Behringer synth teasers

BobTheDog · « **Reply #80 on:** August 03, 2016, 06:14:52 AM »

I guess they set the main screen area to edit the module they are near.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #81 on:** August 03, 2016, 07:52:20 AM »

Quote from: Razmo on August 03, 2016, 01:56:48 AM

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on August 02, 2016, 05:21:49 PM
I thought the keyboard length was one of the most glaring shortcomings. This 49-note business is an unhealthy arrangement for serious keyboardists. It's a musical blight like mini-keys.

That depends a lot upon how you use your keyboard... 49 is the absolute minimum for me, but I can certainly live with it, even though I also prefer playing live... I think it has a lot to do with what genres you play, and what way you record. Playing a huge range makes the frequency spectrum you occupy a lot larger, allowing less space for other tracks to "!be there" as well.

I know that you record everything in one go, not doing "tracks" in that sense, so I can certainly understand your concern... but actualy, having 3 to 4 octaves can be an advantage, if you record in tracks because you will automatically be restricted to a certain part of the frequency spectrum for anything you play... play the lead in one track... shift a few octaves down, and then do the bass... etc. etc...

I often find that with a large amount of keys, I tend to go all over the range with just a single instrument... that leaves less room for other instruments later on.

I'm not dissing the need for longer keybeds, don't get me wrong... but not everyone needs 5-7 octaves... even if they are live players... there should be "frequency room" for the other players as well.

Let's just hope, that Behringer will do like Yamaha usually does... create different keysizes... then everyone can be happy (as long as they do module versions as well)

Yes, what you've said is reasonable. My point is, with a long keyboard, everything is possible. You can use just two octaves of it, or the entire five. As long as you have room in your set up, there are no drawbacks to having a full five octaves (and that's one good reason for having some choices: room). It also makes possible the performance of a complete piece of music on a single instrument. In addition, I often use a full five octaves for melody playing. I wouldn't call this a "lead," because of the musical style, so it's not as if I'm into these strange wide-ranging "solos." But I definitely need every note, and I would hate to put limitations on musical ideas merely because my keyboard was too short. That could have serious musical consequences.

Five octave keyboards serve us all, regardless of what we play. But I realize not every one wants one. My issue is that four-octave keyboards and mini-keys have become more common as of late. The result is that some of us have to pass on instruments that we would otherwise like to have (Korg Arp Odyssey). The Behringer, for example, is out of the question for me. Twelve voices squeezed into four octaves? Who's the wise guy that came up with that tortuous idea? This is where the module becomes the only option.

By the way, the module does look nice. It might make a fine compliment to a Prophet 12.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #82 on:** August 05, 2016, 08:04:14 PM »

Couldn't resist:

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #83 on:** August 05, 2016, 08:37:21 PM »

I must admit, at first I thought, "Oh no, not another stinkin' DeepMind 12 preview. Just come out with the thing and quit the hype."

I realize there's no such thing as bad advertising, but I don't think unnecessary tantalizing of potential customers is good either. Sure, when winter NAMM comes around and DSI has something new, we ask for little hints of the instrument, but these are so minor, and they're usually just before the full announcement. But Behringer has taken this practice beyond all reason, so that their multiple video glimpses have become a topic unto themselves. The above video is an example of this irritation.

I hope the DeepMind 12 is a good reasonably priced instrument and that many people like it. But I'm not interested in making an avocation out of learning about it. The way Behringer has gone about the whole announcement affair completely turns me off the instrument. I'll take another look at it in three months when the game is over.

I've never owned a product by Behringer and I know very little about the company. But I sure do dislike their style.

chysn · « **Reply #84 on:** August 06, 2016, 03:25:50 AM »

Ha! "Front-mounted keyboard" indeed.

vinnyburns1@mac.com · « **Reply #85 on:** August 06, 2016, 04:32:58 PM »

I will just have to slum it with my OB8 and Prophet 08 until manufacturers come to their senses and realise that people might actually want 5 octaves. Funny how all the classic poly synths had 5 octave keyboards and besides the prophet 5, the Jupiter, CS80 and OBies had 8 voices. There are still people out there that like to write songs. The Gearslutz thread on the OB6 was funny with the pages and pages of debate about if the OB6 could recreate the Jump sound. Well, yes it could but as was eventually pointed out, you just could not play the song on 49 keys :-)
Not being taken in by the whole 'portability' angle either or 'just buy the module'. Each would still involve using an external 5 octave keyboard to get the best out of them so no advantage gained at all.
Although I love the OB8, my Prophet 08 still gets as much use. I really would have loved to have been able to get the OB6 instead of getting a vintage Oberheim and when DSI release something with a grown up keyboard and 8 voices, I will buy it.
Can't believe Behringer have made the same mistake.
It seems it's like the dumbing down of music. If they are only aiming at DJ's, just put one key on it. :-)

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #86 on:** August 07, 2016, 07:29:18 AM »

Amen, brother! Tell it like it is.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #87 on:** August 09, 2016, 05:33:52 AM »

So $999.99 it is.

eXode · « **Reply #88 on:** August 09, 2016, 09:01:14 AM »

Quote from: Paul Dither on August 09, 2016, 05:33:52 AM

So $999.99 it is.

