How about the non-existent instruments?
Exactly! You see what actually happened was one of the usual suspects trolling the market. Some people want to see affordable versions of old iconic instrument. But you know what? They will most likely not sound as awesome as the old machines and they will not feature modern qualities such as the ability to save/recall sounds. Nor for that matter combine the awesome sound of the classic machines with modern day pitch stability. In other words: its a dream. Move on and look forward is the best advice I can give.
-
I'm always looking forward. I don't own a single used/vintage instrument. I'm simply indifferent to year of origin. A good instrument is a good instrument, no matter when it was designed. I like the Prophet 12, and I also like the ARP 2600 and Odyssey. I'm not prejudiced for or against either direction, but consider them equal but distinct. That seems to be the most level-headed approach to what is often a convoluted topic of debate. For me, there is no debate. I don't care to appear oh-so-modern, nor am I interested in following the retro folks. This is one big non-topic for me. I simply do not care about an instrument's date of making.
-
Even if GS is the largest online synth forum, don't view the synth world through its blood-shot eyes. Perhaps we're approaching the topic of the problems with synth forums in general. Like social media, they often give a misleading picture of reality, as interpreted through the opinions of a limited number of vocal and often belligerent individuals. It's better to keep your head down and focus on your own work, rather than daily sift through all of that rubbish and allow it to influence your own thoughts.
So true, social media is really swaying our attitudes and decisions too much compared to relying on first hand observances. Applying that same concept to my synth hobby, I found that to be somewhat true. Last year I had been doing some scanning on Youtube and reading some manufacturer advertisement stats (good sources IMO) about an instrument. Then I went out and purchased a Deepmind 12 based on that info. I know "B" not the most popular company to mention here, but I actually did end up being satisfied with the product. Anyway, my point is...had I relied strictly on synth forums debates, including some found here, I perhaps would have been scared away from purchasing it. Oh well, I don't know much about the behind the scenes at the "B" company, but neither do I know much about the executives or ethics that exist behind the scenes at Sony, Chrysler, GMC, Kenmore, and even my bank, whom I (and guessing others do) engage in purchases with based mainly on the products offered.
.
-
So true as well, Soundquest. It's tragically the case that many people now experience life primarily through a screen and through others. You can watch hiking videos all day on YouTube, but that's not hiking There's nothing like the real thing, like hiking the Appalacian Trail for yourself, coming home with a few cuts and bruises, and a head full of wonderful memories as well. That's real living.
Even in this highly technical field of electronic music, one has to draw a line. You can spend most of your music time watching videos of other people making music or demonstrating equipment, together with reading the views of other people on forums and expressing your own. It gradually becomes an end in itself, so that most of your synthesizer activity consists of this passivity. It's crazy. I found myself prone to this, and so I've had to gradually wrestle my way off a number of forums. This is now the only forum I post on or even read, and I've drastically cut back here as well.
The virtual world is teeming with viewpoints, comments, and rumors. So much of this is inaccurate or plainly erroneous - as we've just recently been reminded. And in terms of advice, people often suggest that you do what they would do if they were in your situation. And that's terrible advice. I've found that, when making decisions about equipment, I've usually had to go against the tide and do what others thought ridiculous and said I should not do.
The best solution at decision-time is to withdraw from all the online chatter, carefully think things through, and then make a decision based on your own intelligence. Spend research time carefully examining the piece of equipment on the company's website. That's the most valuable research. But if you seek a lot of advice on the forums in making decisions, remember that there are heaps of bad advice to be found, and often this bad advice is the most loudly expressed of all.
My personal solution has been to spend much less time on forums and YouTube, and more time at the instruments. If I need information, I go directly to the source - the company or store website. The time available for music-making should be spent, not obsessively researching equipment and sifting through masses of opinions about it online, but actually making music with the equipment you have.
-
I'm happy to see Behringer reviving some of the old classics. But I have never been big on Behringer so my question is essentially this: can anybody here speak to the build / sound quality of recent Behringer products? specifically synths?
