[thomas_witt]

I never understood the Behringer hate of the "Pro Audio" community; apparently there are many riders (requirement documents for live shows) which state "No Behringer".

I got a Behringer WING a couple of years ago, and I couldn't be happier for my home studio: Excellent connection with Midas stage boxes who have (at least for my requirements) great pre-amps, you can basically route everything, it's kind of intuitive, the possibilities are endless, it's at the same time a 32-channel USB Audio Interface which works great with Logic, I can even live-stream multi channel audio to my Mac in the other room to Logic using the DANTE card, it has easy live recording with SD cards, remote control via iPad and even 3rd party apps with APIs, etc. etc. etc. … And they just released a rack and smaller version of it, but didn't cut on the features.

As we say in Germany, maybe it's some kind of "What the farmer doesn't know, he won't eat" syndrome. From what I know and use, I am a big fan of Behringer, and especially the WING.

[blantonl]

I use a Behringer X32 rack with a couple digital snakes to route audio between 20 or so radios, software defined receivers, online broadcasts and other audio sources, and it's one of the most powerful pieces of technology in my lab/office.

The quality however of the X32 leaves a little bit to be desired. The power supply died in it due to fault capacitors (I was able to replace them myself) and the rotary switches on the rack unit itself no longer work (I remote control the box anyway) but.. I've been able to look past all this because the sheer power of the tech is unbeatable for my use case. Running a single CAT-5 connection from my detached lab/rack to my office in the house with 32 channels of AES audio is amazing stuff for me.

[anigbrowl]

It's not about the cloning but the quality control. For years Behringer didn't make any synths, just outboard - processing modules like compressors, gates/limiters, feedback managers, effects, small mixers and so on. These were original designs rather than clones of anything. The main attraction was that they were very cheap compared to the competition; sound-wise they were mediocre except for maybe their Composer compressor which was sorta good. The cheap aspect made them quite popular with aspiring musicians, especially electronic ones. Reliability was not too big of an issue because if a Behringer unit in your rack stopped working you could afford to just replace it. But they were absolutely not up to the rigors of commercial use, lacking consistency and reliability.

I like the company in a general way because I'm a big believer in accessibility to technology for entry-level people, and innovating on price is as valid as any other area (and they have innovated in many technical areas since). There are a lot of rent seekers in the pro audio industry and Behringer found a niche in the market where they had no direct competition. After building a solid commercial foundation they rolled the profits back into other areas, from cloning classic synths and guitar pedals to acquiring high quality live sound vendors like Midas. Quality-wise, their products are now really solid.

[afro88]

All the things you listed are irrelevant for a touring musician. All they care about is that equipment is used that sounds good. If it's a pain to set up or manage, that's the roadie and live mix engineer's job. Not saying some behringer gear doesn't sound good, just that bands can be very specific about their sound and a blanket "no behringer" rules out a lot of cheaper bad sounding gear in 2 words.

There's also the idealogical standpoint. That Behringher rips off other designs and mass produces them cheaper off shore. I'm in 2 minds about that. I now have a 2600, which would have been impossibly expensive (even with a TTSH) for me.

[bartread]

A few things:

1) Behringer had a reputation for poor quality and unreliability dating back to at least I think the 90s. In my experience that’s no longer fair criticism, at least for the products I’ve owned, but the reputation persists.

2) Ethical issues. They mass produce using cheap labour in the far east (I forget exactly where). There was some controversy involving a synth/instrument sponsorship a few years ago that took an excessively long time to materialise. They are perceived to rip off other companies’ IP and undercut on price because they don’t incur the R&D costs. I seem to remember some noise/drama around one or two partnerships as well - maybe the UBxa? Again, I can’t remember.

3) They are a budget brand whereas the synth and pro audio communities are somewhat overpopulated with vocal gatekeepy snobs. I’m sure they’re probably a minority but, at least in the online world, they’re often loud and visible. You will, for example, be pretty reliably downvoted for saying anything positive about Behringer in the Reddit synth communities.

4) Uli is perceived to be a bit of an odd duck, again, by people who tend to make noise online.

For myself, I don’t love everything they’ve done business wise, but they make a good product that won’t break the bank for those on a budget. I have a couple of their TB-303 clones, which are very good (loads of companies make 303 clones, often known as acid boxes, so I don’t really see this as controversial). I also have a Poly D, which is based on the Minimoog, but has an extra oscillator, paraphony, MIDI support, and a sequencer, and I wanted a taste of that without having to drop £5k on an instrument with, by contemporary standards, very limited capabilities.

There are a bunch of synthtubers I enjoy who seem to have a good opinion of their stuff: Wine & Synths springs immediately to mind.

[7oi]

1) Agreed. I’ve used Behringer gear that’s perfectly fine.

2) This is my biggest issue with Behringer. They do seem very questionable in the ethics department. To add on to what you mention, they also like to apply for trademark patents for existing trademarks, not to mention trying to trademark names of their critics in some weird smear campaigns (see the KIRN corksniffer debauchle as an example) and also litigate their critics when they don’t like what they say. On the cloning side, sure, clones of extinct hardware like the TB-303 I feel is fair game, but it is always questionable when the clone is competing with a product still in production. I mean, it doesn’t matter which market it is in, whether music gear or mobile phones or whatever: clones will always be perceived as lower quality imitations and morally questionable.

3) I agree. Budget brands do not always get fair credit.

