Behringer Wasp Deluxe Copies 70s British Synthesizer Design

The Behringer Wasp Deluxe is a new Eurorack compatible synthesizer that copies the design of the Electronic Dream Plant (EDP) Wasp Deluxe, created in 1979 by Adrian Wagner and Chris Huggett:

Behringer originally teased their Wasp Deluxe clone in 2017, along with Korg MS-20 and Roland SH-101 clones, which have since been released, and ARP 2600, Octave The Cat & Synthi VCS 3 clones, which are still to come.

Described as ‘a faithful reproduction of the cult classic digital-analog hybrid synth’, the Behringer Wasp features two digital oscillators; an analog VCF with highpass, lowpass, notch, and bandpass modes; noise generator; an LFO with six selectable waveforms; and two envelope generators.

While it’s Eurorack compatible, the Behringer Wasp does not offer gate/CV control for integration with modular systems. Like the original, though, it does offer an audio input.


  • Two digital oscillators with three variable waveshapes — pulse, ramp, and enhanced mode
  • Pulse width modulation on OSC1
  • Variable pitch control on OSC2
  • Analog VCF with highpass, lowpass, notch, and bandpass modes and sweepable resonance
  • LFO with six selectable waveforms pitch and frequency mod controls
  • Two analog envelope generators with attack, decay, and sustain level controls
  • Eurorack compatible with an 80HP footprint
  • Combine with multiple synthesizers for up to 16 voice polyphony with Poly Chain
  • USB-MIDI plus 5-pin DIN In and Thru
  • Glide (portamento)
  • External audio input
  • Low-output and high-output 1/4″ outs
  • 3-year warranty

Pricing and Availability

The Behringer Wasp Deluxe is available for pre-order now at some online retailers, with a street price of about $300.

EDP Wasp Image: Julianfincham

65 thoughts on “Behringer Wasp Deluxe Copies 70s British Synthesizer Design

  1. I’ll take the evolution of the WASP from the mind of Chris Huggett in the Novation Peak any day over this insincere, disrespectful ripoff from a Chinese toy factory.

      1. The important thing here is that Peak and Summit are original designs. Behringer is using Huggett and Wagner’s design and product name to sell Chinese made and designed copies.

        Uli Behringer and his Chinese investors are profiting from the hard work and legacy of an entire industry.

        1. there are things here to be critical of, but lets not pretend that the industry was eager to reissue iconic synths at all, let alone at affordable prices.

          the chinese manufacturing will keep undercutting westerns ones, which is quite an issue,
          however saying that behringer is somehow unique in this is very dishonest.

          also when chucking stones, it would be good to have all the facts which is not the case.
          far all anyone knows, behringer might have bought the IP outright. the marketing is very clear in touting the original designs, which brings me to think they have some sort of a deal.

          the problem however is not behringer. its the people, in this thread in particular, which will complain about a couple of dozens of bucks in price difference.
          our complacency and entitlement are the problems. not behringer.

          1. I’ll never understand the ‘whataboutism’ of Behringer apologists and how they argue that criticizing Behringer is somehow ‘dishonest’ or unjustified.

            There are some very valid reasons to criticize Behringer. Their business model is to make cheap knockoffs of other company’s products. They’re not competing by trying to improve on other company’s gear – just making cheap ‘good-enough’ copies. They have a history of legal problems as a result of this.

            They also have a history of using frivolous lawsuits to harass news organizations and forums where their products and business practices are discussed. Calling them ‘frivolous’ is not commentary, that’s an official legal judgement.

            They also very plainly try to manipulate social media and gear news coverage to create the illusion that everybody loves their products.

            There’s market demand for cheap knockoffs, so Behringer is meeting the demand of part of the market. And their synth clones are part of that – there are a lot of people that want cheap knockoffs, and Behringer is doing a good job of meeting this demand.

            If people would stick to discussing the pros/cons of Behringer and their products based on these facts, there’d be a lot less controversy every time they introduce something.

