The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
OTHER DISCUSSIONS => General Synthesis => Other Hardware/Software => Topic started by: LPF83 on January 29, 2021, 10:16:55 AM
-
....Dirty...
https://www.synthanatomy.com/2021/01/behringer-renames-the-ub-xa-polysynth-in-oberheim-ob-xa.html
-
Reprehensible.
-
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.
Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
-
Could someone explain this whole trademark/brandname stuff to me? I don't have any experiences with that, so it is absolutely incomprehensible for me how Tom Oberheim and Behringer can both have the rights to the Oberheim name according to this article and the trademark page linked in there? :o :o :o
-
Sadly just because Tom applied for the OBXa trademark, it doesn't mean it's going to be ruled in his favor.
As shitty as this is, part of me sort of feels there's no point in hoarding a trademark if you aren't going to do anything with it. At least Behringer is producing something with the brand.
-
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.
Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine.
The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".
-
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.
Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine.
The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".
That could be the case. But doesn't the OB-XA seem like the more desirable of the two in this age of classic analog reissues, when neither size nor price seems to matter?
-
As shitty as this is, part of me sort of feels there's no point in hoarding a trademark if you aren't going to do anything with it. At least Behringer is producing something with the brand.
Absurd. If there's no lineage, then there's no brand. One may say that brand names are taken over all the time, but if there are no dues paid and accepted by either the originator or their descendants, then it's merely a false front.
-
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.
Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine.
The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".
That could be the case. But doesn't the OB-XA seem like the more desirable of the two in this age of classic analog reissues, when neither size nor price seems to matter?
It does but again when people think of the Prophet 10 they think of the dual keyboard version. The OBXa is what people think of when they think classic Oberheim poly synth but Dave probably doesn't care enough.
-
As shitty as this is, part of me sort of feels there's no point in hoarding a trademark if you aren't going to do anything with it. At least Behringer is producing something with the brand.
Absurd. If there's no lineage, then there's no brand. One may say that brand names are taken over all the time, but if there are no dues paid and accepted by either the originator or their descendants, then it's merely a false front.
Brand : a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name.
Lineage means nothing if the originator or their descendants aren't manufacturing a product under that particular company name.
Sorry but after years of vaporware from Tom and his own brand, I'm not going to point the finger at Uli on this one. Tom had his chance with the ball and he fumbled it. Uli simply just picked it up and ran with it. It's 100% legal.
-
I think Sacred Synthesis already summed it up perfectly in his first post on the matter. Your petty crusade against Tom has reached an all time low it seems.
-
I think Sacred Synthesis already summed it up perfectly in his first post on the matter. Your petty crusade against Tom has reached an all time low it seems.
No crusade at all. I just don't feel bad about the situation.
-
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.
Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine. The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".
The Prophet 10 in the same box as P5 with single keyboard is the design Dave originally wanted for the P10. Back then it wouldn't work because of issues with heat dissipation, so the dual keyboard that puts the knobs into back-pain-bad-posture territory was a band-aid solution. It's human nature to look at massive old objects and be amazed or see them as somehow more substantial, but the reality is the dual keyboard design was what's known as a "kludge" in engineering.
Personally I think a P5/P10 is approaching the maximum physical size for a synth, that is feasible for a consumer base large enough to justify the product production. People might be willing to pay a fortune for a vintage 200lb Yamaha CS-80, but the reality is that if it were reissued today in original size and weight, the chance of reaching critical sales mass is non existent (and why nobody is dumb enough to try that).
Dave's cost of implementing dual-timbrality or more LFOs isn't a significant factor. He's mentioned that the Rev2 is one of his lowest-cost to produce products.
I don't have an answer about Dave re-issueing the OB-X vs the OB-Xa except to say:
1) At this point, the reissue of the OB-X or OB-Xa from Sequential is pure speculation, as no announcement has been made. We only know Sequential registered OB-X, which seems to nod in that direction.
2) If the OB-X is in fact coming and not the OB-Xa, it could be for any number of reasons. There is a general sense (maybe rumor) that older Oberheim models were generally more desirable than their successor products, so maybe he feels that the target buying audience would be more interested in the OB-X. Or maybe his decision was made based on what he already sees Uli doing, and he wanted to do something different.
-
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.
Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine. The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".
The Prophet 10 in the same box as P5 with single keyboard is the design Dave originally wanted for the P10. Back then it wouldn't work because of issues with heat dissipation, so the dual keyboard that puts the knobs into back-pain-bad-posture territory was a band-aid solution. It's human nature to look at massive old objects and be amazed or see them as somehow more substantial, but the reality is the dual keyboard design was what's known as a "kludge" in engineering.
Personally I think a P5/P10 is approaching the maximum physical size for a synth, that is feasible for a consumer base large enough to justify the product production. People might be willing to pay a fortune for a vintage 200lb Yamaha CS-80, but the reality is that if it were reissued today in original size and weight, the chance of reaching critical sales mass is non existent (and why nobody is dumb enough to try that).
Dave's cost of implementing dual-timbrality or more LFOs isn't a significant factor. He's mentioned that the Rev2 is one of his lowest-cost to produce products.
I don't have an answer about Dave re-issueing the OB-X vs the OB-Xa except to say:
1) At this point, the reissue of the OB-X or OB-Xa from Sequential is pure speculation, as no announcement has been made. We only know Sequential registered OB-X, which seems to nod in that direction.
2) If the OB-X is in fact coming and not the OB-Xa, it could be for any number of reasons. There is a general sense (maybe rumor) that older Oberheim models were generally more desirable than their successor products, so maybe he feels that the target buying audience would be more interested in the OB-X. Or maybe his decision was made based on what he already sees Uli doing, and he wanted to do something different.
