Behringer Building A Budget Minimoog Clone

Moog’s Minimoog Model D

Behringer, which is shaking up the synth market with its recently introduced DeepMind 12 synthesizer, is building a budget Minimoog clone.

The company recently announced plans to create a complete line of synths, starting at $49. Today, founder Uli Behringer revealed that they’re working on a Minimoog clone.

The move promises to be controversial, especially since Moog recently reissued the Minimoog Model D (right) and is going to great lengths to build new Minimoogs that match the original in sound, build quality and craftsmanship.

Behringer, on the other hand, is planning a budget clone, designed to be cheap to manufacture.

Here’s what Uli Behringer, right, has to say about their plans:

Behringer founder Uli Behringer

The general rule and the law clearly describe that technology is free for everyone to use, provided it is not protected. You may have a different personal view, but that’s how our society and every industry works – again why the law has been designed the way it is.

In case of the MiniMoog there is no IP (Intellectual Property) involved as the technology is more than 40 years old and all patents have long expired. As a result, the property is now in the public domain, free for everyone to use. Without this principle there would only be one car or synthesizer manufacturer in the world.

For this exact reason you will find many companies who are manufacturing replicas of all sorts, including the MiniMoog – simply google it.

We believe there are two typical types of customers:

The ones who aspire to purchase the original product and provided they can afford the price, they will buy such a high-priced product.

It is well known marketing knowledge, that lower cost and competing products do contribute to more awareness and hence stimulate both ends of the market.

Many companies such as Tesla, Toyota etc. have now opened their patents to the public domain to allow other manufacturers to enter the same market and actually compete with them.

Open source and open innovation are now trends that you’ll find in many industries, simply because the benefit of collaboration outweighs protection of your IP.

Our primary customer is not the well-off doctor or lawyer, but the people with much less income. I was a struggling musician myself when I started my business 30 years ago and I made it my mission in life to enable musicians to pursue their musical dreams without financial obstacles.

This is the reason why we work with extremely slim margins and consequentially our focus must be on achieving high volume production as otherwise we couldn’t survive.

When you work with such slim margins, aside from research and development, much effort goes into DFM (Design for Manufacturing), DFC (Design for Cost) and production engineering etc.

We employ over 400 engineers in MUSIC Group and we’re hiring 100 more. You will find our engineering facilities in the UK, US, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, China, Philippines etc. If you’re interested, feel free to drop by at our offices and meet our fantastic people.

Perhaps this synth is a great little project to demonstrate how the design process works and I am happy to involve you in the development.

Since the development has been done 40 years ago, it is a rather minimal engineering effort and once we have a working prototype and a projected price, we can then decide whether we will bring this product to market or not.

Someone here in the forum had a great idea to pack this synth into a compact Eurorack format and this coincides with some of our engineers’ ideas. I will have our designers to come up with a quick design draft for you to comment on.



What do you think about Behringer’s plans? Would you want to own a Minimoog knockoff? Or should Behringer do something more creative, like they did with the DeepMind 12, and create something new that builds on classic designs?

Leave a comment and let us know what you think!

173 thoughts on “Behringer Building A Budget Minimoog Clone

  1. They are smart. Even down to simple App Store games, no one would call their game a clone but thats what your getting, clones. Look at Clash of Clans and the thousands of clones. HeartStone and Animation Throwdown. Announcing that it will be a clone brings a lot of attention which would otherwise look like a cheap scheme to make a Moog product without actually saying its a clone. People would see right through that. I’m on board.

    1. Uli Behringer is portraying himself as the Robin Hood of synthesizer manufactures. A cheap Minimoog that sounds and feels like the real thing might be cool if done correctly. However, have no doubt that Uli has more money than any other single manufacturer, and probably more money than every other music instrument manufacturer combined. He is more like the Donald Trump of music instruments, not the Robin Hood. In fact, he even says that he cuts the margins very close to cost. That is not to save the customer money, that is to put any competitors out of business. Free market monopoly 101. Don’t make things at the true cost, but rather use very low cost material and under paid manufacturing facilities to produce your product.

      1. Please provide your data backing your comment about behringers financial status. Soounds to me like you hate capitalism – Some how I should overpay moog for a name? I’ve owned several of their synths and the only one that met expectations was the voyager, but even there it felt over priced. The “dealer” business model with inefficient mark ups is dead. If done right other manufactures will get equally efficient and you’ll have a few tiers of quality with a market for each. Korg clearly isn’t worrying about anything. If moog goes under cause of uli its because they’ve rested on their laurels too long and sold a name. They re-created the minimoog w the voyager, then came out with several cheaper yet over priced vatiants through the phatty line. Now they went back to the modular and ohhh a model d. They are merely cloning thenselves and charging for the brand.

        1. Read the post above – “We have over 400 engineers and are hiring 100 more”. I don’t know if Uli’s records are public, but if you look at Korg, Roland, and Yamaha, they do not have even close to that many engineers working on music instruments. I don’t work for Moog or any of the companies above, and I agree that Moog keeps putting out the same thing. I am all for capitalism and competition. I am dead set against having somebody that has so much capital that they can afford to under cut their own costs in the music instrument market in order to drive their competition out. I am especially against it when Uli claims to be doing this for the little man. Uli can make what ever he wants, (especially with 400 to 500 engineers), and he can also afford to sell it at a price well below the costs of paying those 400 to 500 engineers to make it. $49 US is below the market rate for any of those engineers for even 1 hour, let alone what the hardware would cost if this is not going to be a software synth. However, I definitely take a huge offense to him claiming that he is making something as cheaply as possible to “enable musicians to pursue their musical dreams without financial obstacles”. That line is as slick as any speech I have heard by Trump’s speech writers.
          I bought a DM12. Good Klark-Teknik based effects. Decent synth sound. Very cheap hardware, but a step up from past Behringer products I have owned. If Behringer wants to inhabit the low end of the hardware synth market, that is cool. If he becomes the only manufacturer out there making synths, then heaven help us all. And, if he convinces us that he is making a quality product then shame on all of us for not looking at what we are buying.

          1. Korg has 290 employees (clearly not all engineers).

            Korg makes synths, and a few other things.

            Behringer makes almost every product one could use to successfully deploy an entire rig, from start to finish, in all of the following fields:

            Guitar, bass guitar, keyboards, live sound, studio sound, lighting, and signal products — and a few hundred other products.

            So Behringer’s size makes a lot of sense. Korg has specialized, Behringer has generalized.

            And Yamaha has 23,500 employees.

            Uli Behringer started out by hand making pianos and electronics. In fact, he got his start because he was too poor to buy mixing boards and other recording equipment, so he bought broken stuff and fixed it. Sounds like exactly the kind of person we should all strive to be.

            So what’s the problem? I’m confused.

            1. That is a conveniently redacted version of Behringer’s history. Considering that for years, Behringer was routinely the subject of legal action and lawsuits for copyright, design, and patent infringement, I would say we certainly needn’t all strive for Uli’s success.

