Chorus DIMENSION-D ( after Roland Dimension D etc)
Etc …
Notice the “V” at the end and morphing Jupiter to Jup, etc. Isn’t that a way around copyright protection ? I searched their website for the standard, “XYZ is copyrighted by Roland Corporation and is used by permission” sort of thing and did not find it. Perhaps someone else can find the list of all the “used with permissions”.
I suggest these names were all vetted to not be copyright infringements, rather than them acquiring rights and then disguising things.
Behringer is working with Vladimir Kuzmin to create a new version of Polivoks. So that is an example of both respect to the creator, and innovation together, albeit a pragmatic one.
That can be compared to how Korg got the rights to “ARP” and were founding contributors to the Alan R. Pearlman Foundation.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Behringer has done plenty of things i would not defend, i’m just fact checking.
Prophet looks like Prophet.
It’s not written as Prawfet
And aren’t they doing some kind of licensing unless otherwise and open source situation like Mutable Instruments?
That’s just a quick poke in the manual. In the Arturia vids for their products they talk about werking with “said company” to develop the “most try to life sounding blah blah blah” market schpiel. I don’t think B werks with anyone to try to pay tribute to said product.
And again re: vst, I’m certain there is a licensing fee to be able to use the image of said gear.
I know just from games I’ve werked on and the big to do with Gran Turismo, you gotta pay to use the image. We, on our game could not call an M16 and M16. And we had to make it look different, unless we paid to use it’s image. [no idea who that was paid to]. And GT was getting hit for having buildings i their game. So, how do you do a race thru a given city without iconic buildings. It’s crazy.
I’m trying to find out the reqs for vst dev, but I don’t know the right question or where to look. I could write a synth co and see what they say.
Maybe I’ll write Roland and see what they say
One thing you will note: they dont clone any synths that weren’t hits right
Another person Behringer is working with is Hiroaki Nishijima.
Is that the sort of thing you mean ?
I’m not justifying much of what Behringer does. I would have had them do many things very differently. For instance i’d get them out of the overt, but legal, copying of currently in production products. They don’t need to do that.
Every time Behringer releases a new product, most of the commentary about it gets moved to another thread or delete it. I see also that on synth related websites, the coverage is generally very negative and focused on the clone aspect, sometimes even if that’s not really pertinent. I wonder, why cover these products at all? I know that they are a major company and a player in the market so at first glance it might seem silly to not cover them, but in some ways it makes sense. The Behringer topics always devolve into the typical Behringer argument, because that’s really all there is to talk about. The products themselves are copies of other products most of the time, so there’s really nothing new to discuss regarding the products. The cloning discussion is really the only topic at hand. It’s as if the emperor has no clothes, and nobody is allowed to talk about it.
The Isla s2400 would be another product that has been inspired by a vintage instrument yet has been widely praised.
Pretty sure Black Corporation are emulating a Jupiter as we speak as well.
Can’t help but wonder whether their sky high prices have allowed them to fly above the radar of the purists.
Also, it’s pretty daft talking about Chinese manufacturing, especially if you are using an apple device
Also responding to a very good and now deleted post by @obscurerobot.
Music Tribe’s engineering is very good in cost reduction, in design and especially in manufacture. They have also cut down stream costs, like with the way they have aligned their retail distribution.
Cost reduction engineering strangely adds to the upfront expenses, but again can decrease total expenses with volume.
They also have a cost calculation model, that places a lower emphasis on profit, and more on growth which makes there prices lower.
A wider product base helps spread risk. Smaller makers have more risk if one of their two big products is a flop this year.
Also being across product lines helps with risk. If guitar products are off this year, but drum machines do well you’re covered. Commercial electronics can cover for personal buying being off.
Risk also is part of their product decisions. Predicting the sales for an RD-9 probably has less risk than a completely new but unknown by the consumer sort of product.
Behringer has a series of products either underway or on the market, for which there is likely to be a smaller sales volume. The Solina might be another, and certainly many of their new Eurorack products.
But some things to understand relative Behringer.
Their engineering and manufacturing capabilities permits them to produce a batch and move on efficiently to another product. This gives them volume by seamlessly blending the manufacture of a variety of different products.
They also make profit decisions differently. Their cost estimates are accurate enough, that they can safely set a very small profit margin, and so can get better volume from those lower prices.
So i imagine the product meeting where they give a new product idea the thumbs up / thumbs down, is based on a pretty low volume, maybe as low as 1000 units, certainly less than 2500 units. Lower volume will no doubt decrease a products priority, but they have a longer timeline than many, and will stick with a product.
The other thing to be aware is that Behringer is setting out to be number one in this market, and they are going to buy their way through to that goal. Even a break even is enough to launch a product when buying market share.