            1. it seems that you see my post as being in the behringer apologist territory.
              i´d suggest re-reading it, as this is very much not the case.

              once again though, i believe that demand comes first, ie the consumer that wants ever cheaper products (the guy/gal in the comments below). the supply part that responds to that can come from behringer or whomever.

              so spit on behringer, we are to blame though, collectively.

              i dont have any behringer products, but this sort of hand wringing, legal this moral that, is just ridiculous. dont like the company, dont support it. simple as that.
              wtf is the problem.

            2. That would be valid if you were talking about ripping off current market products, but cloning stuff from the 1970s is totally legitimate. Patents were not meant to last forever, because otherwise business owners become too fond of resting on their laurels and charging top prices for old innovations over which they have a monopoly, a phenomenon economists refer to as ‘rent seeking.’ You only have to look at how copyright terms have been increased from about 25 years, to life of the author, to life of the author plus 90 years, which is essentially forever since copyright now lasts longer than the average human lifespan.

              Artists and innovators should absolutely have some rules to protect them from market forces and be allowed to profit from their inventiveness. But when those rules are gamed, as is the case with copyright, greed and exploitation take over from creativity. The only people who want to keep the super synth sounds of the 70s locked up forever are collectors and speculators who want the social or commercial profits from owning and trading rare items.

          2. There is no evidence that Behringer paid anyone for the right to manufacture clones of the WASP Deluxe, Sequential Pro-One, Minimoog Model D, Korg MS-20, Oberheim OB-X, Roland TR-808, TR-909, SH-101, VP330 or TB-303.

            Recent trademark filings by some of the original manufacturers suggest otherwise.

            It’s not OK to copy someone else’s work and sell it as your own. It’s also not OK to repeatedly attack people who point out this fact in public forums (the dialog typically starts with someone pointing out that Behringer is copying other people’s work and attempting to register famous trademarks as their own and then devolves into a personal attack against that person and their beliefs.).

            1. What about musical instruments like a violin, flute, sax and every other instrument on the planet. At one time there was a single inventor and now there are many different manufactures producing those same instruments. Is it safe to assume synthesizers fall under that category? Honestly if everyone kept this mentality there would be no vintage synths except in a museum display case. I am certain Bob Moog would be ecstatic if his design of synthesizers were still being used 100’s of years in the future. There is a demand for these vintage instruments and Behringer appears to be the only one listening. The only ones that seem to be complaining are the ones who spent many thousand’s of dollars for a plastic case filled with transistors like the TB-303.

              1. James

                You get the prize for the most ignorant comment of the day.

                zaphod made a very reasonable statement – that it’s not OK to personally attack the people that you happen to disagree with about Behringer’s clone business.

                And what do you do? You go directly into making personal attacks and generalizing about how the only people that find Behringer’s business practices douchy are people that ‘spent many thousand’s of dollars for a plastic case filled with transistors like the TB-303.’

                Stay classy, bro!

              2. You’re free to make your own piano, flute or guitar. You’re also free to make your own synthesizer that incorporates the technical innovations of others and your own original ideas (as long as you don’t deliberately or accidentally incorporate patented innovations).

                That’s not what Behringer are doing. They are making copies of instruments such as the the TB-303, including the case design, control layout, fonts, text on the controls, functionality and an imitation of the circuit. The goal is to create something that makes customers say, “Woah! A 303 for only $150. What a deal.”

                Imagine that you are a car manufacturer. Adding a steering wheel or automatic transmission is great. Making a $20,000 vehicle called the Synthtopia 911 that looks exactly like a Porsche 911 inside and out is something that the legal systems of common law countries (ie: the UK, Canada, Aus, NZ) refer to as “passing off.” The tort of passing off protects manufacturers and traders from product misrepresentation (ie: you cannot legally sell imitation Ray-Ban sunglasses on a street corner for $5, emblazoned with a Way-Ban logo).

            2. “It’s not OK to copy someone else’s work and sell it as your own.”

              Yes it is, both legally and morally. A patent guarantees you a monopoly for a fixed period (typically about 20 years) during which you alone can profit from your invention. After that anyone can copy.