              He has now reached a point, whereby he no longer needs to “borrow” design elements, yet I suppose he can’t help himself. I have owned two Midas digital mixers over the years, pre and post Behringer’s acquisition. Yet to cast this man as some sort of champion of democratising access, is naive at best and foolish at worst.

            2. That is a conveniently redacted version of Behringer’s history. Considering that for years, Behringer was routinely the subject of legal action and lawsuits for copyright, design, and patent infringement, I would say we certainly needn’t all strive to be like Uli.

              He has now reached a point, whereby he no longer needs to “borrow” design elements, yet I suppose he can’t help himself. I have owned two Midas digital mixers over the years, pre and post Behringer’s acquisition. Yet to cast this man as some sort of champion of democratising access, is naive at best and foolish at worst.

            3. yamaha has 23,500 empoyees and cant even make a decent new synth to save their lives…actually they even screwed up the copies of their own synths they tried to make.

              1. Well Yamaha isn’t just a music instrument company… they have a bunch of other departments their employees work in. And employees doesn’t equal engineers… there are usually way more people working in marketing/business departments compared to engineering.

          2. ” I am dead set against having somebody that has so much capital that they can afford to under cut their own costs in the music instrument market in order to drive their competition out.”

            “I bought a DM12.”

            “…shame on all of us for not looking at what we are buying.”

  2. If they can get the *exact sound* then I’m sure it will be financially successful. However, as soon as it’s stated as a clone it can be compared, and that invites point scoring critiques.

    Personally I feel more attracted to innovative products and don’t think we should be limited to what the components of 40 years ago could manage. EG: I like the way Arturia made their own niche with their Brute (driven) sounds, and I’m sure they sold plenty of that line.

    I had hoped Behringer might create a monosynth which allowed the engineers to express themselves in a more distinctive or unique way. Carve out their own personality.

    All that said, I’d buy a €299 Minimoog 😉

    1. So, you don’t think that Behringer should go backwards and recreate what has already been done but yet you want a Monosynth? Talking about stepping backwards. Do you play with one finger or something?

      1. Learn a little more about synthesis and you’ll understand why companies are still building monosynths, and why simple synths, without a lot of knobs, can make great polysynths.

    2. It will probably be more than 299eur, as in one post he mentioned that the original minimoog components were worth 200.

  3. I think that using the MiniMoog as a starting block would be a good idea. Then enhance it from there and make something new. Four oscillators? Oscillator sync? Etc. Things the MiniMoog doesn’t have.

    And for $49. LOL

    1. I don’t think the Minimoog Clone is the 49 dollar synth mentioned. They have a strategy, to have synths starting at that price… Probably something more like Monotron/Volca, or Teenage Engineering Pocket Operators.

      A minimoog Clone, will probably at the cheapest be 499, but they could easily charge a couple of hundred more, as Minimoogs are so sought after. They could probably go all the way up to 999 (as long as the it’s below 999 euros as well), if it is really close to the Minimoog in sound.

      1. it is behringer and I think you will most likely see it at 299-399 since they are looking at trying to minimally beat margins and if they can bring the component cost down you can go to around $250 in production cost

        1. You’re talking fantasyland if you think anybody’s going to make a $250 Minimoog.

          If they do this, expect it to cost around $1,000, like other cheaply made, mass-produced full-size synths.

          Don’t imagine that they could charge a fraction of the DM12’s price, since it’s one voice vs 12. The cost of an analog synth is not in the circuitry, it’s in the case, knobs, controls, etc.

    1. God lord you have bought into ULis blabber about some elites ruling the synth world, uli is like trump only in it for the mony, he made that clear in a post at gearslutz.

      1. So what if he is? He DOES bring cheap(er) stuff to people with less money so even they can make music. Who cares if he likes to make money while doing it.

  4. of course it’s a great idea and i’ll jump quickly on the bandwagon. as someone who has lived through and followed the development of keyboards and synths since the early 1970s, owning virtually every synth ever made, I have concluded that arguably there have been really only six truly innovative keyboard products in the entire electronic era: the Hammond organ (especially B3 with Leslie), Wurlitzer EP, Rhodes EP, Hohner Clavinet, Mellotron and the MiniMoog. all the rest, to some degree, are attempts at copying these and are basically variations on a theme. in fact, other than a handful of short-lived innovative sounds and instruments that would prove unable to stand the test of time — the DX7’s EPs and harmonicas, for instance — the entire history of the synth outside of the MiniMoog has not produced a single instrument of note. ask yourself if there’s a single instruments or sound on a modern keyboard that is playable like a guitar, bass, drums or one of the keyboards mentioned above — each of which has been around for at least 50 years or so.
    so while I am a huge fan of innovation, if you can’t beat em, join em. bring on the $300 MiniMoog clone.

    1. Polyphony?
      Patch storage?
      SEM filter?

      The Minimoog was a milestone, but there have been some other milestones, it’s just that they did not really get the attention they deserved, as they were released on to an existing and much wider market.

      I would love a Minimoog or really good clone, as they sound good, and there arent that many synths with 3 oscs or more.
      But it does have a lot of limitations in it’s sound palette. It’s good for what it does.
      But at the prices originals go for, I would say that they definately lack more than, they are good at what they do. But at a price were it can be part of a larger collection of synths to fill the gaps, it would be a great product.
      However the Behringer will most likely not look as good, and thus will not have a prominent spot in a collection. But in my opinioin even Moog had done synths that look better than the Model D, so it’s no tthe pinacle of synth design even in terms of look.

    2. Great comment Rob. What you describe are the stage instruments – geared toward live performance rather than production. Most modern synthesizers are production instruments more than live performance, hence the dumbing down of keyboard action, no aftertouch, inconsistent knobs and wheels, etc. The Minimoog stood alone as a performance-grade synthesizer when it appeared in the 70s. Today, Dave Smith is covering this space well with the new P6, which apparently has one of the best keyboard + controller actions currently on the market.

      I think Behringer’s challenge will be in delivering hardware solid enough to lure performing musicians to buy their products. As an analogy, for a keyboard player, riffing on a good performance synth should be like a guitarist riffing on their favorite American Strat.

  5. @uli: instead of hiring 100 more people, take that money and make eric persing of spectrasonics an offer to build together with your staff a synthesizer workstation w/ an ableton-like onboard sequencer plus lots of instances of omnisphere 2 inside. i would buy that board in a second.

  6. No matter how close it sounds to a Minimoog, the cork sniffers will lament. Just like they do with every software clone of every synth ever made. I applaud Behringer. But since I have 3 hardware synths and a gazillion software ones (including several Minimoog clones), I doubt I’ll be buying it.

    1. On the other hand, that is then great, if Moog can survive that way.

      Word like compact rack version. And looking at the DM12.
      I have a fear that it wont have good programming interface.
      If it does have a good programming interface, sounds good and is priced well, I would be interested as my issue with software is that it doesnt offer a good programming interface compared to well designed synths.