About 15 years ago, I was considering a Behringer mixer, and a sales rep at Sweetwater who I trusted (and still trust) warned me away from them due to build and sound quality. Since then I have had that bias toward Behringer -- I've associated them with lower quality products. Has this changed? It is certainly possible. Over the years, a companies QC can change drastically (just look at Ford).
Any opinions from Behringer owners here??? (and thanks)
I've been getting to know my DeepMind 12 for the last five months, and the more time I spend programming it, the more impressed I am with its sound. As some others have written, it does have its own character. In fact, I didn't realize how bright and brassy my Tetra sounded until hearing the DM12. IMO, it has a sound akin to the Roland Juno but perhaps not as pronounced. I really like the filter. It reminds me that I'm working with an instrument that has electricity flowing through it. I will say that most of the patches have way too many FX on them. I usually remove them and then add to taste when I have the sound dialed in.
As for the build quality, I've had no problems to date. The DM12 is hefty considering it's size. In this way it also reminds me of an older instrument (especially with its gray finish). I'm not a keyboard player, but the keyboard and aftertouch have performed just fine for me.
I'm very pleased with the DM12. It appears to be a quality instrument and functions quite well as my master controller. Most of all, it sounds really good . . . to the point where I feel I can now sell my Tetra (I've already departed with a Nord Lead 2X and Roland JU-06 since owning the DM12).
-
The Behringer ARP 2600s are now out and appearing in YouTube videos, although I haven't seen any that are either musically profound or of a decent audio quality. I could imagine using such a module as a building block for a large monophonic system, but only if this instrument sounds exceptional. The $1,000 question is, Does it?
-
The Behringer ARP 2600s are now out and appearing in YouTube videos, although I haven't seen any that are either musically profound or of a decent audio quality. I could imagine using such a module as a building block for a large monophonic system, but only if this instrument sounds exceptional. The $1,000 question is, Does it?
Even with the fidelity loss of Youtube audio, usually a synth either grabs my ear or it doesn't. The times that I've bought synths based on specifications or reviews of others rather than by "ear grab", I've usually been disappointed.
The only Behringer product that has ever grabbed my ear is the Pro-1, and even that had some subtle disappointments playing next to a real Pro One. Have considered getting a Pro-1 because it is a good value, but would rather see Dave do a proper Pro One reissue.
So far the Behringer 2600 vids I've seen just sound like most other Behringer synths - just missing that something, and not grabbing my ear. I think Behringer sets a price point they know they can move units at, then designs around that limitation. I have no plans to get one.
-
The Behringer ARP 2600s are now out and appearing in YouTube videos, although I haven't seen any that are either musically profound or of a decent audio quality. I could imagine using such a module as a building block for a large monophonic system, but only if this instrument sounds exceptional. The $1,000 question is, Does it?
Even with the fidelity loss of Youtube audio, usually a synth either grabs my ear or it doesn't. The times that I've bought synths based on specifications or reviews of others rather than by "ear grab", I've usually been disappointed.
The only Behringer product that has ever grabbed my ear is the Pro-1, and even that had some subtle disappointments playing next to a real Pro One. Have considered getting a Pro-1 because it is a good value, but would rather see Dave do a proper Pro One reissue.
So far the Behringer 2600 vids I've seen just sound like most other Behringer synths - just missing that something, and not grabbing my ear. I think Behringer sets a price point they know they can move units at, then designs around that limitation. I have no plans to get one.
Yeah, I agree. Even though a YouTube video could never do justice to an original recording, still, you can get a sense that an instrument does have a high quality tone. A video isn't accurate, but it's enough for an estimation. And so far, Behringer's Odyssey sounds better than the 2600. I hope that isn't the actually case.
Incidentally, I've never heard a DSI/Sequential instrument that I didn't think sounded fantastic. Here, I'm always confident I'll be getting something I love.