I mean the Moog One is larger than the P5/10 and they don't seem to have any issues selling those. Not to mention monster workstations from Korg or Kurzweil. I really don't think the size or weight had anything to do with it. It was just do to implementation.
The REV2 is DCO based not VCO based. Sequential has yet to produce a bi timbral VCO based synth. The Moog One is tri-timbral and VCO based...and look how much that costs.
I honestly just think it comes down to Dave just wanting to do what's easiest to implement which also makes sense from a maintenance point of view. Had he made the P/10 Bi Timbral, it may very well have been more cumbersome to implement and maintain.
-
No crusade at all. I just don't feel bad about the situation.
At this point I’m not sure you’re aware of your own internal logic or if there is any at all... You rally against reissues when the TVP you wanted so badly is essentially in the same boat as what Sequential did with the P5. Then you quit over it, yet pretty much your first post back days later is how you’re going to put down on two Odyssey modules...
There are flat out good practices and bad practices. It’s no mystery why a certain company is consistently caught up in drama. It’s plain as day to reason.
-
No crusade at all. I just don't feel bad about the situation.
At this point I’m not sure you’re aware of your own internal logic or if there is any at all... You rally against reissues when the TVP you wanted so badly is essentially in the same boat as what Sequential did with the P5. Then you quit over it, yet pretty much your first post back days later is how you’re going to put down on two Odyssey modules...
There are flat out good practices and bad practices. It’s no mystery why a certain company is consistently caught up in drama. It’s plain as day to reason.
Well the Two Voice Pro was of interest to me mainly because of the sequencer and the ability to control both SEMs in a variety of ways which is far different than simply adding after touch, velocity and a few other things to a Prophet 5. I don't consider a Two Voice Pro a reissue, I consider it a successor. The REV 4 I wouldn't consider a successor to the Prophet 5 personally, I'd give that title to the Prophet 6.
I have no issue with reissues if they are going to take the concept of the original and expand on it. The Prophet 5/10 Rev 4 to me is a step backwards compared to the Prophet 6. That's my logic. Take it or leave it. I couldn't care less.
In either case, it's not like Dave has never done a cutthroat business maneuver in his life. Dave Rossum spoke about this. They obviously buried the hatchet but it happened.
At the end of the day Tom went to NAMM every year and said he was going to do a SonOf4Voice, Eurorack versions of his SEMs, a standalone sequencer from the TVS, a Phaser Shifter and Ring Modulator modules and nothing came of it. Let's just say Tom did get the name back....what does it matter if nothing is produced with the name?
Is it shady for Uli to do? Sure but maybe that's what it takes to get an Oberheim product announced at NAMM that isn't vaporware. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
-
Having two different filters in the P5 (or the option for double the polyphony plus the vintage knob & the other things you mentioned) is a bigger improvement than what the TVP offered as far as I'm concerned. Either way, there's no way you can call one a reissue (or not a reissue), but not the other.
"I have no issue with reissues if they are going to take the concept of the original and expand on it."
How does Korg's Odyssey square with this philosophy?
Yes, we all know what Rossum has said. Mistakes are bound to happen and can be forgiven; however, making a business model out of it cannot.
-
Having two different filters in the P5 (or the option for double the polyphony plus the vintage knob & the other things you mentioned) is a bigger improvement than what the TVP offered as far as I'm concerned. Either way, there's no way you can call one a reissue (or not a reissue), but not the other.
"I have no issue with reissues if they are going to take the concept of the original and expand on it."
How does Korg's Odyssey square with this philosophy?
Yes, we all know what Rossum has said. Mistakes are bound to happen and can be forgiven; however, making a business model out of it cannot.
I suppose it doesn't. I guess I'm a hypocrite. You win. Happy?
-
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.
Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine. The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".
The Prophet 10 in the same box as P5 with single keyboard is the design Dave originally wanted for the P10. Back then it wouldn't work because of issues with heat dissipation, so the dual keyboard that puts the knobs into back-pain-bad-posture territory was a band-aid solution. It's human nature to look at massive old objects and be amazed or see them as somehow more substantial, but the reality is the dual keyboard design was what's known as a "kludge" in engineering.
Personally I think a P5/P10 is approaching the maximum physical size for a synth, that is feasible for a consumer base large enough to justify the product production. People might be willing to pay a fortune for a vintage 200lb Yamaha CS-80, but the reality is that if it were reissued today in original size and weight, the chance of reaching critical sales mass is non existent (and why nobody is dumb enough to try that).
Dave's cost of implementing dual-timbrality or more LFOs isn't a significant factor. He's mentioned that the Rev2 is one of his lowest-cost to produce products.
I don't have an answer about Dave re-issueing the OB-X vs the OB-Xa except to say:
1) At this point, the reissue of the OB-X or OB-Xa from Sequential is pure speculation, as no announcement has been made. We only know Sequential registered OB-X, which seems to nod in that direction.
2) If the OB-X is in fact coming and not the OB-Xa, it could be for any number of reasons. There is a general sense (maybe rumor) that older Oberheim models were generally more desirable than their successor products, so maybe he feels that the target buying audience would be more interested in the OB-X. Or maybe his decision was made based on what he already sees Uli doing, and he wanted to do something different.
I mean the Moog One is larger than the P5/10 and they don't seem to have any issues selling those. Not to mention monster workstations from Korg or Kurzweil. I really don't think the size or weight had anything to do with it. It was just do to implementation.
The REV2 is DCO based not VCO based. Sequential has yet to produce a bi timbral VCO based synth. The Moog One is tri-timbral and VCO based...and look how much that costs.