      (In the case of the DM12, the software is actually better for programming it than the hardware itself, so I’m not that interested, unless they release a 399 or less studio rack version, that is programmed in the software, but free up some resources in the computer as its outboard gear)

  7. Wouldn’t it be great though, if Behringer brought back many more classsics and priced them in the budget range? They should make a budget Prophet 5, OBX, Memorymoog, Jupiter 8, 2600, and more. It’s too bad those synths are no longer made, and the surviving ones go for thousands on Ebay. Almost every classic guitar (strat, tele, paul, sg, etc) are still manufactured. Why can’t we have the option of buying a brand new Jupiter 8 or Prophet 5? Behringer, I hereby charge you with this noble task! How do you respond?

      1. electronics have miniaturized and improved greatly in tolerance and cost – including manufacturing cost – since the 1980s.

        analog integrated circuits + surface mount discrete components + multi-layer circuit boards + volume = 8 or more beautiful analog voices in a compact form factor

        1. Using modern production methods does however produce a sound that has less of that character that people like from the classic analogs. But like on VAs, softsynths and the DM12 some of it can be brought back by emulating instabilities in the parameters and the OSCs.

          But I fear that Behringer would, like with the Juno-106 inspired DM12 cheap out on the control panel (it’s easier to program from the editor).
          And then I prefer good software because of the price advantage and often more flexibility.
          Unless they make it cheap enough that it’s only slightly more than softsynths, but still with a software editor (perhaps as a compact studio rack version), such a synth could be greatly usefull by freeing up a bit of extra resources in the computer. Then I could live with having to program it in the computer, just like a softsynth.

    1. A new, budget 2600 was something I was hoping Korg was going to produce, and I guess this could still be in the works. The TTSH project looked awesome but as a DIY it wasn’t my thing. So yeah, a plus 1 for a 2600 clone by Behringer.

    2. Vintage 70’s synthesizers cannot be ‘exactly’ replicated because they partially implemented electronic components that cannot be used today. Because they are forbidden, illegal. And this is true also with the original Moog Minimoog replica.

      1. The same is true for some of the woods in old classic guitars. But they still make modern versions of them. Plus, take for example a Fender Stratocaster. They have models available at price points from under $300 to above $3000. Though there are subtle differences in tone, the sound is essentially the same. With Behringer’s offerings, the synthesis now has similar options…at least for the minimoog so far. Again, I hope this is just the first in a long line of affordable recreations.

  8. Why can’t they focus instead on making innovative synthesizers that move the market forward, rather than being imitative and boring?

    1. It’s boring because you can’t play one and you need lots of knobs and parameters to change to cover up your lack of ability.

      1. Personal attacks deprive everyone a voice in the conversation. Just cause you don’t agree with Jeff, doesn’t give you the right to be insulting. IMO, there is room for retro remakes or clones and new ideas. iOS is a good example. Nice recreations of classic synths just like in the VST/Au markets and absolutely brand new takes utilizing the best aspects of the multitouch interface.

    2. You have the answer in Uli’s own statement. They need to sell loads of units to keep prices low, that’s why they always choose safer options. Looking for innovations? Search elsewhere.

    3. I’m kind of hoping that they are just covering market bases… first something n demand and innovative, then something classic, then something totally original for bedroom producers around $300 to 500 that is more about fun and the future. As a bedroom producer with lots of computer software to mak3 just about anything i want anyway I’m looking for something the that fits on my desk , bring me something unique with sound creation, and is fun to use

    4. It’s hard to be innovative when it comes to synthesizers.
      It has to be managable, and the features added needs to be usefull for sculpting sounds that are usefull in a broad term.
      The Minimmoog did lack some features that many other synhts today has. But most of those additions that were usefull are still from at the latest the early eighties, so adding those would still have people saying that it’s not innovative.
      Minimoog still is a really good synth at what it does.

      On the other hand, we don’t know what Behringer will do with this “clone”. The Juno-106 replica they were working on, became the Deepmind 12, and those synhts are very different (dissapointingly, they took away one of the best thing about the Juno-106; it’s programming interface).

  9. I get the name recognition of the minimoog, but why not clone something that’s not widely available?

    I suggest synthi/vcs3.

    1. Mini moog is not widely awailable at decent price. VCS is awailable. You can order one any time if you have deep pockets just like mini.

    2. Potential market.
      The VCS3, is a bit of an oddball.
      A good Minimoog clone, would have more people paying interest in what Behringer will be doing next. That would open up for them to take on less well known synths after that.

      There are some classic synths that I would love to own, or improved versions of them. Minimoog is definately one of them. But the prices Minimoog goes for I would have liked it to be more feature rich. So a much cheaper really good clone, would be interesting for me. I would like it even more if they added some things I feel the Minimoog is missing, as long as that doesn’t take away from beeing able to get those Minimoog sounds, and for such a product I would be willing to pay more.

  10. With DeepMind 12, they kind of did what I would have requested, which is a Juno 106 with velocity.

    I really like the Moog sound, but I don’t think I’d really need or want a Behringer clone (that’s just me). As @Anstrom said, it would be more interesting to see Behringer do some innovating– and put something out that was both useful, versatile, and new– while trying to keep their quality & durability as high as possible.

    I’d like to see a new acoustic modeling instrument using today’s processor speeds.

    I’d also like to see a compact drum machine with trigger inputs, velocity layers, good DSP, and very large flash ROM for user samples.

  11. Everyone needs to get off the analogue train and put out a total digital powerhouse for cheap, something with 6 vco’s 4 lfo’s multiple vcfs

  12. I think a lot of what makes a Minimoog attractive is the build quality and physical presence of the synth. The space on the front panel, size of the knobs, the mods wheels…all of that contributes to the synth.

    If they clone it, it would have to be large and pretty similar. A clone the size of a Microbrute probably won’t cut it….but that is likely where they are aiming.

  13. Personally, hell yeah Uli!!! Working musicians need options too. When Moog decided to sell $10,000 to $50000 modular units instead of doing individual affordable eurorack stuff, I lost hope of ever having a sweet true Moog modular. To me, Mother was a bone thrown to us lowly musicians while the true machines are made for celebrities and hedge fund managers.

  14. We are living in the Golden Age of Synthesizers and I look forward to the future. Uli is a pioneer that’s lowering the branch that holds the apple that’s been out of our reach for so very long!

      1. Bob Moog was a pioneer. Don Buchla was a pioneer. Tatao Kikumoto was a pioneer. John Chowning was a pioneer. Wolfgang Palm was a pioneer.
        Uli Behringer makes copies of what other companies but loads of time, resources and hard work to develop.
        Uli is NOT a pioneer.

        1. I partly agree. But if someone is able to bring back the classics with modern production methods to produce at a larger scale and at a much lower price that is a major step forward.
          And if the classics can be reproduced, that opens up for improving on the past.