              Otherwise inventions would become unusable upon the death, insolvency or simple financial consideration of the inventor.

              1. There is an oft-repeated assumption that somehow a patent is required to protect a product. The only problem is that it’s wrong and ignores the existence of Trademarks and trade dress.

                Take Coca-Cola as an example. You cannot simply start a soft drink company (let’s call it Behringer Beverages) and start selling fizzy caramel-coloured sugary drinks in curvy bottles with “Enjoy Boke” emblazoned on them in a familiar font. Coke owns the Coke trademark and the trade dress (shape of the iconic bottle, logo, colors).

                Now the critical question: What makes you believe that the same legal protection isn’t afforded to Roland for their iconic 101/303/808/909 designs?

                1. EDP (the firm that manufactured the Wasp) doesn’t even exist any more and you know it. As for trademarks, it is up to the owner to defend a mark. If they choose not to, a legal doctrine called constructive abandonment means their forfeit their right to complain about it at a later date. That’s why Apple Computer Company will always sue small businesses with names like Apple Strudel Company – not because they want to hurt them or have any expectation of winning the case, but to be on record as having defended their trademarks.

                  Existing companies whose old (very old) designs have been cloned by Behringer know quite well that they still benefit from the cachet of the original and have chosen not to make an issue out of it. Do you think Korg are crying about the existence of another MS-20 clone, or too poor to litigate the issue in court if they wanted to? No, they are well aware of the halo effect that they benefit from, and in turn they are making their own fun clones of both their older gear and things like the DX-7, but as a handy portable Volca instead of the tank-like original form factor.

                  In the case of synths, 95% of the exterior is purely functional – controls for programming the oscillators, envelopes, LFOs etc. in ways that are standard across the industry, standard connectors for audio and MIDI and so on. If you have worked in the industry (as I have) then you are also aware that things like the knobs and switches themselves are rarely designed designed from scratch but are simply selected from an industrial supply catalog, and the layout of the controls on the panel (especially of an analog synth) is generally a close rendition of the actual signal flow.

                  To sum up: your objections are groundless fanboyism. Get over it.

                  1. “Existing companies whose old (very old) designs have been cloned by Behringer know quite well that they still benefit from the cachet of the original and have chosen not to make an issue out of it.”

                    This argument is the equivalent of asking musicians to play free, “for the exposure.” There is no benefit to a company like Roland to have Behringer selling cheap copies of their products, especially when they already have their own modernized versions of the TB-303 and others.

                    Once again, instead of acknowledging that Behringer’s business model is ethically dubious, the Music Tribe apologists turn to name calling.

                    Blantantly ripping off other people’s work is wrong. Period.

          3. Behringer didn’t buy anything from anyone. The WASP trademark expired years ago and was free for anyone that wanted to use it in trade to re-trademark. Remember how Korg re-trademarked ARP? They didn’t pay the trademark owner because there was no trademark owner.

            Music Group of the Virgin Islands (neighbor of Jeffrey Epstein and parent of Behringer) stole the original artwork (just as Korg did) and tried to re-trademark it on 12/5/2017. The trademark was abandoned on 6/3/2019 since they had not actually managed to use the trademark in interstate commerce. The Trademark office sent them a letter asking them to prove that tehy were using it in Trade. They then filed asking for an extension. The trademark office refused.

            Music Group can try again once the product ships.

            The circuits are all long out of patent.

        2. Get over it! In some cultures copying is considered paying tribute and is actually honorable!

          Your religious “hard work” fanatism is ridiculous!

          + every other synth enthusiast asked for replicas of old analog hardware now you can finally get them!

      1. One of the best mono synths ever, IMO, in part due to the unending support of Novation and a high standard for quality regardless of if it’s made in China. Often overlooked in the days of cheap Behringer knock offs.

        1. Weirdly, I didn’t get along with the Bass Station. I felt the oscillators lacked weight but they did have a tightness. I think Behringer synths are consistently better built – as for the sound, they are pretty darn close.

