Moog vs ‘Boog’ – The Definitive Comparison

Starsky Carr shared this Moog vs ‘Boog’ video, comparing the Behringer Model D against a Moog Minimoog.

Carr compares the synths from ‘a sound design and in use perspective – when you turn those knobs does it act like the Moog?’

Topics covered:

Oscillators 1:35
Filters 6:20
FM 11:10
Overdrive 17:40
Some Sounds 21:00

Check it out and let us know what you think!

54 thoughts on “Moog vs ‘Boog’ – The Definitive Comparison

  1. Love comparison videos!! But alas, it takes our hands on to really hear n feel the sonic difference. Video was good! Appreciate those that take the time to do these!!

    Hats off to all of you for making these videos! It does assist buyers on making assessments before spending the moolah!!

  2. If you start complaining you’re maybe complaining about something else than the synth itself. The differences are just not really there in terms of sound. And its absolutely normal that they have problems in delivery – it’s new and everybody wants it. I had to wait for my cirklon more than a year and it was worth it. I for myself have already some synths including Moog, Arp, Buchla, Korg, Roland, Alesis, Dave Smith and I’m just happy that people with less money (I’m Swiss and I just live in a different economical background) finally get their chance to afford real analog sweetness for their pleasure. There is a difference I’n haptics for sure but anyways. I’m very happy to get my little Boog soon.

  3. I’ve said all along – there’s no reason why Behringer shouldn’t be able to get pretty close to a vintage Moog using SMT parts.

    I’d like to see them do a keyboard case, though!

  4. Meh. The complaint is that it’s a “moog model d” looking box built from “moog schematics” promising to make the “moog” sound but with behringer on the panel. It’s not that it’s a crap synth or that behringer can’t make good products. It’s that it is marketed entirely as a knockoff, and behringer profit by hijacking the work of other companies. It may be legal, but it’s not ethical.

    I enjoy the way the Boog sounds; it could easily have been marketed as an entirely different concept that hints at “moog-ness”, as is common among the synth-manufacturing industry. As it is, it’s just a cash grab, and I find it offensive.

      1. I agree it’s expensive, and I would never buy one, but I don’t see how that makes it OK to blatantly rip-it-off.

        1. Once upon a time, in a world before Disney bought enough congressional support to extend copyright forever, there was a concept of the commons. The idea was that after you’d had a good run with something for a number of years, your copyright would expire and others could build on it.

          That still exists for patents in the US, which remain only 20 years. Moog had a good run with the Minimoog, and now Behringer is building on top of it. The Behringer D is not a rip-off of anything. It builds on the commons that Moog contributed to when its patents expired.

          1. Behringer D is exactly a rip off. The only ever “innovation” that Uli Behringer did, was to move operations into a country with extreme low cost and low worker protection standards. He was one of the first in the musical instrument business to do this already in 1990. Ripped off everyone, built their shit at often lower quality there and that’s the whole Behringer Business model. Don’t pretend it’s anything else. Additionally you throw around “commons” clearly without knowing what you’re talking about. FLOSS software, or Wikipedia are examples of the “commons”. Behringer is not.

            1. Are you as passionate about all the 303 clones out there?

              “He was one of the first in the musical instrument business to do this already in 1990”

              No. There were many Les Paul and Strat clones before 1990. Also the Q-Tron is a clone of the Mu-Tron, and so many other pedals are clones of older pedals.

              1. 303s aren’t available anymore. Reading might help. He was “one of the” first to do this, meaning move the business to China and especially so within the electronic music instrument business, which I somehow thought was a given on a site about Synths. My bad. The Les Paul and Strat clones were mostly done by Japanese companies back then and re-imported by e.g. western companies. But even they did contribute something, just look at some of the weirder Teisco guitars. I am as passionate about any company head as obnoxiously and obviously/exclusively profiting off of the worst economic attributes our societies have to offer. The point stands, ripping off established concepts and mass produce them cheaper in China is Uli Behringer’s business model, always has been since 1990. Never has he actually contributed anything else.

                And to round it off, you completely ignored the original point of my answer. You can perfectly decide for yourself if you have a problem with Uli’s business practice, that wasn’t the point, but claiming it’s not based on rip off / cheap labour exploitation as a business model is as ridiculous as bringing up the commons in Behringers context.

                1. “303s aren’t available anymore.”

                  The Moog Model D reissue was a limited run and has been discontinued in July 2017, its not available anymore unless you buy it used.

                  “But even they did contribute something”

                  You completely ignored that the Boog has a few improvement over the Minimoog like CV patch points and a high-pass filter.

                  “claiming it’s not based on”

                  Since the beginning its been clearly labeled as a Model D clone, by Uli, by Behringer, and by everyone.

                  You should know that comprehension is just as important as reading.