          Sure, with modern production methods there will probably be the need for digital control, to allow for emulating instabilities in the parameters and OSC.

          But I wasn’t convinced by the Deepmind 12.
          Compared to the Juno-106 they started out with, they completely lost the programming interface.
          And it’s not cheap enough to be seen as a software/hardware hybrid, where the Editor provides the real programming interface, and the hardware freeing up CPU resources.
          (If there is enough storage and CPU in there to add Hammond emulations, piano and string samples, and perhaps digital synthesis, it could be a cool stage keyboard)

          So Uli still has to prove himself, in my eyes.

          That guy with Shear Electronics and the Relic-6 at Namm, is at this point ahead in my book.

  15. I hated the sound of the DM12 and sent it back. It was covered up in effects and sounded very compressed. However, if they build a budget minimoog that sounds like a model D and not like a Voyager, then I will likely buy one, if it is cheap, I mean, why not? I would love for it to have memory for patch storage though.

    1. Well I hope you gave it more of a chance than a quick browsing of presets. It is a fact-of-life that factory presets are bathed in reverb & delays and often don’t get to what we need, right out of the box.

      You probably did spend some time editing it and making your own presets to cut out the reverb, get some more punchy, uncompressed sounds, and either didn’t like what you heard, or hated the workflow.

      I decided to pass on the DM12 and got Synapse’s Dune 2 instead. It’s obviously not an Apples-to-Apples thing, but I wanted snappy envelopes, and nice oscillators. Maybe down the road I’d get a DM12, but I won’t expect the factory presets to scratch my every itch.

    2. As long as it has a good programming hardware interface I’m not against it having storage.
      But the DM12 completely lost the programming interface from the Juno-106 they started out with.

  16. If they want to make a Model D clone and sell it for less than 1000$ they’re gonna have to cut a lot of corners. But the more choice we have, the better!

          1. Yep, that’s right. I’ve been in the factory and seen it done. On another note, someone working there told me the little Moog pedals are 100% Chinese, at least when they started producing… idea if that’s still the case.

  17. I would love a minimoog at afortable price with eurorack capabilities . that sounds awsome , looking foreward for behringer synths

  18. I like this idea, thank you Uli!

    As long as you can keep the Minimoog “sound character” else I think many people would ignore this product.

    Important for me:
    1. Patch memory. (Where you can turn it on/off as option for free patch circuit)
    2. Midi in/out including full midi implementation.
    3. Poly/mono option (Where you can turn it on/off)

    1. 3. I don’t agree. I would love a Polyphonic version of the Minimoog, but I prefer if they start out with a monophonic one. A polyphonic version would be quite expensive, or they would have to change so much that it would be quite far away from the original.

  19. Uli is right in every way. I couldn’t afford making music if there weren’t cheap products like Behringer produces, or even Waldorf with its Streichfett or Rocket.

  20. Yawn. A marketing misstep, if you ask me. They have a chance to build an identity for themselves. Instead, they are typecasting themselves as a knock-off manufacturer. I do not think a model d knock off is going to be very useful for the musician building her or his studio. I own both a DM12 and a Model D. Given the sound quality of the DM12, I think it is suspect that they will be able to replicate the Model D. I held onto the DM12, because when you misuse it, it goes to strange and unique places. I was hoping Behringer would have more vision and be a bit more innovative. This announcement is disappointing, because it is so….boring. Instead, it wreaks of arrogance and ego wrapped in good intention.

    1. Um, they have always been a knock off manufacturer. They have cloned just about every old boss pedal and various rack mount units and been sued countless times…

    2. The DM12 has it’s sound based on the Juno-106, not a classic Moog, so it’s not really fair to judge any upcoming Minimoog clone on the DM12 sound.
      Hardware synths is not the most cost efficient way of building a studio. But Behringer is not the ones to blame if a lot of people think hardware is the only way to go.

      The Minimoog is not the most feature packed synth out there. But it is still a good synth.
      It’s simplicity makes it harder to get a grasp on, compared to many other synhts.
      Also many bass players uses Moog, and for that use the somewhat limited synth architecture isn’t that much of an issue. And neither is the fact it is monophonic. But as a non bass player I would really like a Minimoog, even if I would prefer it, if it had a bit more features compared to the original and the re-issue, but if those additions would drive the price up too much, or if it would mean that it would not be able to also to the orignal Minimoog sound I would prefer them to keep it simple.
      Also a clone of the original, with no additions, if the sound is right, it could still be an important proof of achievement for Behringer.
      If they are able to reproduce a classic with modern production methods as a much lower price, that is a major step forward.

      But I’m definately not sure Behringer will be able to pull this off.
      If they do, I would be highly interested and I think there is enough innovation in beeingle able to do a classic for a much lower price.

    3. Let Uli go wild. He’s giving us analog creations for low prices! Now that Tats has left Korg, Uli can carry the torch.

  21. The “cloned” minimoog shoul simply enhance the design and erase the design weaknesses:
    – modulation sources for Cutoff should be tweakable and REVERSIBLE (env & keyb)
    – OSC should be syncable
    – i’d add 2 LFOs, and have both go up to audio frequencies
    etc etc etc

    i’d build a system700/Arp2600 on a minimoog-basis: 3oscs/2lfo/1filter(maybe w switchable alt.)/2env/noise…i wouldnt make it all a big deal and a big fuzz. it just has to sound good!! Sorry ALL DSI oscs sound totally boring! The new minimoog DOES sound good!

    However, Uli, CALL ME, and we’ll work out a sensational synth, very easy to use, very flexible and very good sounding! And we won’t make it DEAD cheap, but reasonable! Thanks for reading

  22. Please no patch memory and no layers of functions accessible via menus.. Would not want to pay for that. Not for FX either. If you want to stray from the original design, include a few switches for additional routing and modulation possibilities instead.

    Was initially curious about the DeepMind 12, but having seen (and to some extent heard) what it became I haven’t even bothered trying one out.

    Stay simple if you’re going to make attractive budget synthesizers.

    1. I have no problem with patch memory, as long as the front panel has every parameter on there, so it can have a “manual” mode.
      Yes there are some things they could improve on the original, as long as they keep it simple. The Juno-106 turning in to the Deepmind 12 got way out of hand, completely losing the programming interface.

      I also have issues with the Deepmind 12.
      If they made a 399 studio rack, as a hardware/software hybrid soulution, that is programmed by a VST, frees up the CPU for other tasks compared to running modulations of an instrument, I would be kind of interested.
      If they come up with a way to add Hammond emulation and adding piano and string samples and perhaps digital synthersis on it in the DSP section, it could probably be a nice stage keyboard however (but I’m not really looking for that, as I’m not a live player).
      But as it is now I would rather buy a collection of softsynths and a good controller for the same price.