I honestly just think it comes down to Dave just wanting to do what's easiest to implement which also makes sense from a maintenance point of view. Had he made the P/10 Bi Timbral, it may very well have been more cumbersome to implement and maintain.
Is there some factor that makes implementing dual timbrality on VCOs harder than on DCOs? I would think everything about the tuning implementation would be the same regardless... then again I've never created a hardware synth so maybe I'm wrong.
I believe that the Rev4 had one primary design goal -- recreate the sound / look / feel of the original P5, adding only a handful of must-have features. Dual synth layers on a P5 make no sense because of 5 voices total and it would represent an even bigger design departure from the original than the P6 already is. I believe the current P10 design, doubling the voices for a relatively small cost increase was closer to the original (1978) vision Dave had for the P10. I seem to recall reading the P10 Rev3 only had a single LFO for both patches when used as 2 5 voice synths?
-
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.
Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine. The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".
The Prophet 10 in the same box as P5 with single keyboard is the design Dave originally wanted for the P10. Back then it wouldn't work because of issues with heat dissipation, so the dual keyboard that puts the knobs into back-pain-bad-posture territory was a band-aid solution. It's human nature to look at massive old objects and be amazed or see them as somehow more substantial, but the reality is the dual keyboard design was what's known as a "kludge" in engineering.
Personally I think a P5/P10 is approaching the maximum physical size for a synth, that is feasible for a consumer base large enough to justify the product production. People might be willing to pay a fortune for a vintage 200lb Yamaha CS-80, but the reality is that if it were reissued today in original size and weight, the chance of reaching critical sales mass is non existent (and why nobody is dumb enough to try that).
Dave's cost of implementing dual-timbrality or more LFOs isn't a significant factor. He's mentioned that the Rev2 is one of his lowest-cost to produce products.
I don't have an answer about Dave re-issueing the OB-X vs the OB-Xa except to say:
1) At this point, the reissue of the OB-X or OB-Xa from Sequential is pure speculation, as no announcement has been made. We only know Sequential registered OB-X, which seems to nod in that direction.
2) If the OB-X is in fact coming and not the OB-Xa, it could be for any number of reasons. There is a general sense (maybe rumor) that older Oberheim models were generally more desirable than their successor products, so maybe he feels that the target buying audience would be more interested in the OB-X. Or maybe his decision was made based on what he already sees Uli doing, and he wanted to do something different.
I mean the Moog One is larger than the P5/10 and they don't seem to have any issues selling those. Not to mention monster workstations from Korg or Kurzweil. I really don't think the size or weight had anything to do with it. It was just do to implementation.
The REV2 is DCO based not VCO based. Sequential has yet to produce a bi timbral VCO based synth. The Moog One is tri-timbral and VCO based...and look how much that costs.
I honestly just think it comes down to Dave just wanting to do what's easiest to implement which also makes sense from a maintenance point of view. Had he made the P/10 Bi Timbral, it may very well have been more cumbersome to implement and maintain.
Is there some factor that makes implementing dual timbrality on VCOs harder than on DCOs? I would think everything about the tuning implementation would be the same regardless... then again I've never created a hardware synth so maybe I'm wrong.
I believe that the Rev4 had one primary design goal -- recreate the sound / look / feel of the original P5, adding only a handful of must-have features. Dual synth layers on a P5 make no sense because of 5 voices total and it would represent an even bigger design departure from the original than the P6 already is. I believe the current P10 design, doubling the voices for a relatively small cost increase was closer to the original (1978) vision Dave had for the P10. I seem to recall reading the P10 Rev3 only had a single LFO for both patches when used as 2 5 voice synths?
VCOs are trickier to deal with from my understanding. Probably why the REV2 is upgradable with a voice expansion card while things like the Prophet 5/10, Moog One and Korg Prologue you need to buy one or the other and aren't expandable.
That's why I said make the P/10 bi timbral, not the P5
-
personally, I prefer the OBX over the OBXA. The original OBX had a character which the XA lacked, Because the X used Oberheim filters while the XA used Curtis filters. there's just something awesome about the 12 DB Oberheim low pass filters. most people seem to lust after 24 DB filters, but I really like the way a 12 DB filter sounds if it has a decent amount of resonance, Which the Curtis filters lack in 2 pole mode. I find it hard sometimes to re-create some of those sounds on my Rev 2 because the 24 DB filter just can't sound like that. if I'm not mistaken, the Rev 2 and XA filters are either the same or similar.
-
I despise Behringer, this is yet more despicable behavior.
-
I am fairly ambivalent about B cloning synths, especially ones where the original maker has no interest in doing it. They are just giving people what they want. It does seem to me like B was a factor in getting a P5 rev4.
That said there's just no need to take a guys name for marketing.
-
I am fairly ambivalent about B cloning synths, especially ones where the original maker has no interest in doing it. They are just giving people what they want. It does seem to me like B was a factor in getting a P5 rev4.
That said there's just no need to take a guys name for marketing.
What I find the most offensive is the pursuit of profit maximization of mediocre musical instruments using a strategy that depends on capitalizing on brand and product identities that were originally created by legendary entrepreneurs. All of this without even a nod of credit or respect toward those pioneers of the industry, much less asking permission or making a feeble attempt to reach out and collaborate on ideas... even going so far as to sue (unsuccessfully) in an attempt to censor opinions.
Acknowledging what made those great synths so great would mean that the clones would then be obligated to faithfully reproduce the characteristics of the original that had been identified. And that's much harder (and more expensive) than churning out a cheap knock off that doesn't do the original justice.