          I’m happy I held off on the K-2, this is much more my speed. If it has the liveliness of the Jasper clone where the filter rings out, you will be able to get diode sea devil bloops and minimal wave leads. Not sure what to pair it with, I have a Deepmind 6 which again – decent build and quality, have heard about screen issues but worst case I’ll call my shop. It’s a ‘sensible’ synth so would be nice to have a ‘character’ synth again.

        2. You should have heard all the hate that was poured on the original Bass Station, which was derided as cheap plastic crap aimed at kids who were too lazy to save up for a ‘good’ synth.

    1. Wow, how original. Every story featuring a Behringer product making the same xenophobic and illogical comment from a bitter synth snob. Patents last only 20 years for a reason and many cloned products exist because the original is simply not available any more other than at outrageous collector prices. To be honest I think much of the bitterness about clones is from people with money who are mad that now anyone can get hold of a distinctive synth sound on a modest budget.

      Also I far prefer to see a clone bring a well-loved machine back to life as an actual musical instrument than as a set of sample waveforms that can never capture the nuances of the original synth in performance.

  2. It’s bizarre that they made this Eurorack without including a patch bay. I wonder if they think the nostalgia factor is driving their business more than modular people.

    Is there some limitation in the digital design of the wasp that makes analog control impossible or something? The whole idea of putting this in a Eurorack synth, with no way to integrate it but MIDI and audio out, seems kind of absurd.

    1. They already have the case design, so it’s cheap and easy to create a new metal front panel and mount the main PCB directly to it.

      They’re leveraging the same manufacturing technique that makes Eurorack modules so quick and easy to produce — don’t worry about the case or power, just fit a standard module into something that already exists.

    2. It’s pretty much using the same standard 80HP chassis as the Model D, Neutron, K-2, etc. Much more cost effective to use the same body across the product range.

      But yeah, would have been great to have additional patch points for modulation

      1. They’re already making Euro format synths with higher HP, like the Neutron.

        So it doesn’t make sense that they’d compromise on making this a useful Eurorack module because of some arbitrary width limitation.

  3. This is priced $100 too high.

    The Behringer D is a LOT more synth – more oscillators, analog vs digital, cv control and copies a lot more popular design – and you can get it new for $230.

    Surprised that Behringer priced it this high. I guess the D started out around the same price, but I think they’ll have to cut the price on this pretty quick to move it.

    1. jfc, now we are complaining about 300$, actually 70$ for a reissue of a coveted vintage synth.
      you really think that the price difference of a night out drinking or a dinner will deter people from buying this synth?

      people really are disgusting and this mentality of racing to the bottom is what is ruining the world as well as the western economies.
      complete lack of awareness or any sort of broader picture, with entitlement to boot.
      just gimme gimme gimme, if not for free then as cheap as possible.

      since this model is nearly identical where it comes to trademarks, ever think they straight out bought the rights this time, hence the higher cost?

      behringer should be applauded for making synths this affordable, and we should be privileged to live in the era of this analog synth renaissance. but sure lets complain about 70 bucks.
      shameful and disgraceful.
      “high” pricing lmao, unfukincredible.

      1. Technomancer

        Nice rant that totally ignores the issues that I brought up.

        And the idea that this costs more because of trademarks is laughable.

        This is a cheap clone that doesn’t even bother to add cv control so that it would be a real Eurorack module.

        As others have pointed out, for $100 more, you can get the Bass Station 2, which has a keyboard, is a WAY more powerful synth, and is actually being sold by the people that designed it.

        Just because the original Wasp Deluxe is rare and expensive doesn’t justify selling a knockoff for $100 more than it’s worth. Behringer’s trying to milk as much as they can from suckers and then this will be going for $200-220 by next year, just like they did with the D. Anybody that’s smart enough to understand this that wants a Wasp Clone knows they can pay a premium to get it now or wait a few months and save a hundred bucks.

        1. I fail to see how anyone who bought the Boog for $230 (or even $300) is a ‘sucker’ unless they imagined it was going to be the same size as the original. Though I don’t own it the sound is satisfying and the quality/construction on the units I’ve used seemed nice and solid. I like it and look forward to picking one up at some point – the only thing that has held me back is inertia rather than price.