      If Behringer could clone the CS-80 with polyphonic aftertouch at least via Midi, for 3000 or less, I would forgive them for going outside the budget segment, however. (a non budget Memorymoog, would probably be interesting as well, or another synth in the same kind of league as those)

  23. More then anything I feel this as extremely disrespectful towards the man and the company (Moog) they owe a big part of their existance to. Earning money without moral is no longer accepted.

    1. There’s nothing immoral here. He went out of his way to explain that. He’s not trying to pass his product off as a real Moog (counterfeit). He’s just using the circuit. Have you ever taken a generic drug? Was that immoral?

    2. I dont think Bob Moog would have been against the idea of a great synth for the masses.
      Moog did start the design of the Phatty range.
      Having the Moog brand go away again would be a loss. On the other hand, if all that makes their instruments premium is the brand and the designed and assembled in US, perhaps that is not the correct business model for todays world. But I respect Moog alot for assembling in the US instead of producing in china just to have as high margins as possible, the way Apple does things, but I prefer if companies does their best to offer the best value for customers.

    3. But….it’s extremely disrespectful of Moog to severely overprice the Model D reissue just because of people like you who idolize them and are willing to pay $4k for an item that costs $400 to make. If Moog were less greedy, they wouldn’t be targets for Uli.

  24. Uli is a leech. Instead of trying to come up with something new he simply copies some others work. It´s easy for him to claim he’s doing it for all poor musicians out there but in reality he just might put some other vendor out of business and steal their job. By referring to a particular synth model he’s targeting that company.

    “In case of the MiniMoog there is no IP (Intellectual Property) involved as the technology is more than 40 years old and all patents have long expired. As a result, the property is now in the public domain, free for everyone to use.”

    Uli wants your OK to proceed. That’s the reason why he invites you to participate and even apply for a job at his company. This is how he establish a picture of him being on your side.

    “Our primary customer is not the well-off doctor or lawyer, but the people with much less income. I was a struggling musician myself when I started my business 30 years ago and I made it my mission in life to enable musicians to pursue their musical dreams without financial obstacles.”

    Uli is not a good guy even if he thinks that about himself. Uli is greed personified and the reason he does this is to earn more money. Don’t fool yourself thinking he’s doing this for you, for some greater good, or for the art of music. Even though he is referring to old technology and obsolete patents, he’s still a copycat just trying to clear his conscience.

    1. There are literally hundreds of companies making guitars the same size, shape, and pickup configuration as a Fender Strat. And many musicians who could not afford an American Strat, or who just dont want to pay through the nose for the same thing, benefit from these choices. Heck, some of those guitars are even better quality than the name brand. And those companies making clones provide jobs. Are you outraged about that too?

    2. What is wrong with copying? People copy great instruments (stradivarius, les paul, etc.) all the time and it is us musicians who benefit! Behringer is right: patents in the modern world exist not to permanently enrich inventors or kings but rather to enrich the public domain – imagine if all cars had to be licensed from Ford, computers from IBM, or vacuums from Hoover (though probably none of these companies “invented” their respective categories even.)

    3. Apple produe cheaply to get high profit margins.
      Behringers produce cheaply to sell cheaper products so that their market is people that could otherwise not affoard of defend that type of investment that buying other brands would mean.

      He needs to make money, otherwise he could never expand, never invest in R&D to be able to come up with ways to make things cheaper that other brands.
      I don’t know how rich Uli is. Many of us would like to be quite rich. If we could do that, while giving more people access to product that can help their creativity and perhaps enrich other peoples lives by beeing able to share their creations, wouldn’t that be great?

      Patents are great for giving inventors the time to get a head start. But often other people get the same ideas, and their development get hindered by patents by others. Or they get ideas on how to improve products, but they can’t go on with that, as the product is protected by patents.
      I still like patents, but after a certain number of years, it would be better if others could have a go at it.
      And even when there is a patent holder I feel like anyone should be able to license any patented technology.
      That way there would be less patent trolls, and large companies would not have as much power in court.

      In this case the patents are no longer valid, so it absolutely fair that Behringer gets to get a go at it. Their product will also be different, because they will produce it differently to the original, and the design will most likely differ.

      But juding by the Deepmind 12, Behringer still has a lot to prove to me.

  25. I have the Model D reissue and the existence of this wouldn’t have changed my decision to buy it. I’ve no problem with this, but the Model D reissue wasn’t aimed at everyone. It was aimed at people who wanted a real Model D and could afford the price, which still remains less than a vintage one. So I don’t think this will impact hugely on Moogs sales of the reissue.

    I think it’s a foregone conclusion this won’t look particularly good if the aesthetics of the Deepmind are anything to do by. And it won’t feel as good because it’ll be done on the cheap. But I’m sure itll sound good and that’s all you can really expect. I’d like to see Beringhers version in an entirely different form, maybe as eurorack or in a Minibrute size form.

    However I would much prefer to see them reissue synths that are more elusive, such as the OSCar. I’d buy that in a heartbeat, thought I can’t imagine if they did it they’d recreate its magnificent looks.

    1. In todays world I don’t feel a Behringer Minimoog would hurt Moog that much, since there are so many other much cheaper synhts out there. So those that can not motivate paying the price of the Model D had probably already gotten other synhts, and are not saving up for the Model D.

      A Minimoog clone does make sense, as is one of the synths that would get most publicity.
      If they get things up and running from there, they could move on to less known synhts.
      The Moog brand is also pretty well known among bass players. There are lots of bass players using Moogs on stage.
      The OSCar would mostly get attention from synth geeks.

      Wasp, Cat. Perhaps Crumar Spirit and Teisco (kawai) Synthesizer 110F are other synths that would be nice to see recreated
      The Teisco (Kawai) SX-400 seems interesting as well, it’s a Poly.
      The Mono/Poly as well if Korg doesn’t do that one.

      DSI already has the Prophet-6, behriner could probably undercut their price, but not enough for it to be worth it.

      Higher up in the pricerange, a CS-80 “clone”, with polyphonic aftertouch at least over midi, and the Memorymoog could be interesting products as well. But they would never be budget devices.

  26. Behringer will fail in the synthesizer market. Period. The vintage hype will end before Uli announces his first prototype of the Minimoog-Clone. Another hype comes. In history, the DX 7 ends the analog era for 15 years. Let’s see what’s the next big thing in electronic instruments. The Minimoog clone (and any other) isn’t …

    1. Products like the DM12 that lacks proper programming interface, might very well kill the hardware hype that is going on right now.

      But it has been proven that it’s really hard to come up with a synthesis method that is managable that is different to the classis subtractive synthesis.

      FM, is too hard to program. And synths were at first ways to make acoustic instruments synthesized, the DX-7 did it cheaper and with a wider palette compared to subratcive synths. But as a synthy synth to create sounds on, it never took over.
      And subtractive synths there days are not used to synthesize acoustic instruments, samples does that.