-
All the brain-bashing techno videos offer no sense of the instrument. This demonstration video of the oscillators tells me more than all the others. The ARP sound is not an immense sound, so it shouldn't be compared to the Moog standard. With the resonance turned up, it gets rather thin. But it can have a sweet quality that's excellent for melody. I just wish someone would post a video of a keyboard controller actually being played with some feeling and without other distracting sounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoLq6YL2ujg
There are plenty of sonic distractions in this one, too, but you can get sonic sense of the 2600's character underneath it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbhmM1h2TaM
And for what it's worth, a comparison with the original. There's a decent brass patch at about 12:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAN5rXQpJ5I
-
At Sweetwater:
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Behr2600--behringer-2600-analog-semi-modular-synthesizer
-
At Sweetwater:
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Behr2600--behringer-2600-analog-semi-modular-synthesizer
Normally I don't let "product politics" enter into my gear purchase decisions, but I find the actions of Uli B. and company (everything from trademarking Oberheim to suing DSI over Tony K. posting his opinion on) so incredibly offensive that I find myself willing to go far out of my way to avoid buying anything they sell, even if they ever do produce a truly quality product. Not knocking anyone else's interests of course.... but I do encourage every synth fan to study up on some of the things this company has done.
-
Yeah, I feel the same way, as do many people on this forum. I just happen to be an extreme admirer of the ARP 2600, and I could never have afforded Korg's re-issue. Plus, there's a certain feeling of old-fashioned company loyalty towards Sequential. It's nice to dream a little, though.
One issue that complicates the matter is that the old DSI used to produce such superb and relatively inexpensive synthesizer modules, but they obviously don't any longer. I still have a dream of creating a masterful mono synth, and the 2600 would be perfect for the project - two of them, that is. I do wish Sequential would return to such instruments. A Pro 3 module would be a great place to start, but sadly it's unlikely.
-
Yeah, I feel the same way, as do many people on this forum. I just happen to be an extreme admirer of the ARP 2600, and I could never have afforded Korg's re-issue. Plus, there's a certain feeling of old-fashioned company loyalty towards Sequential. It's nice to dream a little, though.
One issue that complicates the matter is that the old DSI used to produce such superb and relatively inexpensive synthesizer modules, but they obviously don't any longer. I still have a dream of creating a masterful mono synth, and the 2600 would be perfect for the project - two of them, that is. I do wish Sequential would return to such instruments. A Pro 3 module would be a great place to start, but sadly it's unlikely.
Software never quite captures the soul of hardware, but if you want to scratch a 2600 itch on the cheap, check out CA2600 by Cherry Audio. It's only $25, it sounds great, and I'm more a knob guy than a patch cable guy so I can't compare it to a real 2600, but having owned a Juno 106 in the past I can say their DC-106 plugin (also only $25) probably does a better Juno 106 than even modern Roland emulations. It will consume a bit of CPU in the process, but Roland cloud does that too.
https://cherryaudio.com/instruments/ca2600
-
Thanks for the tip, LPF83. I'm an all-hardware guy, so I'll have to search elsewhere.
-
Behringer probably will never have any further business from me. My beef with them is entirely about their litigiousness, though. It's not so much about the cloning or their price points or their quality.
The only reason I make enough money to afford a Sequential instrument is because I'm not a musician in real life. So I'm never going to judge people for how they make purchasing decisions.
I've always been fascinated by the 2600. When I was young, learning about synthesizers, the only synthesizer book in my local library was one dedicated to the ARP 2600. So I learned a lot about synthesis from the 2600, despite never having laid hands on one.
-
If I was willing to buy a Behringer synthesizer, I certainly would have done so by now. I would have bought their Odyssey. I've freely chosen not to, even though I've awakened in a pool of perspiration many-a-night, screaming "ARP, ARP!" Yes, I admit, I've had many an enjoyable fantasy about the Odyssey and the 2600. And I just couldn't afford the Korg versions.