There are so many plugin vendors that have created "inspired by" products without trademark hijinks and making lots of enemies along the way; I don't understand why a hardware company can't do same.
-
By stark contrast, look at the way Korg has reproduced the ARP synthesizers. They've done so with high praise and respect for the originals, even to the point of inviting David Friend onto the Odyssey project. That's to have both decency and class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFLNOzBhHo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R4niN0o_58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAzmMbLgkkQ
-
By stark contrast, look at the way Korg has reproduced the ARP synthesizers. They've done so with high praise and respect for the originals, even to the point of inviting David Friend onto the Odyssey project. That's to have both decency and class.
Exactly.
-
In fact, Korg's website even contains a link to the Alan R. Pearlman Foundation:
https://alanrpearlmanfoundation.org/
-
I agree Korg is doing a great job with ARP and I hope to see more instruments from that partnership. Preferably an Omni with patch memory.
-
Yes, I'm hoping for an Omni II as well.
-
UB-Xa was a good name, but changing one character certainly froths up the internet.
-
And rightly so. It makes one wonder if this is to get one up on Dave Smith before he can reissue the same instrument. Dave beat B to the punch in reissuing the Prophet 5/10.
What would we all say here, and what would be the general Internet response, if Dave Smith reissued the Oberheim OB-1 using the same appearance, design, and name, and with no credit offered to Tom? Most everyone would be outraged over the injustice, even if it were all legal. But we've come to expect so much from the other guy. It's the new low in the synthesizer industry.
I must admit that, a while ago, I grew somewhat indifferent to some of this, and was at least toying with the idea of buying a B ARP 2600. It's long been the instrument I've most admired but could never afford. But then I re-read the accounts of his highness' business practices, especially as they concerned DSI/Sequential, and that was that. No B for me.
-
And rightly so. It makes one wonder if this is to get one up on Dave Smith before he can reissue the same instrument. Dave beat B to the punch in reissuing the Prophet 5/10.
What would we all say here, and what would be the general Internet response, if Dave Smith reissued the Oberheim OB-1 using the same appearance, design, and name, and with no credit offered to Tom? Most everyone would be outraged over the injustice, even if it were all legal. But we've come to expect so much from the other guy. It's the new low in the synthesizer industry.
I must admit that, a while ago, I grew somewhat indifferent to some of this, and was at least toying with the idea of buying a B ARP 2600. It's long been the instrument I've most admired but could never afford. But then I re-read the accounts of his highness' business practices, especially as they concerned DSI/Sequential, and that was that. No B for me.
Even if Dave did a reissue of a vintage synth with no involvement of that synth's pioneer, if the result was a faithful replica he would still be in a better place.
I am the first to admit, if B did a reissue of a Jupiter 8 for example, and the thing was truly a dead ringer in sound, quality, form factor, etc. and it came in under $1k, I would probably buy one. I might duct tape over the B logo in shame and embarrassment, but I would probably buy one.
Problem is, the clones that they are reproducing so far seem to be dull-sounding "inspired by" reimagining of the originals.
-
Behringer legally threatened at least one member of this forum—somebody I like and respect—for something said on another forum, in a discussion about synths. For me, there’s simply no redemption from this. There are plenty of instrument and equipment makers.
-
Behringer legally threatened at least one member of this forum—somebody I like and respect—for something said on another forum, in a discussion about synths. For me, there’s simply no redemption from this. There are plenty of instrument and equipment makers.
I was told that several of us were involved.
-
Behringer legally threatened at least one member of this forum—somebody I like and respect—for something said on another forum, in a discussion about synths. For me, there’s simply no redemption from this. There are plenty of instrument and equipment makers.
I was told that several of us were involved.
Yes, that’s my recollection.
-
This whole ugly episode hit close to home. That's presumably why the feelings about it on this forum are still strong, although the comments are admirably restrained. Some may laugh, but it's almost a matter of company loyalty that binds us over the issue. I don't think the newcomers on the forum understand this. A number of us go way back to the previous forum and have been "together" for over ten years. We feel like we're a part of the DSI/Sequential family and didn't like one bit seeing the family attacked.
-
This whole ugly episode hit close to home. That's presumably why the feelings about it on this forum are still strong, although the comments are admirably restrained. Some may laugh, but it's almost a matter of company loyalty that binds us over the issue. I don't think the newcomers on the forum understand this. A number of us go way back to the previous forum and have been "together" for over ten years. We feel like we're a part of the DSI/Sequential family and didn't like one bit seeing the family attacked.
The reason this whole lawsuit ordeal resonates across the synth landscape is because it works out like a story book version of good vs. evil.
On one hand you have the real-deal pioneer of a historically monumental musical instrument (P5), a significant portfolio of similarly impressive follow up products, and a small group of passionate folks continuing to create and support them.
On the other hand you have exemplification of mass-produced corporate product, pandering to every marketing trick within grasp, and going so far as to (unsuccessfully) use large-corporation-biased politics and legal maneuvering to try to eliminate the threat of quality musical instruments, so that substandard ones can thrive.
News flash to the BizzleJer, someone's name will be forever memorialized in synthesizer history and someone else's name will fade into non-memory as soon as China figures out how to make garbage synths themselves and sell them for $160 instead of $600.
-
Well said. Sadly, many look at the situation merely as an opportunity to get instruments for less, and nothing else matters. They get neat stuff, the neat stuff is inexpensive, and that's that. Why should they give two hoots about all the righteous anger and moralizing if, in the end, a big beautiful brown box from the music store will be sitting on their front steps?