                  1. Patchpoints and a highpass filter. How novel. It’s funny that you should talk about reading comprehension, considering you manipulatively quote out of context.

                    “, but claiming it’s not based on rip off / cheap labour exploitation as a business model ” <- That is still the case, always has been the main business model with Behringer since at least 1990. Still waiting for anything that actually refutes that point.

                    1. “Patchpoints and a highpass filter. How novel”

                      On a Minimoog it is. Do I need to remind you that you keep claiming Behringer brought nothing new to the table when they did their Model D?

                      “Didn’t I later make it more precise by pointing out “electronic musical instruments”?”

                      And yet you keep ignoring clones of Mu-Tron, Fuzz Face, Rhodes, wah, synths, modules, amps, filters, etc…How convenient. Just like how you brushed aside my other points and facts. Seriously I cannot count how many times has the Moog filter been cloned.

                      I’m against cheap labour and exploitation, but your claim that Behringer are the first and/or the only ones doing it is pretty laughable. You are so worked up about the Boog that you are blinded from facts and resort to accusing me of being manipulative. There’s no point trying to reason with someone in your condition. Take a deep breath, relax, and use this energy to make music instead.

                    2. I wonder if JMT can point out where I said they were the first and only ones. Good luck with that. In the meantime:

                      Drawmer, Aphex, Mackie, Roland, sheet, they even copied cable testers as funnily seen here



                      Rip off is Behringer’s main business model.

                      I don’t tell anyone to have a problem with that, that’s your own decision. However, claiming it is not the case is ridiculous.

                    3. You are right, you didn’t say “the” first, you said “one of the” first. My bad. The semantics must’ve got lost in all your noise where you are spamming comments only complaining about Behringer doing this (we have yet to hear you complaining about Mooer ripping off classic designs). Its still not true though, there were others doing this before Behringer was a thing.

                      “claiming it is not the case is ridiculous.”

                      I never claimed that, reading and comprehension Hans. Now I will go back to making music instead of arguing with a troll. You may reply, but I won’t even read it. Goodbye 🙂

                2. Hans: Les Paul and Strat clones were done by Gibson and Fender in Japan. Les paul And Strat clones are still done by Fender now, they clone them in Mexico, and China they clone them as Squires, Gibson clone Les Pauls as Epiphones. They do anything for market share, they build them anywhere for market share, they call them anything for market share.
                  “Your original point”,citing Uli as one of the first to take production out to a cheaper country is wrong by about 40 years.

                    1. It’s not important, we’re talking about IP. This is exactly the right comparison, and shows just how ridiculous it is getting angry about a Behringer Minimoog. I’d understand if it was a new, innovative product being cloned, but it’s not – it’s an ancient, frankly boring synth, which now pretty much anyone can have if they want. You really need to find something more valid to be angry about, because currently you sound totally pathetic with your bleating.

    1. So you’re complaining that we synth players finally have the same choices guitarists have had forever? Strat, tele, and LP knockoffs (for starters) flood the world wide marketplace. So what?

      1. ^this

        Far from being unethical, cheap clones of guitars, amps, and effects are the absolute salvation of starving guitarists all over the world. Why should synth players be left out in the cold?

    2. By your logic there should only be one car or one type of television or we could really take this to the nth degree and there should only be one of everything shouldn’t there be…. you really need to look up what the word ethics means and learn about it because this has nothing to do with ethics at all .

      1. I’m saying Hyundai shouldn’t make a car that looks and functions identical to a Toyota Camry, and then call it the “Toyota Camry by Hyundai”, especially since Toyota still makes cars. If they did so, particularly if it was done in service of profit, that would be unscrupulous.

        You can look that word up. You should also look up the word condescending.

    3. Null and void comment. Behringer are totally up front and honest about what the behringer d is. Theyve not tried to pass it off as something theyve designed from scratch. Theyve not tried to hide anything. In any case behringer have produced their own analogue mono synth and a range of poly synths. Moog have milked the synth market for long enough, behringer have stepped up and the market appears to have spoken.

  5. After multiple digital emulations of the mini passing with no such critizism as Behringer gets (you have seen the GUI’s) why is anybody complaining about an analog version?

    1. There was actually something novel in a digital emulation. E.g. analogue modelling techniques etc., Behringer offers nothing novel aside from being able to cramp it by means of a side effect of their existing smd component using, Chinese half slave populated factory city in China.