4) Yeah, that he does. It’s not necessarily fair to equate the brand with it’s director/founder, but seeing as he is quite active and the brand name is his actual last name, it is kind of unavoidable. But I mean, you should be able to be an odd duck and also be a director of a brand, as long as you behaviour isn’t hurting anyone…

[bartread]

Yes! That was it. Your cork sniffer remark reminded me of something else, maybe part of that same situation: didn’t they put out some bizarre and derogatory cartoons/caricatures of one of their critics? Maybe 5 years ago or a bit more?

I don’t know if it was some sort of misguided “guerilla marketing” ploy but, regardless of the intent, it did come off as weird and unsavoury.

As far as rip offs go: their Arturia Keystep clone was, in my view, over the line. Their Mother32 clone, which I cannot remember the name of, isn’t something I’m entirely comfortable with either… although anyone who wants a Mother32 is I think going to spring the extra for the real deal rather than buying the clone.

OTOH I do like their 2600-a-likes and, as you’ve pointed out, I can’t really fault putting out remakes of out of production hardware.

[wlonkly]

> bizarre and derogatory cartoons/caricatures

One and the same. The illustration of the critic that the cork sniffer was mocking was at best unflattering, and at worst referenced antisemitic stereotypes.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-major-synth-company-create...

[nkozyra]

> But I mean, you should be able to be an odd duck and also be a director of a brand, as long as you behaviour isn’t hurting anyone…

I think the canonical example here is the Kirn Corksniffer[1] which could have been avoided with some foresight and subsequently a quick apology, but ego can sometimes get in the way.

Behringer definitely made bad products for a very long time, and while I appreciate the increase in quality the synth recreations don't really blow my mind. They're low cost, they're hardware, but almost all of them fall short of the originals.

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-major-synth-company-create...?

[bartread]

> They're low cost, they're hardware, but almost all of them fall short of the originals.

As with everything Behringer, a lot of this varies from product to product. And it also depends which axes you measure along and which you consider important.

Like, for example, I don’t think anyone who’d done their research could seriously suggest the TD-3 and its variants aren’t as good as an original 303. In some ways they’re better: MIDI support, for example, and the MO - which is the second one I bought - implements the Devilfish mods that were popular on original units. But sound-wise, they’re as similar to a real 303 as the tonal differences between two original 303s. And hardware wise, well they’re cheap plastic boxes just like the originals so Behringer have certainly nailed the feel of using a 303.

On the other hand, something like the Poly D, does have some differences to the Minimoog. Again, it has some stuff that the OG doesn’t: an additional oscillator, paraphony, MIDI, a sequencer and arpeggiator.

Soundwise it’s very close but my sense is the filter doesn’t have quite the same hollow but fat character of the Moog filters I’m most familiar with (Moog One so not directly compatible). But it’s close and I’m not sure in a mix anyone would notice you were using a Poly D rather than a Minimoog.

And then you can find areas where corners have been cut: knobs and switchgear of the Poly D are solid and satisfying to use, but the keyboard is absolutely meh. It’s functional but it feels (and is) cheap. Not a patch on the OG.

[CaptainOfCoit]

Generally, businesses that try to thrive only on "take existing designs, produce them cheaper, try to out-compete on price only while not adding new R&D to the world" are businesses I try to avoid, as I feel like it'll only introduce a race to the bottom, instead of bringing new exciting stuff into the world.

This is regardless of the sector/industry, so I'll continue buying from brands that create new things, rather than from brands that iterate on existing stuff.

But with that said, it's a trite discussion, and I despise the constant "Behringer is the cheapest" or "Behringer just steals" conversations that happen every time Behringer is mentioned, more than I despise Behringer itself.

[antinomicus]

The mixer space is the only one where behringer doesn’t actually just copy other people’s shit and make it cheaper. Their mixers are cheap compared to the competition but they’re super original and have tons of features and UX patterns not found on mixers that cost 5x as much.

[bluGill]

Behringer earned a reputation for poor quality in their early days. things are muth better now but quality control still isn't the best.

[127]

Cloning innovative products for a much cheaper price will drive those companies out of business and cause the industry to stagnate.

[jdboyd]

These days they are mostly cloning old, usually discontinued, products. Two examples are the Roland 303 or Klon Centaur. One product that isn't exactly discontinued is Neve is continuing to sell 1073 and 33609 derived products, but they certainly aren't selling the original 1073 anymore, and their 33609 design is over 40 years old. I don't morally they have any room to complain about people cloning their old designs, nor that morally should anyone feel bad about taking decades old historic designs from another company and making a version of it that is improved or more accessible.

I'm aware that in the past they were accused of cloning more current products, but the only example I could remember was FCB1010 supposedly being a clone of the Roland FC-300 (MIDI pedal board with 2 expression pedals). There certainly is a visual similarity between the two that seems very questionable. I don't think that the Roland FC-300 was particularly innovative. I know that Mackie sued about the MX-8000 being a clone, but I'll note they did lose that lawsuit. I don't there was also a lawsuit in the 90s about the Aphex Aural Exciter Type C, but I can't say that I know the details of that. Both of those lawsuits are definitely from a time when Behringer's quality seemed to be a lot lower, so there are definately ways the company has improved in the last 30 years.

[JodieBenitez]

A few hints: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5RSIWbZ6Vc

I do own a few behringer devices. They work fine for me, but I'm just a hobbyist and treat my gear with care.