      Physical modelling, another technology to synthesize acoutsic instruments. But way to complex to be used for creating synty stuff from the base. Best used today to dream up products (a bowed instrument the size of a grand piano, or a piano with metall hammers, and so on), it still has a bit to go, to really emulate acoustic instruments.

      Granular seems mostly like a method to change sounds in to something beyond recognition, a far fetched method of creating a new type of synthesis.

      Software has the upper hand in terms of pricing. And the Deepmind 12 has an editor that is easier to use than the instrument itself. And in terms of sound the deepmind 12 doesnt really have an upper hand over softsynths.

      But if synths are done right, with good programming, there will continue to be a market among synth entusiasts and live players.

  27. Well, maybe we should hold our horses for just a moment. A Behringer Model D isn’t absolutely a done deal yet.
    This is the end of the quote posted on Gearslutz. (The first part was prologue about patents and affordablity):

    “Perhaps this synth is a great little project to demonstrate how the design process works and I am happy to involve you in the development.
    Since the development has been done 40 years ago, it is a rather minimal engineering effort and once we have a working prototype and a projected price, we can then decide whether we will bring this product to market or not.

    Someone here in the forum had a great idea to pack this synth into a compact Eurorack format and this coincides with some of our engineers’ ideas. I will have our designers to come up with a quick design draft for you to comment on.



    1. I would certainly buy a cheap, compact, analog minimoog clone in modular factor (although I’d prefer a desktop module). As long as it has presets… (it wouldn’t be a clone then, right?)

  28. AJH synth already do a cheaper eurorack model d with their minimod series. A full model d clone is £1350. Not cheap but not £3500

  29. Well,it seems they are following the route of their guitar pedals. A bit boring, you know? But,nonetheless,it may be,at the same time,interesting: more gear with less income.

    1. But in this case, it would be making the Minimoog in to a mass production product.
      Their Boss “clones” are based on what already is a mass market production product.

      If they can, and are able to expand it to cover other classic synts, it is a promising move.

  30. Well, as was stated, Behringer’s primary customer is not someone that can afford a Model D. If they go thru with building this Minimoog clone, they may well sell a good many to younger musicians that just don’t have the current financial resource for a true Model D. Musicians and artists in general work with the tools the can either afford, or somehow otherwise gain access too. I will recommend to Behringer that they make this either a rackmount or a desktop synth (sans keyboard). There are plenty of inexpensive controllers out there already.
    Of course the Plug-in and app market already has many Minimoog clones, so if they don’t either really make it sound convincing, or bring some new & unique twists to it, they may quickly fail with this product line.

  31. If they can get the sound right then by all means, I would be interested in buying a minimoog clone. I love the sound of the minimoog, but not the price. I agree, yes an Arp 2600 clone would really be something to go after.

  32. I was very moved by Uli Behringer’s recent interview. Mainly when he spoke of his father and his wish to make a synth in respect of him. As a kid he made a synth and lost it but kept the spirit in him to produce Deepmind 12. From the first note held down I knew it was something special, it really does live up to it’s name. I am very much looking forward to their take on the Minimoog. I hope Behringer give us back all those legendary synths again!
    Lee Simeone 5-3-17

  33. We appreciate having cheaper gear…………………who doesn’t
    It’s tough though…………..Moog is so respected……….and has spent many years building up their reputation.
    I think Behringer need to inspire again.
    The late 90s were an exciting time – remember when the Supernova, CS6x…Prophecy, JP8000 came out…….the future seemed to arrive. All the synths had their own quirks and sound. It’s time to be bold!
    Maybe they should set a competition for someone to design one and get the creative juices flowing again. I always thought the Venom was quite a good synth…….something like that

  34. There have been so many soft- and hardware clones of the minimoog in the last years – do we really need another one?
    I would prefer a cheap remake of the Alesis Andromeda …..

    1. How many hardware clones with great programming interfaces have we seen?
      If it has a good programming interface and the sound is right, I absolutely think there is a market.

      But sure there is a market for more polyphonic synths as well.

  35. Building clones can either be seen as disrespect or as a tribute to. It’s all down to ones personal opinion and both views are valid.

    When it comes to sound it is important to remember that no minimoog sounds exactly like any other minimoog. Age, choise of components (the original had some revs), temperature etc.. Only digital synthesizers can sound 100% identical across the production line. It is – in fact – one of the good things about analogue synthesizers. If Behringer manages to build a good clone it’s fine with me. Instead of comparing it to an original minimoog I would choose to compare it to stuff like my Studio Electronics ATC1 and similar knock offs.

    I do not think adding fx will make it very much pricier. Behringer uses the much of the same software in the digital mixers etc.. i.e. not much research and development needed for that stuff. Patch-memory is usefull – though the problem with it is the fact that it also means a synth will come with a lot of presets. Often we hear people evaluating their synthesizers by it’s presets. Sort of silly if you ask me. However – Me – I don’t like to delete all presets (they may come in handy one day) – but I never use them.

    1. I think they should skip the FX section.
      The Deepmind 12, went from an easy to program Juno-106 in to a really hard to program synth that is easier to use with an editor.
      There is a risk they would yet again be tempted to integrate the synths with the FX and thus stray away from the easy to program interface of the Minimoog.

      Memories, in my mind, only if they have full control on the front panel, in combination with a manual mode.

  36. They will sell orders of magnitude more of these clones than Moog sells of the original. I’ve been saying for years that Moog is playing a dangerous game by staying elite, and here is the tipping point that will take the game completely out of their hands.

    1. Moog synths start at $600. That’s hardly “elite.”

      The reality is that it’s expensive to make instruments in the USA, and a lot of the cost in the higher-end Moogs is labor.

      1. You know what I mean by “elite”. You pay a lot for the Moog name on that case, and you know it. If you could get even halfway comparable gear without the legend tax, it would still be a great synth since they set the bar so high. But if you want to dig in and have brand loyalty, go ahead… maybe read up on how economics of markets actually work while you are doing that.

  37. There’s a market for everything. Don’t worry. Everyone will make money.

    They took the DM12 well beyond a 106 clone. We’ll see where this goes.

  38. I just bought a korg monologue and love it. It’s better than a mother 32 or minitaur IMO and Moog should be embarrassed at what other companies are doing for the money as you are literally paying hundreds of dollars for the name. Not being off topic, but the point is to endorse the idea. I like that it is being upfront about what it is. I think it would be great in a desktop though, i need space for all this hardware and dont’t actaully use the keyboarda anyway.

    1. It’s true the Monolgue is ferociously apt. I hope they put a 64 step sequencer on this new Mini Moog clone and allow us to turn quantization OFF. Funk. Nudge city man. Uli ! if you read this please consider adding a sequencer to it for real for real.

    2. Moog 32 is priced quite closely to other similar products from other well known brands.
      The Minitaur I feel isn’t that far of in price compared to other stuff that were released at the same time. Is just a shame that they limited the OSCs so its a bass synth only. As a bass synth it seems nice, but that OSC restriction makes me less interested.