  4. …and another one.
    i dont have any behringers but will most likely get the bunch of them at some point.

    im kind of miffed that thomann is the only seller that stocks them in europe since the margins on them are so thin.
    not happy about a seller having a monopoly but there we go.
    it just goes to say how damn cheap these things are…

  5. Thank you Uli. Your passion for synth came from your dad’s organ he built and now you are doing what the others won’t do, simply letting us experience this. You are taking us out of the VST world and letting us feel and touch these synths. Even if I don’t need it, I will buy your collection to support you.

  6. I’ve no problem with Behringer making and selling vintage knock offs. I won’t buy them because I don’t want vintage gear. For me, I prefer new synths with innovative design and new approaches to making sounds. Like ‘em or hate, Behringer is making synths that people will buy, that’s business. I do like that they’re making new, interesting products as well like the Wing and Neutron.

  7. I really like my DeepMind1 and Neutron, and I’ve got a model-D which is great, too. What bugs me more than anything about this, though, is that they’re advertising it as Eurorack compatible but it doesn’t even have v/oct and gate inputs. IN WHAT WAY IS THAT EURORACK COMPATIBLE? Even at the most basic level…

  8. Politics aside … I’m guessing the WASP isn’t 1v/ octave. There was a digital sequencer that connected via 5 pin din, but there never was CV in or out on any of the original versions . I used to have the schematics but don’t know where they are now. But I remember it was mostly digital, even the filter isn’t analogue but some CMOS chips being abused.

    I’m guessing they built it into this case cos that is their default form factor. Rather than intending it for Eurorack integration.

    Back to the politics. As I’m sure anybody over 50 will remember … after Bob Moog came up with the new familiar form factor of VCO, VCF, VCA and ENVELOPE Gen … he was copied (?) by just about everyone … from ARP, Korg, Roland, Etc to Dave Rosum, Tom Oberheim Etc. Who remembers the Cat synth or the Kawai preset?

    Probably the only ones that did follow their own path were EMS and some really obscure French machines. The WASP whilst copying the functions established by Moog at least tried to come up with a very different way of getting there that was cheap enough for people like me to buy.

    If you wNt to “honour” the spirt of the WASP might I suggest you concider something like a cheap Modal synth. It’s a British design after all.

  9. Yet all of these complainers have used and bought countless knock off products in their life times (knowingly or unknowingly)

    I wish people would out their energy towards real issues, like LGBTQ rights, animal rights, saving our nations and the planet from mega corporations….ect.

    1. Music Tribe IS a mega corporation exploiting others’ designs (not just technology) and cheap labor. Behringer is just the aspect of it that always blatantly steals everyone’s hard work, as is the case in the guitar pedal industry for the past 10 years.

  10. Wow, so much to unpack here. Two observations:

    1. There is no underestimating the value of nostalgia. And the cult of personality around certain machines. Take a Sequential Circuits Pro One and a Dave Smith Instruments Mono Evolver Keyboard. They are by no means the same instrument but they are certainly derived from the same family tree. A major difference, however, is that the Pro One was used on countless hit records during a golden age of electronic music. So no matter how compelling and powerful the Evolver is in contrast to its ancestor (not to mention that an Evolver can certainly sound like a Pro One in the hands of a creative programmer), interest in the Pro One remains high because people want “that” sound from “Upstairs At Eric’s.”

    2. My opinion: The vintage synthesizer market is both an economic reality and horribly elitist. Yes, there are only X number of original Roland TR-808s in the world, it remains a compelling sound, and simple supply/demand dictates that more people want a TR-808 than can actually have one. That said, I LOATHE the idea that someone should be denied the joy of programming an 808 just because they do not have $4,500 burning a hole in their pocket. Especially given that there is no economic impediment to production, and Roland pointedly refuses to re-create their own technology (as Korg did with the MS-20) and has staked their future on digital emulations of their beloved classics.

Leave a Reply

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