-
Well said. Sadly, many look at the situation merely as an opportunity to get instruments for less, and nothing else matters. They get neat stuff, the neat stuff is inexpensive, and that's that. Why should they give two hoots about all the righteous anger and moralizing if, in the end, a big beautiful brown box from the music store will be sitting on their front steps?
True, and also sadly, to some extent the strategy of lots of low cost products seems aimed toward taking advantage of the addiction that is G.A.S... the crowd that only gets inspired to use gear that is new to their collection and would rather have tons of cheap gear than a handful of quality pieces.
It's like the difference between having the marketing team figure out how to exploit the psychology of synth buyers and using that outcome to drive product direction and maximize sales, versus going into it with the attitude of "hey let's make great musical instruments that people will still want to play 40-50 years from now".
-
Well said. Sadly, many look at the situation merely as an opportunity to get instruments for less, and nothing else matters. They get neat stuff, the neat stuff is inexpensive, and that's that. Why should they give two hoots about all the righteous anger and moralizing if, in the end, a big beautiful brown box from the music store will be sitting on their front steps?
I think this comes from people's sense of entitlement. "They are bringing it to the masses instead of the horrible people with privileges!" which is such a bogus mindset. You don't have the right to have a specific synth you earn that right by working, saving up for it and buying it. You aren't owed anything. "Man I hate Sequential I can't afford one! I hate Moog I can't afford one!" well too bad so sad, there's plenty of other affordable gear on the market. It boggles my mind people think the Moog one should be $500 or something. Get bent! Nobody says this about Gibson or Fender, people just go out and get cheaper import guitars...why this sudden hate on for people who are fortunate to have the ability to own expensive equipment?
I have never once seen guys like Synthmania, Mr. Firechild, James Drone or whoever bash people for playing budget instruments so why is it acceptable that it's the other way around?
-
It's called envy: anger at the good fortune of another person, together with the demand to have it for oneself.
I know B's strategy is one that works, and always will, because we synthesists have such intense GAS. But then quality goes out the door, and eventually is hardly even appreciated any longer.
A few months ago, I watched a decent video of the B Odyssey. I'm a long-time ARP enthusiast, and I love watching demonstrations of both their old instruments and the recent reissues. Oh...the Odyssey...mmm. Anyways, I returned to the video a couple of weeks later, and in the comments section the owner rather bitterly revealed that, since he had made the video, the B Odyssey had broken down and needed all sorts of repairs. Oh sure, it had been purchased brand new at a very modest price, he said, but it had proven to be a pain in the neck.
There. So much for allowing the young and the poor to own the classics. In the end, they'll be burdened with numerous repairs until they find themselves poorer still and without the instrument they loved. While they feel they've been served, they've only been taken advantage of by a shrewd opportunist.
I would agree that there's something both virtuous and noble about working hard to save up for something special, or at least, in making substantial personal sacrifice for it. Whereas, having that special thing reduced to a mediocre state so that it can be easily afforded ultimately cheapens culture and kills human initiative.
-
Well said. Sadly, many look at the situation merely as an opportunity to get instruments for less, and nothing else matters. They get neat stuff, the neat stuff is inexpensive, and that's that. Why should they give two hoots about all the righteous anger and moralizing if, in the end, a big beautiful brown box from the music store will be sitting on their front steps?
I think this comes from people's sense of entitlement. "They are bringing it to the masses instead of the horrible people with privileges!" which is such a bogus mindset. You don't have the right to have a specific synth you earn that right by working, saving up for it and buying it. You aren't owed anything. "Man I hate Sequential I can't afford one! I hate Moog I can't afford one!" well too bad so sad, there's plenty of other affordable gear on the market. It boggles my mind people think the Moog one should be $500 or something. Get bent! Nobody says this about Gibson or Fender, people just go out and get cheaper import guitars...why this sudden hate on for people who are fortunate to have the ability to own expensive equipment?
I have never once seen guys like Synthmania, Mr. Firechild, James Drone or whoever bash people for playing budget instruments so why is it acceptable that it's the other way around?
Where have you seen contempt for the buyers of discount gear? I've never blamed those who buy discount gear, regardless of their reason for wanting it.
When I was starting out with synths in the 80s, hardware purchases were daunting. We didn't have the benefit of learning what we really wanted in terms of sound and functionality that is available today via free or cheap plugins, so every hardware purchase was a substantial risk, which meant that an instrument needed to be in the $300-800 range and usually purchased used before it made sense for me to consider buying. So, I totally get that there is a market for discount gear for those dipping a toe in the hardware waters or simply still figuring out what they want in a setup, or folks simply not in a position to buy premium instruments.
My issue is with companies that seek to exploit that audience by selling them "look alike" products that are actually substandard reproductions and labeling them as "perfect replicas", repackaging what is essentially the same synth in a different cosmetic design. Companies that are irreverent toward the true pioneers of the industry, and seem to care more about "teasing" their audience, exploiting social media, and being the inciter of marking reaction than actually making useful contributions to the music instrument landscape.
-
My issue is with companies that seek to exploit that audience by selling them "look alike" products that are actually substandard reproductions and labeling them as "perfect replicas", repackaging what is essentially the same synth in a different cosmetic design. Companies that are irreverent toward the true pioneers of the industry, and seem to care more about "teasing" their audience, exploiting social media, and being the inciter of marking reaction than actually making useful contributions to the music instrument landscape.
Yes, this is the heart of the issue. It's the cheapening of the classics so that everyone can feel they own one.
-
My issue is with companies that seek to exploit that audience by selling them "look alike" products that are actually substandard reproductions and labeling them as "perfect replicas", repackaging what is essentially the same synth in a different cosmetic design. Companies that are irreverent toward the true pioneers of the industry, and seem to care more about "teasing" their audience, exploiting social media, and being the inciter of marking reaction than actually making useful contributions to the music instrument landscape.