It's a very competitive price, no doubt about that.

Video #6:
Video #7:

Paul Dither · « **Reply #89 on:** August 09, 2016, 11:04:24 AM »

Assuming that it'll sell rather well, the folks at Roland might be kicking themselves now.

DavidDever · « **Reply #90 on:** August 09, 2016, 12:27:35 PM »

Quote from: Paul Dither on August 09, 2016, 11:04:24 AM

Assuming that it'll sell rather well, the folks at Roland might be kicking themselves now.

Roland blew an opportunity for a proper polysynth re-issue - the JD-Xa just wasn't it, and certainly not at 4 voices - you get far more bang for the buck with a Tetra.

They ought to do a proper Jupiter-8 re-issue and stop screwing around–no digital parts or any of that nonsense.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #91 on:** August 09, 2016, 12:34:24 PM »

I agree. Roland should read the signs of the times and re-issue at least one of the old Junos and one of the old Jupiters - or at the very least, the Juno 60. These have been wildly popular for years now, and the Juno 60 would be within the price range of many musicians.

I'm all for research and development, leading to brilliant new designs. But I also have a deep appreciation for the old and the good.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #92 on:** August 09, 2016, 08:10:49 PM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on August 09, 2016, 12:34:24 PM

Roland should read the signs of the times and re-issue at least one of the old Junos and one of the old Jupiters - or at the very least, the Juno 60. These have been wildly popular for years now, and the Juno 60 would be within the price range of many musicians.

This might even be too late by now. I mean, ultimately it will depend on how people that are looking for a Roland flavor are going to be satisfied with the Behringer synth. But in case most are, there's not a lot Roland could add except for pimped out reissues at a rather low price. I'm not even sure if that would be of any interest to them, but then we haven't really seen a bigger synth by Roland in 2016 yet. So maybe they're working on something for next year.

As for the price, I'm really curious about how it is going to affect the broader market. I'm not predicting a DX-7 effect, since this is nothing like a DX-7 was in 1983. Yet, I believe that the competitive price might leave a noticeable impact. If the demand is huge, Behringer will deliver more for the synth market, as they've already indicated by stating that a new synth division is in the works. If the prices for future products stay that competitive, some alternative manufacturers might actually resign, or - if it's feasible - produce exclusively for the high end market.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #93 on:** August 09, 2016, 08:47:07 PM »

Well, then Roland has inexcusably missed their golden opportunity. The Juno 60 was just the right balance of many things, including size. This is where the Behringer fails. Roland has amazed me for years now, for what they haven't produced. And having the audacity to revive the old names and appearances, for instruments that in no way resembled their old classics? That was rather obnoxious. At least DSI, Korg, and Moog have been fairly genuine in retrieving their old instruments.

eXode · « **Reply #94 on:** August 10, 2016, 12:44:54 AM »

Roland should have made an all-analog 6 or 8 voice out of the technology used in the JD-Xa in my humble opinion. Could probably have been priced similarly to the Prophet-6.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #95 on:** August 10, 2016, 07:04:40 AM »

That would have been a good idea, too, but it would have needed more class than the cheap-ish JD-XA. Wood end cheeks are very popular again, and they do look sharp. As it is, the JD-XA looks like a giant cell phone.

DavidDever · « **Reply #96 on:** August 10, 2016, 07:05:08 AM »

Quote from: eXode on August 10, 2016, 12:44:54 AM

Roland should have made an all-analog 6 or 8 voice out of the technology used in the JD-Xa in my humble opinion. Could probably have been priced similarly to the Prophet-6.

Agreed - the voice itself does not sound bad, and the tooling is there to permit audio-rate modulation of OSC 1 from an external input. The four-voice audio board could be doubled-up fairly easily to achieve eight parts, with separate FX.

I see it more as a product-design problem than anything else.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #97 on:** August 10, 2016, 10:29:02 AM »

Longest presentation so far:

Shaw · « **Reply #98 on:** August 10, 2016, 10:52:56 AM »

Quote from: Paul Dither on August 10, 2016, 10:29:02 AM

Longest presentation so far:

HA!!! Dude is wearing a Roland Jupiter-8 T-shirt... Nothing subtle about that!

Paul Dither · « **Reply #99 on:** August 10, 2016, 11:02:20 AM »

Quote from: Shaw on August 10, 2016, 10:52:56 AM

Quote from: Paul Dither on August 10, 2016, 10:29:02 AM
Longest presentation so far:
HA!!! Dude is wearing a Roland Jupiter-8 T-shirt... Nothing subtle about that!

Yeah, although it's nowhere near that one.

Also: It seems as if there's no sawtooth option available for DCO 2 - at least not from the front panel. So it looks like DCO 1 provides pulse wave and sawtooth, but DCO 2 only square wave plus tone mod.