      Sub phatty is priced pretty well as well.

      Sub 37 is perhaps getting a bit expensive for what it is, but it’s about the same price as the Dominion 1, so it’s unfair to complain.

      The Model D however feels overpriced for what one gets.
      I think even Moog could have made an Model D like synth with 3 OSCs for below 2000. The sub 37 is so much more interesting in terms of features.

  39. Oh give it a rest with the respect for Bob Moog. He was a business man. He got it right by banging a keyboard under his module. Buchla might have done it first and Uli would all be making Buchla copies.
    The biggest problem from a musical instrument stance is,
    the MiniMoog only really makes one decent sound anyway. (Owner)
    God help Uli if he did build Arp 2600 knockoff.
    I think Synthtopia’s web site would burst at the seams from people moaning about China, minimum wage, and IP.

    1. Moog is a more well known brand than ARP.
      Many bass players use Moog synths on stage.

      A good Minimoog clone would probably generate more buzz than a clone of any other synth, outside of synth entusiasts filterbubble.

  40. I’m interest d if they open up the patch points and turn it into a eurorack synth like Uli alludes to in the bottom of his post.

  41. Minimoog is nice. But a new flavor of analog (like Arturia and some other small boutique synths brought to the table) would be nice. Maybe a Minimoog with one or two extra cool new filters?

  42. here we go more comment wars over behringer
    yet hard to find a studio that doesn’t have a piece of gear from them

  43. Lets be clear. The venerable MiniMoog, for all of its historical glory, is an inferior instrument. It is not particularly versatile, having no dedicated LFOs and only limited envelope generators. It has highly restrictive modulation routing, no logic capabilities, no memory, audio routing or effects. Its almost as bare-bones a synthesizer as there can possibly be.

    So …if Behringer is going to make a knock-off, I think they should raise the bar a bit. Add a few things that the original Moog product does not have. Maybe a sample & hold or some effects or an improved audio and/or modulation routing capability. But then again, to do so would mean such a product would not be a “MiniMoog clone” at all, wouldn’t it. But if Behringer is simply interested in cashing in on the retro-synth fad, then hey …what the heck, go for it Big B. Heck, I might even want one just for the hell of it.

    1. Yes the minimoog is limited.
      But it is probably the synth that would raise most interest outside synth entusiast realm, as Moog is also often used by bass players.

      I would love to have a minimoog or a really good clone.
      If Behringer can prove that they can mass produce a cheap clone of the Minimoog, that would raise a lot of confident for the brand, and people would be more curious to see what they will do next.

      An expanded Minimoog would be even better, as long as they don’t get distracted like they did when they turned the easy to manually program Juno-106 in to the Deepmind 12. And perhaps that is another reason for going for the Minimoog, to show that they can do something that is as bare as possible, without adding a lot of extra stuff.

      Perhaps the best option would be looking at Moog, and do an Old School version, and a version called Extended or Rev or something.

  44. A Minimoog clone? Please don’t!
    Give us a four osc (continuosly variable waveshape, with sine waves of course) + noise mono with osc waveshape, ringmod, sync, crossmod, fm between oscs, filter fm, pre and post filter drive, four loopable envelopes with adjustable curves, 3 lfos (audiorate), extensive modulation capabilities (semimodular?), two multimode filters (one with a separation control like the oscar) with serial, parallel and split configurations, phaser and chorus…..

    1. I would love that.
      But with a really good Minimoog clone to prove themself among synthheads and bass players, could open up for more products in the future.
      But such a product would probably land above 999.
      And for a good Minimoog clone with a good interface (with or without keyboard) I would be willing to pay at least 799, and they could probably have me interested in the synth you describe even after that purchase.

  45. First they will hint that it will be several hurdreds less, than everyone thinks to get everyones attention.
    Then they will hint, that it will be even better, than anyone first believed.

    Every one will love them.

    Then they will announce the price, which will be slightly more, than anyone was hoping for.
    Ultimately it will prove to be slightly inferior, than everyone expected.

    But the demand will still be so huge, that it will be sold out, and they will raise the price by $200.

  46. I think Uli should do whatever he damn well pleases with his company. The DM12 was a success (even with the dumb name). If Behringer can produce a quality product at an affordable price, more power to them. I think it’s funny how many people on here are calling him out and spitting on his name. There’s so much elitism in the synth community. And, really, no one cares. At the end of the day, the synth will speak for itself, and the market will decide. It’s like the Amstrad CPC; people remember it for its content, not for being a Sinclair ZX Spectrum clone.

  47. Meh. Same tricks as ever. Boss pedals or Mackie mixers anyone?

    All that money. All that creative talent. All of that manufacturing infrastructure. Make something interesting FFS.

    1. Boss pedals = mass market product, perhaps a bit booring to be cloned. But they still managed to undercut boss prices with a huge margin.

      Minimoog = low volume product. Beeing able to turn it in to a mass produced product as a much lower price is quite the achievement.
      And see it as another demonstration from Behringer, that will speak of products to come.
      The Minimoog product name will raise a lot of interest, even outside the synth entusiast crowd, and have more people looking at what Behringer will do next.

      I actually find it quite interesting.
      Sure innovation sounds interesting, but as we can see from experiments carried out in the synth world, many things become un-managable and or result in sounds that are pretty atonal and not of that much use for “melodic” music.

  48. Synthtopia: Give us cheap analog! We demand analog! Cheap!
    Uli: OK, here’s a cheap 12 voice analog polysynth. How about a Minimoog clone?
    Synthtopia: We weren’t talking to you Behringer!

  49. Maybe Eurorack PLUS Eurorack keyboard like the Waldorf one, with room for two Eurorack “Minis” (and/or future Behringer modules).

  50. Uli built his company with money he got from stealing other companies productdesigns. That would be Roland, Dbx, Aphex, Mackie, Drawmer, Peavey, BBE, Genelec and probably a few more. In some cases Uli got fined and in some other cases he got away with stealing. It is of course difficult to get justice from a company that does all the manufacturing and business from China and that is why he often gets away with his methods of doing business. The future will be more copies and more consolidating of hardworking European and American companies.
    He does’nt have a passion for the poor musician or for any poor people.
    He has a passion for $$$.
    Personally i will never ever buy a Uli Behringer product again, but everyone decides for them selves.
    Have fun with your cheap lowquality deepminds and Uliboogs.

    1. Behringer is sold through official channels outside of china.
      If they were inflicting on IP/Patents, the companies that held the right could simply have them banned, so that they could not be sold outside of china.

      So the products are fully leagal.

      And many of the companies you mention are producing stuff in china and the ones that are “produced” somehere else still has chinese components inside, and they are simply assembled outside of china, and not really produded outside of china.