Yes, this is the heart of the issue. It's the cheapening of the classics so that everyone can feel they own one.
It's a tricky, sticky question for me, the B thing. I took offense at their going after Sequential peeps - with a lawsuit, nonetheless. I do feel a loyalty to Sequential... the Pro One was my first synth, and the Prophet 5 has been the love of my synth life. I've got other SCI, Sequential and DSI gear and I love it all. There's true Vibe coming from these creations and the people who work for Sequential always seem solid and respectful. Clearly, they love the work they do.
I bought the B-made VC340 not so long back. A string machine and vocoder in one was too hard to pass up. I've felt a bit creepy about it, and have been tempted to sell it, but I find myself using it too often! And now I see that B is looking to release the Solina. For me it's not about "feeling I could own one," it's about having a (small) version of the thing that makes THAT sound. I guess if I'm trying to make any point, it's just that things can be blurry, whether in black and white or in colour. My musical needs will always determine what gear I use/buy, but I'm certainly capable of feeling guilty or sheepish from time to time!
-
For me it's not about "feeling I could own one," it's about having a (small) version of the thing that makes THAT sound. I guess if I'm trying to make any point, it's just that things can be blurry, whether in black and white or in colour. My musical needs will always determine what gear I use/buy, but I'm certainly capable of feeling guilty or sheepish from time to time!
I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like "nostalgia trumps ethics" for you...
Consider this: the Solina sounded how it did because of technical and commercial limitations. People used it because it filled an economic and practical music production role - convincing enough strings that were affordable, didn't require a room full of people and even more expensive instruments, and could be easily transported. Literally any string substitute can take its place, because it itself was just a pastiche, a stand-in for real strings. If you're so into THAT sound, just dial up any old string patch on any half-decent synth and run it through an ensemble effect. You'll be closer to the spirit of the original than any clone of the original will be, and you won't need to vote with your dollars to support derivative, parasitic business models, either.
-
A decent modern synthesizer like the Rev2 can so surpass an old string machine that it isn't even a contest. I loved those old stringers, but I've realized a Prophet '08/Rev2 offers a far superior sound and with many more variables, such as polyphony rather than paraphony, and a complete four-stage envelope. But nostalgia is a stubborn emotion, and sometimes the appearance of an instrument matters as much as its sound. It connects you with your past in strange sentimental ways. I'm sure that's one of the reasons the whole old school synth revival has come about, and why the UB/OB-Xa issue excites such passion in people.
-
For me it's not about "feeling I could own one," it's about having a (small) version of the thing that makes THAT sound. I guess if I'm trying to make any point, it's just that things can be blurry, whether in black and white or in colour. My musical needs will always determine what gear I use/buy, but I'm certainly capable of feeling guilty or sheepish from time to time!
I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like "nostalgia trumps ethics" for you...
Consider this: the Solina sounded how it did because of technical and commercial limitations. People used it because it filled an economic and practical music production role - convincing enough strings that were affordable, didn't require a room full of people and even more expensive instruments, and could be easily transported. Literally any string substitute can take its place, because it itself was just a pastiche, a stand-in for real strings. If you're so into THAT sound, just dial up any old string patch on any half-decent synth and run it through an ensemble effect. You'll be closer to the spirit of the original than any clone of the original will be, and you won't need to vote with your dollars to support derivative, parasitic business models, either.
Honestly, I posted this because I am indeed questioning my ethics here. I'm not wishing to defend anything other than the "things can be blurry" bit, cos that's how life works for me, a sometimes messy and inconsistent human.
As far as the Solina sound itself, versus dialing up any old string patch, well, sorta/almost. I did that this morning with the Prologue which, especially with a User created BBD effect, does a pretty good classic string machine sound. I've got a PolySix, which does, well, the classic PolySix string sound. I've got GForce's VSM, which I adore and use often. I'm not using string synths in a "trying to sound like real strings." I've got string players for that. Or decent sampled strings in Logic. The Solina sound is a particular fav of mine, and I'm admitting to being tempted by the impending re-creation of it by a company whose practices I don't care for.
-
For me it's not about "feeling I could own one," it's about having a (small) version of the thing that makes THAT sound. I guess if I'm trying to make any point, it's just that things can be blurry, whether in black and white or in colour. My musical needs will always determine what gear I use/buy, but I'm certainly capable of feeling guilty or sheepish from time to time!
I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like "nostalgia trumps ethics" for you...
Consider this: the Solina sounded how it did because of technical and commercial limitations. People used it because it filled an economic and practical music production role - convincing enough strings that were affordable, didn't require a room full of people and even more expensive instruments, and could be easily transported. Literally any string substitute can take its place, because it itself was just a pastiche, a stand-in for real strings. If you're so into THAT sound, just dial up any old string patch on any half-decent synth and run it through an ensemble effect. You'll be closer to the spirit of the original than any clone of the original will be, and you won't need to vote with your dollars to support derivative, parasitic business models, either.
Honestly, I posted this because I am indeed questioning my ethics here. I'm not wishing to defend anything other than the "things can be blurry" bit, cos that's how life works for me, a sometimes messy and inconsistent human.
As far as the Solina sound itself, versus dialing up any old string patch, well, sorta/almost. I did that this morning with the Prologue which, especially with a User created BBD effect, does a pretty good classic string machine sound. I've got a PolySix, which does, well, the classic PolySix string sound. I've got GForce's VSM, which I adore and use often. I'm not using string synths in a "trying to sound like real strings." I've got string players for that. Or decent sampled strings in Logic. The Solina sound is a particular fav of mine, and I'm admitting to being tempted by the impending re-creation of it by a company whose practices I don't care for.
I can relate to wanting a CERTAIN sound, not one that far surpasses it, but a particular original sound that is dated and "inferior" in all the right ways. If Behringer makes a niche instrument instrument(s) that faithfully capture the soul of the original, and if the value is there to the buyer, and PARTICULARLY if there are not superior offerings available from a better synth vendor, honestly not only do I not blame the buyer, but would be tempted to cast aside my own bias in that situation.
I am actually guilty of pondering buying a Pro-1, simply because Dave does not yet offer a real Pro One, the Pro-1 does seem to come remarkably close in sound (suffering only from tiny knobs), and the price makes it extremely tempting.
And I'll say it again, if B comes out with a clone of a synth I want, that they absolutely nail, at a remarkable price, then I can't say that my bias against them would necessarily enough for me to exercise restraint. And maybe that makes me a hypocrite second, but it makes me a lover of good sounding synths first.
So if you want their Solina clone you won't get any harassment from me over it. But I will say that as a company they are not to be trusted, so be sure to purchase based on a comparison from someone that can, rather than sound demos they release.
-
I guess I'm alone here in not really caring if I get "that" sound from a synth, if the sound I get from it is awesome anyway. I'm not a boomer, maybe that's why. I didn't grow up with a particular affinity to a particular sound - I grew up with an affinity to great sounds of all kinds, and an enjoyment in new ones as much as old. I care far more about beauty, quality -- the nature of the device in a physical and material aesthetic as much as sound quality, as much as interface and workflow. I also strongly value local and repairable construction, and will "overpay" - that is to say, pay a fair and sustainable price, happily! - for an item that meets these criteria. I will simply go without if I cannot meet those criteria or cannot afford to do so.
Well, all that and I don't let my desire trump my ethics when alternatives exist. Not buying anything is my preferred alternative anyway. I could make incredibly good music with a single Pro 2 or Rev2-8, so all the rest of this is just a luxury. And if it's a luxury, then I see no defence whatsoever in supporting unethical business, manufacturing, or marketing ethics. To me it's absolutely simple and clear, and I just don't accept that it's somehow a grey area for people. It's unpopular to point out, but it's genuinely selfish to think it's somehow acceptable to wave off ethical concerns for luxury consumption. If you support, knowingly and deliberately, unethical manufacture when buying a totally nonessential luxury item, I don't care if alternatives don't exist - you don't need the item, so not getting it is the right choice.
You can make the argument that fundamentally all the components are sourced from wherever and unethical in some way - and yes, I agree with you. That's why I don't buy every synth I can afford, either. There's clearly a room for grey, but it's not in "do I buy this crappy knockoff clone or just be happy with these other friggen awesome much more ethical synths that I already have" - that one's clear as day.
So, with all due respect, your combined arguments are falling on very deaf ears here.
-
I guess I'm alone here in not really caring if I get "that" sound from a synth, if the sound I get from it is awesome anyway. I'm not a boomer, maybe that's why. I didn't grow up with a particular affinity to a particular sound - I grew up with an affinity to great sounds of all kinds, and an enjoyment in new ones as much as old. I care far more about beauty, quality -- the nature of the device in a physical and material aesthetic as much as sound quality, as much as interface and workflow. I also strongly value local and repairable construction, and will "overpay" - that is to say, pay a fair and sustainable price, happily! - for an item that meets these criteria. I will simply go without if I cannot meet those criteria or cannot afford to do so.
Well, all that and I don't let my desire trump my ethics when alternatives exist. Not buying anything is my preferred alternative anyway. I could make incredibly good music with a single Pro 2 or Rev2-8, so all the rest of this is just a luxury. And if it's a luxury, then I see no defence whatsoever in supporting unethical business, manufacturing, or marketing ethics. To me it's absolutely simple and clear, and I just don't accept that it's somehow a grey area for people. It's unpopular to point out, but it's genuinely selfish to think it's somehow acceptable to wave off ethical concerns for luxury consumption. If you support, knowingly and deliberately, unethical manufacture when buying a totally nonessential luxury item, I don't care if alternatives don't exist - you don't need the item, so not getting it is the right choice.
You can make the argument that fundamentally all the components are sourced from wherever and unethical in some way - and yes, I agree with you. That's why I don't buy every synth I can afford, either. There's clearly a room for grey, but it's not in "do I buy this crappy knockoff clone or just be happy with these other friggen awesome much more ethical synths that I already have" - that one's clear as day.
So, with all due respect, your combined arguments are falling on very deaf ears here.
No offense taken whatsoever.
The ethical matters are important... but up to a point. The point being is that if I desire a particular instrument, and B does in fact perfect the replica (unlikely in itself), and offer good quality (equally as unlikely), and (the operative concept here) there are no other reasonable options for obtaining that same instrument elsewhere, then I might consider that a form of self-redemption toward past violations.
But, that doesn't mean I would ever try to convince you to buy into my opinions or modus operandi; it is your hard earned money and you should vote with your wallet in the direction you're comfortable with. That's exactly what I've been doing and you can probably see from my gear list which vendor I have a preference for.
I also felt compelled to mention, just for the record, I'm GenX and not a Boomer :) But yes I am sometimes in pursuit of nostalgic sounds, to some extent. There are a lot of good memories deep in my brain of a simpler time that have synaptic association to those sounds. And I understand if millenials or GenY don't get that, for now. But I can also guarantee that they one day will.
-
After seeing Behringer's approach to releasing reproductions and teasing replica models, I wouldn't be surprised if they start teasing future releases of older, discontinued DSI instruments like the Evolver line or even replicas of current Sequential items just for a reaction. When I think of Behringer, I still just picture all of their rackmount gear and signal processing equipment which I would see for sale in the used section at music shops in the mid 90's, so they just don't even come to mind when I think of a synthesizer company. I'm trying to imagine myself with an UB-Xa and wondering if I would even approach it the same as my other keys, knowing that it was never an instrument that I really sought after and that it is just a cheapened version that's easily acquired which somehow captures the sound of a classic Oberheim. Feels like walking into a gun fight where my pistol has a red plastic cap in the barrel and has "Toys "R" Us" stamped on the side of it. Whereas whenever I'm spending time with my Mono Evolver Keys, I just naturally feel excited to play it and create something, not only because it sounds amazing and is a lot of fun, but because it is a one of a kind instrument and I had to work hard to get it, and even Joanne at DSI even had to pull one from their office so I could have it new in the box.
Speaking of Evolvers... I moved to Moscow, Russia last year from the States and it's nice to see all of the unique synths that are in the used markets over here, whereas in the States the used synth market is dominated by Volcas, Mini / Monologues or modular gear. Two Poly Evolver Racks were up for sale just last week for $1200 and I can't remember anytime recently when I saw those go for less than $1700 back in the States, where it's rare to even see used ones listed for sale.
In any how, I was really surprised to see that Behringer may release the thing as an Oberheim synth. Unless Tom has approved of this, it's just not needed and seems inappropriate.
-
Egads! Please don't ever put the words Evolver and Behringer in the same sentence. If at any point I have to witness the appearance of a Bevolver, I will definitely lose my cool. Such a masterpiece defiled by such an association? No, it must never be allowed to happen on God's green earth. It would be like we yankees getting our maple syrup from China.
By the way, I haven't seen an Evolver Rack on the US used market for over a year, and I'm always watching. There's presently a Poly Evolver Keyboard on Ebay for $2700, but it's from Russia!
-
Don't weary yourself too much reading through the comments section, but the B Solina is coming:
https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2021/02/03/behringer-solina-string-ensemble-sneak-preview/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lc3IU-wT3c
-
I don't own any B gear but have been tempted occassionally by certain synths over the last couple of years, but in the end I decided I wouldn't get enough use out of them and I could probably get near the sound they produce with my existing setup.
I don't believe anyone should criticise or look down on people who do buy B gear though, that is just wrong. Nobody has the right to say what others should or shouldn't purchase surely?
I'm just stating an opinion, not wanting to get into an argument over things :)
-
I don't own any B gear but have been tempted occassionally by certain synths over the last couple of years, but in the end I decided I wouldn't get enough use out of them and I could probably get near the sound they produce with my existing setup.
I don't believe anyone should criticise or look down on people who do buy B gear though, that is just wrong. Nobody has the right to say what others should or shouldn't purchase surely?
I'm just stating an opinion, not wanting to get into an argument over things :)
Nobody should attack people for choosing NOT to buy B gear either...I actually see that happening much more often.
-
I don't own any B gear but have been tempted occassionally by certain synths over the last couple of years, but in the end I decided I wouldn't get enough use out of them and I could probably get near the sound they produce with my existing setup.
I don't believe anyone should criticise or look down on people who do buy B gear though, that is just wrong. Nobody has the right to say what others should or shouldn't purchase surely?
I'm just stating an opinion, not wanting to get into an argument over things :)
Nobody should attack people for choosing NOT to buy B gear either...I actually see that happening much more often.
Yes, there's a convoluted thought here. It's a bit like people who are quick to accuse others of being judgmental, usually for the purpose of ending all discussion of morality. Uh...isn't accusing a person of being judgmental itself judgmental?
-
I don't own any B gear but have been tempted occassionally by certain synths over the last couple of years, but in the end I decided I wouldn't get enough use out of them and I could probably get near the sound they produce with my existing setup.
I don't believe anyone should criticise or look down on people who do buy B gear though, that is just wrong. Nobody has the right to say what others should or shouldn't purchase surely?
I'm just stating an opinion, not wanting to get into an argument over things :)
Nobody should attack people for choosing NOT to buy B gear either...I actually see that happening much more often.
I totally agree. Just to clarify, I wasn’t trying to attack anyone, just stating my opinion that everyone should be able to make up their own minds without having to justify their purchasing decisions.
When I bought my Rev2, I went to a music shop to have a play with it and some other synths. I had a play with the Deepmind and really hated the feel of it, so that alone put me off B stuff !
-
https://www.musicradar.com/news/behringer-oberheim-trademark-bid-fails-so-what-does-this-mean-for-the-ub-xa-synth
According to documents released online, dated 4 March 2021, the application was refused on the basis that “Tom Oberheim is a famous audio engineer and electronics engineer well-known for designing effects processors, analog synthesizers, sequencers, and drum machines".
Worth clicking through to read the rest of the article and excerpts, link to the application from that article:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn90121878&docId=OOA20210304112058#docIndex=0&page=1
-
USPTO showing some common sense here for once, good on them!
-
https://www.musicradar.com/news/behringer-oberheim-trademark-bid-fails-so-what-does-this-mean-for-the-ub-xa-synth
According to documents released online, dated 4 March 2021, the application was refused on the basis that “Tom Oberheim is a famous audio engineer and electronics engineer well-known for designing effects processors, analog synthesizers, sequencers, and drum machines".
Worth clicking through to read the rest of the article and excerpts, link to the application from that article:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn90121878&docId=OOA20210304112058#docIndex=0&page=1
That's excellent news. It's true, the name could have misled some people to presume that Tom had worked with Uli on the instrument.