  6. Check and mate! Every time someone says there is “big difference” between Moog and Model D, I clearly consider those people as some kind of deaf. What they hear is not actually coming from their ears…

  7. I also notice that on this video the synth is compared to a reissued mini. I.e. Another knock-off. We all know that there is nothing like to identical minis. This is due to the fact that they are analog synths. One of the reasons for this fact is temperature, then – of course – age. It would have been better if one compared to – say – three or four minis from different production years. Sort of anal sure, but if it’s about comparing scientifically that’s what it would take. And for temperature, well for one mass is – as we all know – an important factor. So they cannot behave exactly similar. You can tweak the same sound, but to do it you have to adjust some for the physical differencies. Does this matter? Hell no. They are both great synths capable of making the same sound.

    1. I’d like Behringer to produce a clone Sequential Circuits – Pro-One… A one-voice Prophet-5 with arpeggio + sequencer.

    2. I bought a new Minimoog in 1978, sold it a few years later, so I do know what it’s like to own the original. But given the choice, I would also get the Behringer Model D now over a vintage Minimoog if I was looking for that particular Moogy-type of sound. Many more features for the buck, and no difference to my ears. Buy a half dozen of them for backups, and they’d still be far less expensive than an actual Minimoog. 😉

  8. ITT and every other comments section on the topic: A heap of commenters who will never have the discretionary or professional budget to afford a $3-4k synth and are therefore more than happy to completely dismiss the heritage and tactile qualities of a Minimoog. Even those who trash the reissue (or its price) are completely ignoring the effort and cost required to hand-make such a thing (in the US).
    No issue with the Behringer bringing the sound to the masses, but saying this will drop the prices of originals is like saying the existence of Mexican strats should have decimated prices of classic Fenders. Insane.

    1. Hand made is not necessarily a good thing (or made in the USA for that matter) when it comes to electronics. Behringer’s automated production is more consistant and reliable, not to mention cheaper, than Moog producing hand made electronics. You also can’t compare the craftsmanship of a guitar to electronic instruments. It’s not the same thing. However, high end guitars are not selling well today. Possibily because guitarists realize that foreign made guitars are also built by automation to tight quality tolerances and are both inexpensive and sound good enough.

    2. I love the reissued Model D and I almost bought one. I also bought an ARP Odyssey FS and an MS-20 Kit (full size). But knowing how simple the Model D is, I felt $3500 was ridiculous, even despite having overpaid for the other two reissues.

      Had Moog created something like Behringer’s module, i.e. SMT components in a small module with patch points for $999 I probably would have bought it over the Behringer.

      I simply do not need a case made of locally-sourced hardwood, overrated and overpriced Fatar keybed, or hand-populated thru-hole circuit boards.

      Behringer brought us the Minimoog everyone wanted for less than 10% of the price of the reissue, while Moog was asleep at the wheel.

      I think they’ll sell more Behringer D’s than Minimoogs.

  9. I remember a time when there was pretty much no analogues coming to the market.We bought gear from second hand shops.303s where about 95 quid. (Kentons first midi to C v convertors where a god send) I am pleased to see any synth coming to the market and as a fan of music and musicology it is the “budget end” of the market that gave us Detroit techno. This is a great review from a northerner.I would live to see an add on to this synth that was simply ..patch locations/memories.

  10. Mostly the people are hating on behringer because they recognize that they have spend too much money on a mono synth 😛 😛 😛

  11. The difference in sound is like night and day between the two. Moog sounds like a butterfly landing in a clockwise direction on a wet flower. The boog reminds me of the moment in Home Alone when the mother realises she has left Kevin at home- most uncouth.

  12. This video is fantastic. My Behrimoog Model-D arrived, sounds amazing and is a great companion to my Moog Music Voyager and DeepMind 12. I’ve always owned Behringer products, from mixers that I used live on the road for years to compressors and tube pre-amps. Sure they weren’t always the best you could buy, but Behringer got me thru some tough times. Thank you to Uli Behringer for making the Behrimoog possible!

  13. As a sound engineer and far from a synthesist I would have to say that the sound, or perhaps the impression of the sound is not identical.
    The moog sounds meatier and warmer, particularly in the low end.
    The moog also has a slight more dirty grit embedded in its sound, as well as a little less of the harshness we’ve gotten used to with modern gear.
    Kudos to mr Carr, the comparison was very illustrative and well made.

  14. Anyone still bitching about this being a “rip off” better not be using either a Mac or a Windows computer…. because both standards were an ILLEGAL rip-off of another developer’s IP. If you don’t believe me, look it up. There is nothing wrong with developing a LEGAL clone of something if the patent expired.

    You also must never buy anything but brand-name drugs at the pharmacy as well. Store brands of the same material that are 40% less are clearly evil.

    1. “There is nothing wrong with developing a LEGAL clone of something if the patent expired.”

      Patrick – Don’t be another uninformed guy that doesn’t know the difference between patents, copyright, trademark and trade dress.

      Patents expire in 20 years. The rest don’t. So there can be LOTS of reasons why cloning a vintage synth could be illegal.

Leave a Reply

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