      1. “simply have them banned”?? Really?
        Is it possible to belive that it is that simple to pursue a legal case against a chinese based company or agains any company without taking a huge financial risk?
        Is that was geardeveloping should be all about? isn’t it about developing instruments and musicgear? but hey, it’s obviously possible to argue that the copies is prefered more than the real thing.
        It’s like prefering this $3000 Lamborghini rather than the real and slighty more expensive original one.
        Obviously it is a knock off copy of something that someone else has developed and the lower purchaseprice also mirrors the quality of components and labour put in to it.
        The copy Lamborghini is not totaly uncomparable but it’s quite far from the real thing. And just as with the fake Lamborgini, it does’nt take an superexpert to spot the difference eventhough a handfull will think it’s just as good. Most people that have owned and used Behringermixers and guitarpedals can and will confirm that the issues with Behringer products is not just a simple rumour.
        Uli Behringer and his growing crowd of fans might be on to something but i still wont buy any of it.
        Imho it’s theft and piracy to make money the way he does but again.

        It’s a free world and everyone decides for them selfs or they can simply get banned. Right? Right!

  51. I’m already getting ready to throw my hard earned cash at Uli. He’s certainly caught on to what the market really wants…

  52. Uli keeps cost down by doing what he’s always done, stealing other peoples ideas, inventions and designs. You can sugar coat it all you want, rationalize, justify, and say he’s breaking no laws but the bottom line is a thief is a thief. I don’t trust him for that reason and refuse to support him by giving him not one dime of my money !!!

    1. Something that is in the public domain can not be stolen.
      Being inspired by other products is something that pretty much every companie in extistense today have done.

      Beeing able to lower the cost substantially on something like the Minimoog is innovation.

      Many companies produce products in china or use componets produced in china. Some do this to increase their marings (here Apple is an prime example), some do it to lower costs, Behringer is one such example, but there are many others,

  53. To all the Moog haters on here….. do you hate them because you want one and can’t afford or what ??? They are not made for everyone, if you don’t like it don’t buy it. They are made in USA, built like a tank and sound fantastic. So please don’t show your lack of knowledge by stating things about MOOG that aren’t even close to being true statements. Don’t call them inferior because they lack features newer products have, when depending on what you are doing, you don’t even need those extras you brag about, The bottom line with a MOOG is the sound you either love it or not. If not, get you a cheap ripoff synth and go on about your business. If you don’t care for the sound move on, they didn’t build it for you. Oh and by the way, MOOG builds some the best quality synths in the world !!!

    1. The reason I can afford a moog is because I am smart with my money. I love how guys like you always attack people as not having money when you overpay for something. Its all about value both real and perceived. The last good thing moog did was the voyager and since then they’ve been trying to sell cheaper stripped-down versions of the viyager. I don’t care what their business model is- I hope theyre succesful and make money I just don’t want to subsidize them. If I seem harsh its because I used to be a big moog fan – owning one was on my teen age bucket list, but I have been very underwhelmed by their lack of creativity and value for the money.

  54. I want to see them clone some underappreciated synths like the cz101, ensoniq esq1, etc and make them with modern hardware compatibility, more compact and cheaper – probably improved filters, effects and such too….

    1. There is a softsynth that does the Caio sound, and it hase had praise in a lot of reviews.

      ESQ-1 is a hybrid and there aren’t that many of them.
      I would love to see some external filters with multiple signal chains, so they could be used with instruments with individual outputs and with computers with interfaces with multiple outs. I think a product like that would be more usefull than a hardware hybrid synth. But pretty much only the prophet 12 as the only polyphonic hybrid on the market is a bit of a shame.

  55. In Other News:

    Korean car manufacturer, KIA announced plans to release a replica of the Porsche 911 -at a fraction of the cost!!!

  56. Whatever you may think of Behringer’s marketing and product development strategies, Uli is absolutely right in pointing out that the patented inventions that are part of the Minimoog design are in the public domain now that the patents have expired. Indeed, that is the whole point of the patent process: a patent grants the manufacturer the right to exclusiveness in exchange for forgoing that exclusiveness once the patent runs out.

    That said I agree it is morally questionable to make a clone (without permission from the original manufacturer). In the case of the Minimoog though, I don’t think it will hurt Moog’s sales at all, those that want the original and feel it is worth the investment will either purchase a vintage instrument or the new remade version from the same company. For the rest of the market, they will either buy the MiniBehringer or something else, but they will probably never fork out for an original Minimoog anyway.

    1. If it has the Moog logo, they should certainly license it (as I believe Arturia did for a while when they were using the Moog branding for their Minimoog V soft synth. Come to think of it, the primary complaint here about soft synth emulations of classic instruments seems to be “real hardware sounds better” and not “those filthy pirates/thieves!” Though “do something original” is a complaint that is leveled against soft synth clones as well.)

      If the Moog logo or branding isn’t used, and if the patents (perhaps including patents on the internals and functions as well as the industrial design of the exterior) have expired, then as you note the patent system is working as intended: allowing anyone to create – and sell – cheap copies, without requiring any royalties or licensing, as soon as the original inventor’s monopoly has expired.

      Some exteriors are so distinctive that they are trade marks (Coke bottles being an example) that never expire, though I’m pretty sure that doesn’t apply to the Minimoog or to most musical instrument designs (and if it did, the public domain would be poorer for it.)

  57. Rob, I’ll add that every single instrument on your list is mechanical under the hood, save the Minimoog which was unique in being the first fully electronic performance instrument. DX7 qualifies too imho, as it introduced FM which was the first serious alternative to subtractive synthesis. Kawai later tried to market additive in the K5000. For Behringer to truly innovate would require them developing or integrating a new synthesis paradigm. Recall that the DX7 came from Stanford University research; Yamaha got manufacturing rights after U.S. Manufacturer Allen turned it down.

  58. I think some other early “serious alternatives” to subtractive synthesis include additive, wavetable, sampling, granular, etc. – they all date back to synth antiquity, and sampling and wavetable saw great success in the DX7 era. Notably, digital sampling on the Emulator/Fairlight/Synclavier/LinnDrum/etc. was a “serious alternative” to subtractive synthesis before and contemporaneous with FM on the DX7, as was additive resynthesis (a particularly great feature in instruments like the Synclavier and CMI – why don’t more modern samplers have resynthesis?)

    Of course, shortly after Yamaha shipped the DX7, Casio introduced their brilliant and cheap Phase Distortion synths to the musical masses. I use PD in Thor and various soft synths, but I still miss those multi-stage CZ envelopes – ADSR is a pale imitation!

  59. No cheap tat for me. Either I get the real thing or nothing at all. But NOT a tatty fake. Behringer can shove their mock ‘Moog-for-all’-attitude. Moog4ever!

  60. Here we are a year later and they are starting to roll off of the production line for $299.

    I think it sounds pretty decent from some of the vids that I’ve heard.

    I’ve always liked the MiniMoog sound but I don’t really want to pay almost $3500 for a reissue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *