Behringer synth teasers

[chysn]

I'd rather assume anything between 1000 and 1500 $/€. If they want to be competitive, it will be cheaper than a Prophet '08 although it has 4 more voices. That's my guess at least.

After reading this on the MATRIXSYNTH site, my guess is that it'll fall in the $3000USD (or €2700) bracket. They seem to be pretty proud of it, and it'll probably be up in Prophet 12 territory, price-wise.

"While the price has not been confirmed nor any price indication been given to retailers, we like to manage expectations.
With approx. 4,000 components, the DeepMind12 is one of the most complex synthesizers that has ever been built. Due to its discrete design structure, it has vastly more components than you will likely find in any of the current synthesizers on the market.

While it has always been our company philosophy to work on very small margins, we would however never sacrifice component or manufacturing quality nor sell below cost. Like all our products, the DeepMind12 will come with a 3 Year Warranty program."

[Sacred Synthesis]

"DeepMind 12" is tacky to me, but it's not going to keep me awake at night.  I was only making a few jokes about it.  I don't mean to blow the issue out of proportion.  The name is better than many others, that's for certain, and it is clean.

[Paul Dither]

As an add-on to my previous comment:

In the video, the developers mention that they want to present a synth not as a rich man's toy. Now, particularly in Europe, most analog (poly) synths are considered to be rich man's toys, or toys for rather wealthy people. Especially products from the US due to currency and customs duties, etc. I think the 2000 € mark is psychologically not going to work for Behringer's undertaking. This is going to be for people with average incomes that don't want to save up for months in order to get their hands on it - the masses as they say in the video. I haven't seen lots of innovative stuff about this synth yet - even the Wi-Fi implementation is something that has also been developed for the upcoming Nonlinear Labs C15 synth. So I assume that the price in itself will be innovative, i.e. competitive.

[Paul Dither]

I'd rather assume anything between 1000 and 1500 $/€. If they want to be competitive, it will be cheaper than a Prophet '08 although it has 4 more voices. That's my guess at least.

After reading this on the MATRIXSYNTH site, my guess is that it'll fall in the $3000USD (or €2700) bracket. They seem to be pretty proud of it, and it'll probably be up in Prophet 12 territory, price-wise.

"While the price has not been confirmed nor any price indication been given to retailers, we like to manage expectations.
With approx. 4,000 components, the DeepMind12 is one of the most complex synthesizers that has ever been built. Due to its discrete design structure, it has vastly more components than you will likely find in any of the current synthesizers on the market.

While it has always been our company philosophy to work on very small margins, we would however never sacrifice component or manufacturing quality nor sell below cost. Like all our products, the DeepMind12 will come with a 3 Year Warranty program."

I've read that as well, but please see my above comment. Prophet 12 territory is rich man's toys territory for most people. Hardly anyone of those, who get super enthusiastic about this synth would buy it if it was selling for $3000USD (or €2700). I truly think that Behringer's message is going to be, "see, this is what an analog poly synth can cost."

Uli Behringer also mentioned in another forum that they don't need to make a large profit, and if they do so, they are just going to reinvest it into new production.

[dslsynth]

. o O ( speculation games )

. o O ( module please )

[Paul Dither]

. o O ( module please )

But no one likes the module people anymore. 

[Sacred Synthesis]

So if the DeepMind 12 resembles a Roland Juno, it's because it was based on the Juno 106, but with many features added.  Interesting.

[dslsynth]

But no one likes the module people anymore. 

And obviously modules do not sell at all so only unwise manufacturers produces them.

[Shaw]

If you don't read German (or if, like me, your German is rusty), go to the amazons.de site using the Chrome web browser... Chrome will translate the article to English for you.  Not perfect, but you will be able to understand.

[eXode]

The German site is estimating the price to be in the €1000 to 1500 segment.

That said, after reading that German article my interest in it has cooled off some. There seems to be way too much editing via the menu for me personally. I'm a hand's on kind of guy and I think the Prophet 08 works as the "minimum". I never clicked with the Poly Evolver Key, nor the Prophet 12 because of too many shared controls. That said, it was a bit of a face palm moment for me when I saw that setting the pulse width on the oscillator seem to require editing via the menu/display. This kind of reinforces why I think that It actually will be quite cheap (again, €1000 - €1500 is probably pretty close).

[DavidDever]

So if the DeepMind 12 resembles a Roland Juno, it's because it was based on the Juno 106, but with many features added.  Interesting.

That's a pretty good place to start, if your intention is to improve upon an old, widely-sold and simple-to-use classic. While the KiwiTechnics upgrade for the Juno-106 brings it into the modern age in terms of functionality, it's buried under the old Roland button/slider layout.

Also - from what I understood within the video, one can set the PWM to be synchronized (monophonic, like the Juno-106) or independent (polyphonic, like most everything else).

All that said - it could use a bit less beating with the ugly stick: perhaps a wash of color and a display backlight / button color synchronization - and to SS' point above, good presets that are not soaked in compression / distortion / reverb like a bad Saturday afternoon at Guitar Center.

[Shaw]

All that said - it could use a bit less beating with the ugly stick: perhaps a wash of color and a display backlight / button color synchronization - and to SS' point above, good presets that are not soaked in compression / distortion / reverb like a bad Saturday afternoon at Guitar Center.

I see you've been to MY local Guitar Center!   

[Paul Dither]

All that said - it could use a bit less beating with the ugly stick: perhaps a wash of color and a display backlight / button color synchronization - and to SS' point above, good presets that are not soaked in compression / distortion / reverb like a bad Saturday afternoon at Guitar Center.

I see you've been to MY local Guitar Center!   

Next to One Hundred Oaks?

[Paul Dither]

good presets that are not soaked in compression / distortion / reverb like a bad Saturday afternoon at Guitar Center.

What baffles me is how many people go crazy about the effect section. While it indeed seems to offer quite flexible routings and all that (pic below), it's still an add-on and not really the core of what makes an analog synth appealing. I mean it's absolutely practical for live purposes, but some fellows act as if Behringer were the first to do that.

[Shaw]

All that said - it could use a bit less beating with the ugly stick: perhaps a wash of color and a display backlight / button color synchronization - and to SS' point above, good presets that are not soaked in compression / distortion / reverb like a bad Saturday afternoon at Guitar Center.

I see you've been to MY local Guitar Center!   

Next to One Hundred Oaks?

or CoolSprings... they are one and the same

[Paul Dither]

All that said - it could use a bit less beating with the ugly stick: perhaps a wash of color and a display backlight / button color synchronization - and to SS' point above, good presets that are not soaked in compression / distortion / reverb like a bad Saturday afternoon at Guitar Center.

I see you've been to MY local Guitar Center!   

Next to One Hundred Oaks?

or CoolSprings... they are one and the same

Isn't that the convenience about Guitar Centers? 

[DavidDever]

So the question is - multi- / bi-timbral? Or not?

[Sacred Synthesis]

good presets that are not soaked in compression / distortion / reverb like a bad Saturday afternoon at Guitar Center.

What baffles me is how many people go crazy about the effect section. While it indeed seems to offer quite flexible routings and all that (pic below), it's still an add-on and not really the core of what makes an analog synth appealing. I mean it's absolutely practical for live purposes, but some fellows act as if Behringer were the first to do that.

My only issue with the effects is that I like to hear the instrument without them and to know that the designer is confident enough to let the instrument stand unprocessed.  After all, there isn't a sound on God's green earth that wouldn't sound magnificent when processed through an Eventide or a Strymon pedal.  I'm surprised that some comedic musician hasn't already made of video of absurdly common sounds being magnified into symphonies by a Big Sky.  So, I'm always a bit suspicious when a synthesizer is provided with a number of onboard effects.  Again, that's what has annoyed with many of the OB-6 demos - frequent use of  the phaser.  First of all, I don't usually like phaser, and secondly, it masks the actual sound of the instrument and makes you think it's better than it really is.  I would only want an instrument that could stand with just a bit of reverb, nothing more.

[Paul Dither]

My only issue with the effects is that I like to hear the instrument without them and to know that the designer is confident enough to let the instrument stand unprocessed.  After all, there isn't a sound on God's green earth that wouldn't sound magnificent when processed through an Eventide or a Strymon pedal.

Right. And it is obvious in the last teaser that the pad is drenched in effects.

It depends on one's approach to sound design I guess. One can of course regard effects as integral sound shaping tools that should be involved from the very beginning, just like an oscillator, etc.

Maybe it's my background as a guitarist that makes me look out for a good clean signal first before I end up adding anything else. It's also rewarding if something that already sounds great dry, can then even sound greater with a bit of delay or reverb.
From a guitarist's perspective I also learned that reverb should be rather used sparsely if you don't want to emulate a by now clichéd ambient sound. If rhythm and timing are important ingredients though, it's better to use a simple delay to enhance the spacious effect. Many people, for example, think that someone like David Gilmour uses tons of reverb, which is not true. He solely gets his big tone by delays and a couple of drives (one at a time only) and maybe something like a gently used Univibe, Phaser, or Chorus. His rig is by no means sophisticated in terms of single devices' complexity and it all starts with a good clean tone by itself, which on a synth would equal oscillator, mixer, envelope, and maybe a couple of LFO settings.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I agree.  It comes down to one's philosophy of musical sound.  I was formed more by organ and harpsichord, and I view the synthesizer as just one more unique keyboard instrument.  I consider reverb, delay, chorus, flanger, and phaser to be effects that are definitely separate from and added to the base sound generated by the actual instrument.  Although, in the world of electronic music, a good argument can be made that these effects are part and parcel of the whole designing of sound, and every bit as fundamental as oscillators and filters, still, I prefer a philosophy that comes from playing traditional keyboard instruments: the instrument produces the fundamental musical sound, and then the acoustics subtly enhance it.  So, if I were considering a harpsichord for home, I would not want to hear it played in a large auditorium from the back.  No, I'd want to hear the raw sound unadorned by such acoustics.  For me, it's the same with a synthesizer.