Behringer Poly D, A 4-Oscillator Paraphonic Model D

Behringer has introduced the Poly D synthesizer, a new keyboard that builds on the classic Moog Model D design by adding an extra oscillator, sequencer and effects.

While Behringer calls it a ‘Poly’ synth, it is a paraphonic design that lets you individually control the pitches of its oscillators. The rest of the audio path is essentially a monophonic design.

SOS synth guru Gordon Reid has this to say about describing paraphonic synths as ‘polyphonic’:

“You should never call an instrument ‘polyphonic’ simply because it can play several notes simultaneously.

To earn this description, it must be able to shape each note independently, and without deference to any notes that may already be sounding.”

Here’s what Behringer has to day about their latest synth:

“The 1970s spawned the first truly portable analog synthesizer, and while it was quickly adopted by lots of renowned musical artists including Jan Hammer, Chick Corea, Rick Wakeman, Jean-Michel Jarre, Isao Tomita and Keith Emerson to name a few, it was somewhat temperamental and very expensive.

An ultra-affordable homage to that iconic synthesizer, with all the features of the original and then some, the Behringer POLY D lets you conjure up virtually any monophonic or polyphonic sound imaginable with incredible finesse and ease. The pure analog signal path is based on authentic VCO, VCF, VCA and ladder filter designs in conjunction with a dedicated and fully analog triangle/square wave LFO. Owning a POLY D is like having your own personal time machine, enabling you to freely embrace the past – or shape the future!”

The Poly D has four Voltage Controlled Oscillators (VCOs) that offer 5 waveforms. Oscillators 1, 2 and 3 options include: triangular; triangular/saw; saw; square; wide pulse; and narrow pulse, while OSC 4 features: triangular; reverse saw; saw; square; wide pulse; and narrow pulse. Each VCO can be adjusted across a 6-octave range (LO, 32’, 16’, 8’, 4’ and 2’).

Based on the official video demo, the oscillators can be controlled in three ways:

  • Mono – all oscillators on one note
  • Unison – two note paraphonic
  • Poly – four note paraphonic mode

The Behringer site doesn’t currently have details on the synth’s architecture, but it appears that the rest of the signal path is a monophonic design, with a VCA and a Moog-style 24-dB filter.

Connectivity options include: MIDI I/O and Thru over USB/MIDI DIN; After Pressure and Velocity outputs with their own dedicated ‘volume controls’; internal and external V-Trig I/O; external Loudness, Filter, OSC, and modulation source outputs.

Details on pricing and availability are to be announced.

125 thoughts on “Behringer Poly D, A 4-Oscillator Paraphonic Model D

    1. In all honesty I’d rather it came in closer to 1k and focused more on the build quality. Something like this at that price point that has been built to last a lifetime would still be crazy good value for money IMHO.

  1. There’s literally nothing to complain about on this synth. It sounds great, and it’ll be a bargain. We have to assume that as they haven’t yet been sued by anyone, what their doing is technically legal. I feel bad for Moog, and also for the likes of Korg, who try to make interesting synths. But its very difficult to complain about getting a synth like this for the rumoured $699.

    1. yeah one would think that, but stick around and you will be surprised at the whining nonsense one can read here. i love synthtopia, but the commenting section keeps steadily deteriorating.
      cue: “it should be 5 oscillators and be 300$ cheaper. also behringer should be brought to geneva to face charges for crimes against humanity.”

      1. Technomancer you speak the damn truth. Even as an avid Reddit user I have never seen such salt and whining on any forum as I find on Synthtopia. Lots of frustrated musicians out there I guess. I literally clicked on this link just to marvel at the Behringer hate. (Synth sounds great…but I almost hear a Roland-esque sound to it instead of pure Moog. Anyone?)

        1. i do like roland sound better than moog and you could be onto something.
          never fancied the model d but i love the sound of the demo.
          i also find paraphonic synths more interesting, as long as each osc can be sequenced individually like the volca bass.

          i dont think i will get a behringer synth though, dont want to become a victim of a hatecrime or somn/s

    2. Calling this a ‘poly’ is sort of heinous. Korg did that with the Mono/Poly 40 years ago.

      If you can disregard the ‘poly’ marketing BS, this looks like a Minimoog clone that’s more than just a knockoff, but actually updates the design in some nice ways.

      1. Technically, it is a poly, which only refers to number of notes it can play at once. Poly doesn’t specifically mean dedicated amp and filter per voice, we’ve just come to associate it with that. This is a poly and its paraphonic. All monos are paraphonic. Some polys are paraphonic.

        1. Technically – its a polyphonic instrument, but not a polyphonic synthesizer.

          A polyphonic synthesizer has full synthesis capabilities for each voice. Otherwise you’re just feeding an organ through a monophonic synth, which is what this is basically doing.

          Not that paraphonic designs are necessarily a bad thing – but they are essentially monophonic +, not polyphony light.

          Behringer could have and should have avoided this confusion by calling it ‘paraphonic’, like other modern synth makers, instead of trying to trick noobs.

          1. Mark Dotty does a pretty good job explaining it….

            “Polyphony” is how many notes a synth can play at once. “Paraphony” is the instance where those notes are directed through a single filter/amp combination. Synths can be polyphonic AND paraphonic. Synths can even be monophonic and paraphonic. But the only “real” polyphony is when every note can be played at once… whether you seek individual articulation or not. Instead of saying things like “real polyphony,” we should describe full polyphony with full articulation with a term like “ideal polyphony.”

            1. Sorry, but Doty’s take is completely made up (or at least his own personal take) and doesn’t really have anything to do with how the terms paraphonic and polyphonic have been traditionally used.

              The term ‘paraphonic’ was introduced to explain the limited polyphony implementation of 70’s synths, which was basically polyphonic oscillator control paired with a monophonic signal path. That’s what this synth appears to be doing.

              And for decades – really my entire adult life – ‘polyphonic synthesizer’ has referred to synths where each voice is complete and shared elements are limited to things like effects.

              The only reason that there’s any confusion over this is that a lot of people don’t understand the term ‘paraphonic’, and companies like Behringer are still trying to market paraphonic synths as polys.

              Whether or not we agree on the terminology, though, is irrelevant. Behringer makes zero reference to paraphony on their site. There is absolutely no excuse for pretending that this is a polyphonic synth like other polyphonic synths on the market. Especially when other manufacturers have demonstrated that you can be honest about paraphonic synths and people will buy them.

                1. “Anyone buying this will know its paraphonic. At $699 its a bargain, so everyone wins, poly or not.”

                  That’s flat out incorrect. I’ve seen coverage on mainstream sites that suggest that this is a cheap Moog One.

                  Anyone buying this SHOULD know that it’s paraphonic, but Behringer has decided, for whatever reason, to use misleading marketing language.

                  By the way, where’d you get the $699 price? Is that official? I haven’t seen any pricing on it yet. That would be a fair price, though, for a Minimoog knockoff that adds some nice features.

                  1. “That’s flat out incorrect. I’ve seen coverage on mainstream sites that suggest that this is a cheap Moog One.”

                    Thats flat out my opinion. Some journo who doesn’t know the difference isn’t the same as someone who’d buy this, which would be someone who’s actually into synths and knows how expensive true poly is. Thats why theres four oscillators and not 3. First thing I noticed, which told me it was paraphonic.

                    “By the way, where’d you get the $699 price?” – On the internet somewhere.

                    1. No, not everyone buying synths are total geeks, that understand every element of a synth. There will absolutely be buyers of this product that will think it is polyphonic, and playing more notes will be like having the mono voice played on several of notes, but in reality they will neither get that in voice expression or in osc count.
                      The minilogues are around this price and have proper polyphony, the DeepMinds are around this price, and fully polyphonic. The upcoming MFB, is an 8 voice 3 osc per voice synth, as about double the price. Minus the keyboard, but made by a smaller brand.
                      The price absolutely does not tell potential buyers that it can’t possibly be polyphonic.
                      I know people that should know better, but that still are mislead by wording on sites, both in music electronics and other areas.

                      Calling it Poly, is suspicious, when there is a 400 price add to the D module, when there doesn’t seem to be 400 dollars of added stuff in it.
                      It is a D plus or D XT. It isn¨’t a poly D. Some people would have gotten it anyway. I personaly, even though I like the concept, would in all cases suggest going for the D module and rather complement that with something else for the 400 in spare change.
                      But if Behringer reconsiders the price, and make it quite a bit lower, it could be a product worth considering.

              1. “Sorry, but Doty’s take is completely made up and doesn’t really have anything to do with how the term has been traditionally used.”

                I guess someone should tell the Polymoog, Mono/Poly, and Poly-800 that.

                1. So three keyboards, out of tens of thousands over the last 50 years, were marketed as bs ‘polysynths’.

                  Of course it makes sense to adopt their archaic marketing bs over common sense mainstream terminology!

                  Exaggerating a bit to make a point, but everybody knew what ‘polysynth’ meant until companies like Behringer went back to hyping these paraphonic designs as ‘polys’.

                2. Terminology changes with times. It has been very long since polyphony meant anything but full articulation of all notes, and each of the note sounding like the sound played in mono.

                  If polyphony isn’t about articulation, and only the number of notes that can sound simultaneously, then any synth with more than one osc, and the ability to detune them, would be polyphonic. Actually even single osc synths, where the filter can self oscillate and form another tone, would be polyphonic.

                  Calling this Poly, is just confusing, if it isn’t intentionally misleading. After all, it doesn’t seem to come with stuff worth 400 dollars in addition to the features of the Behringer D module, meaning that there is a risk that they called it Poly to get some sales that it would not have gotten if it was called D Plus or D XT, or something like that.

                  I hope they will change the name.(I wish they made an actual Poly D, with 4-8 complete voice boards, at a really good price compared to buying and poly-chaining, with the bonus of a single control panel for all voices).

                  And if the specs are set, I think they should lower the price (from the suggested 699 dollar price). If the specs aren’t set, they should add a couple of extra features in there, to make it more than it is.

            2. I like Marc Doty. He’s passionate, extremely educated in synthesizer history, and has a very good resume to deem him an expert. He has a very strong argument to support his opinion, but really, that’s all it is.
              And while I happily concede to share his opinion, they shouldn’t have named this the “Poly D” for the much more aggregious offense of invoking images of Jersey Shore.

              1. Doty is certainly a likable YouTube synth guru, but I’d take Gordon Reid’s opinion over his on this.

                Reid’s take is backed up with a generation of writing for SOS – he’s one of the most respected synth gurus in the business. His take also matches reality and history, because he was around when those older paraphonic synth came out.

  2. Why not make this a real polyphonic synth?

    Would it be too difficult for Behringer to modify the design to be polyphonic? Would keeping 16 Minimoog oscillators in tune just be a nightmare or is there some other technological reason that would lead them to making a paraphonic synth instead of a poly?

    1. lmao there we go.
      i mean this is just beyond words though.
      and then when someone does produce a proper poly, it wil be “yeah but sooo priceeeey”.

      bro if you want a polyphonic analog synth, there are plenty out there.
      fyi if it werent painfully obvious, 8 voices would basically mean 8 times the synth and the price.

      1. Your comment make no sense. Behringer already makes a ‘proper poly’. And I’m not sure where you got 8 voices instead of 4.

        Logically, you can get the Behringer D for about $230 new, so it seems reasonable that a four-voice, based on the same circuits, should be very possible for around $800, depending on the build quality.

        If Korg can make an true polyphonic analog four-voice poly, with nice build quality for $500, I don’t see why Behringer couldn’t have made this a true poly for $800. At that price, it still would have blown people’s minds.

        That’s why I’m wondering if there are just fundamental issues with trying to expand a Minimoog out to a real polyphony. My guess is that they would need to have 24 or more tuning holes on the back of the synth (assuming 4 voices, 3 vcos & 2 tuning pots per vco) and that seems like it could be a real mess.

        1. Behringer can’t make a real poly Minimoog because it’s a lot more complicated than polychaining 4 D’s together.

          To make a real poly Minimoog, they’d have to completely redesign the Minimoog to use digital encoders and controls. Bob Moog did that with the Voyager, and even he couldn’t get a result that satisfied Minimoog purists.

          The other big thing is that you’d have to completely redesign the oscillators, which are a big part of the big Minimoog sound. Companies in the 80’s started using DCO’s in their polys, because using older VCO designs doesn’t scale well.

          So they’d have to do a ton of original work, and Behringer seems to be more comfortable copying and tweaking.

          I’d question whether a true poly Minimoog would make sense, too. People love the Minimoog because it cuts through everything. Make it polyphonic, though, and you don’t have much room left in the mix for other instruments.

          1. The oscillators don’t have to be re-designed, the voltage controlling them, to make sure they are in tune, can be under digital control, for automatic compensation.

            I’m not sure how polys without digital paramters used to work. But, I would expect, that it should be possible to actually make a long shaft pot, that goes trhough all boards, and controls them by a single front panel control, without having to make e special control board.
            Sure, probably more complicated than designing a single voice board. But scale of production, and usng it for future products, should get the price down.

            I think if they could make a 4 voice real Poly D module at below 1000 dollars/euros, a lot of people would still be impressed by that, and perhaps they could even put a keyboard on it, for that money or less.

        2. I don’t own the D, but I understand it requires some manual tuning and scaling attention with trimpots and multi meters. Now you want to do that with 16 oscillators? I think this was a wise compromise.

          1. I don’t think it’s the synthesizer’s architecture the people are taking issue with.

            It’s calling this a ‘poly’ and so blatantly copying the Minimoog look and feel.

            It may be legal, but it’s certainly not cool, and it’s sort of like admitting that they’re not skilled enough to do something that’s original.

            It’s also sad for Behringer that they feel that people will only be interested in their gear if it’s obvious that it’s a cheap clone of something established.

          2. Tuning the D can be a pain, but so is tuning a Moog D or a Pro One.

            That’s why people LOVED DCOs and cheap polysynths in the 80’s and even digital synths.

            It’s surprising how many 70s recordings you hear where the synth is a little out of tuning (scaling). They were hard to tune and temperature could mess it up!

        3. so you would actually split the 16 oscillators into 4 voices each with 4 osc? this is legit funny to me but ok. nah, i was thinking 2 osc per voice, but the numbers are actually irrelevant.

          behringer has a dco synth out, yes, and are reportedly working on a couple of polyphonic synths.
          what makes 0 sense is requesting for a coveted mono/para synth to be polyphonic just because.
          i guess the rationale is: 2 tits on a lady are nice, so 8 tits would be fantastic.

          if you are really keen, just get the how many you want and polychain them.
          you wont be far of the budget you outlined, so i guess go for it.
          imho model d wouldnt work well as a poly and there are other synths that already excel at that role, one of them being minilogue xd.

          1. What makes 0 sense is making a 4 OSC mono synth, with a paraphonic mode as bonus and calling it Poly.

            Even less so, when the 3 osc version without paraphonic mode, is 400 dollars cheaper than the suggested price. Be it, it lacks a keyboard, is smaller, and doesn’t come with an analog chorus and a overdrive, but those things should not mount up to 400 dollars.

            I also see no reason, why there could not be a polyphonic version of the Model D, just because the Model D is loved as a monophonic synth.

  3. Man, I remember going to a club near my house when I was in high school (1998) and the singer had an old Moog Prodigy. It had all sorts of problems, but he used it regularly on stage and said that he bought it from a friend for about $1000. Everyone I knew wanted a synth that would do what that synth did, but no one had anything even close to that amount of money. I often think what it would be like to be back in that position, yet have access to these Behringer machines. It would be mind-blowing. I hope younger musicians find these boxes, mess with them, and create all the amazing music that we had in our heads growing up. Sure you can knock them, but what Behringer is offering to musicians on a budget is undeniably exciting.

  4. First of all, let’s make one thing clear: “Paraphonic” is a greek word which actually means “out of tune, bad sounding in a musical context” … so, calling a synth paraphonic actually means you call it bad sounding, but since the world accepted it for years now, let’s move on … This synth is great if you see it as monophonic. The only thing i really miss is PWM. You could see it as the child of a Minimoog D and a Korg Mono/Poly … But the real problem is the envelope retriggering and the responce of the amplifier and filter and also the octave switch of the oscillators when you want to use it polyphonically. It is fine to stab 3 or 4 note chords, but not more than this trick. If you hold a 3 note chord on your left hand and try to play a monophonic melody on your right, it will show its design weakness. Still, if Behringer can get its price low enough, it will be difficult for me not to buy one.

  5. I wonder why they did away with the patch points? Seems like Uli is REALLY trying to take the wind out of Moog’s sails with the Crave being basically a Mother 32 and this being basically a Matriarch (minus the patch points and with different effects).

  6. @Uli Behringer:

    You should be ashamed of your business. Revisiting classics with your own twist at a low price is great (Deepmind, neutron). To a certain extent, copying classic products from companies not showing interest in reviving them is great too (808, etc. Even more since Roland confirms that they will not “chase the ghost”).

    But copying products in such a disrespectful way – up to the shape and color – from *companies in business today in the same market* (Moog, Korg, OB, etc.) is simply disgusting.

    1. Like it or not, that’s the world of competition. When shopping at a grocery store, how many people consistently buy the more expensive name brand items versus another brand.

    2. Now go after Korg for copying the styling of the DX7 on the Volca FM.

      Moog is doing fine and they laugh at your fanboyism. Get over it.

        1. yeah because the look of the synth is what is important, jfc.
          also the volca series is very obviously a nod to the classics, even in the case of volca sample which apes the akai s series. behringer is much more blatant ofcourse which is bordering with trademark issues imho.

          the commenter above meant the actual fm synthesis itself which is actually a good point.
          it was invented by yamaha, got copied a bunch. nobody bat an eye.

          1. You have it backwards – FM was licensed by Yamaha, and when the patent expired, anybody could legitimately use the technology.

            The ‘look’ of a synth can be protected indefinitely, if a company wants to. Think of Coke protecting its trademark or unique bottle shape.

          2. The “styling of” the dx7? Doesn’t sound like the commenter meant the synthesis engine. It sounds like what he said: “the styling of the dx7.”

            I don’t think a synth company making an fm synth is in any way the same thing as Behringer making obvious knock off’s of specific synths from specific brands with cloned circuit designs and almost identical styling. FM is a pretty universal synthesis method that hundreds of synths have employed at this point.

            I think you **could** compare the Behringer Odyssey clone to the Korg version, except that Korg specifically worked with the Arp founder on it and licensed the name Arp, which seems like a more respectful way of going about it.

              1. What?? Is it 1995? How many fm synths have been released since 1995? Also, it was Standford that licensed FM to Yamaha. “Stanford granted Yamaha a license for its Frequency Modulation (FM) Synthesis, developed by Stanford professor of music John Chowning” https://news.stanford.edu/pr/97/970709sondiusxg.html

                Where has this absurd argument gone? First, the Volca FM had the same “styling” as the DX7, so it’s the same as Behringer. Then, oh yeah it doesn’t really look like a dx7. Maybe he just meant that Korg “stole” the FM synthesis method from Yamaha, so that’s the same thing as Behringer. Then, oh nevermind there’s a ton of other FM synths, but Yamaha had a patent until…..1995? So, that’s just like Behringer? Then, wait….Yamaha actually had to license FM from it’s inventer at Stanford. So…Korg using a ubiquitous FM synthesis method from an expired *license* from 1995 is totally the same thing as Behringer cloning circuit designs and synths and manufacturing them to look intentionally almost exactly like other brand’s synths that are, in some cases, still in production…somehow it’s the same thing :/

                1. Ah, is it just the aesthetics that you guys are all upset about? I agree that it’s a bit naff to copy the wording and colours on the front panel, but I’d rather talk about the synthesizer inside. Volca FM sounds near identical to Yamaha DX, sysex compatible. And Yamaha is still making DX synths while Korg makes the Volca FM, and no-one objects to that. So I dont really mind if we have a synth that sounds near identical to a Moog.

                  I’d rather see more innovation beyond FM and Moog-style subtractive, but I guess that’s the market.

      1. Hello, thanks for reacting on my comment. Please don’t be rude to me, I’m giving my opinion on Uli Behringer who had some choices when making this product, not on you or any of Behringer’s clients.

        I see your point about Volca FM but in my eyes, like Deepmind (and tons of other products), there’s a clear inspiration without a clear intention of copying the “image” of these inspirations (design, color palette, knobs shape, name). That’s why i started by saying that their Deepmind/Neutron was great. Everything is somehow inspired by something else, no problem with that and wasn’t at all the point of my comment.

        Now about your request to “get over it”. Well.. no. People shamefully copying without imagination is not something i’m getting over anytime soon 🙂

    3. Not sure I agree. Most people can’t afford a Moog Minimoog Model D (new or old) or most other classic vintage synths from the 70s. If Behringer can bring back something very similar, both in terms of sonic performance and appearance, it gives a whole new generation a chance to experience these instruments, at least in a modern form. If the price is reasonable (I’m seeing Minimoogs on ebay for thousands of dollars) then so much the better.

      If Moog, Korg, Roland, etc won’t re-release the classics at reasonable price, then I’d support Behringer doing it, providing he does so lawfully.

      1. Hello, i agree with you, “Make them accessible” is great, no problem with that. And i’ve started my comment by saying that DeepMind/Neutron are great. But copying all recognisable codes from another company in business today (color, shapes, closable panel, even the “D”..)… What is the intention of that?

    4. I agree that this looks a bit too much like the original Model D.
      However, the company Moog that exists today, never made the original Model D. As that company went under long ago. So they as well copied the original too much.
      Korg with the Odyssey, too much of a copy. So Behringer should not be blamed for doing the same.
      MS-20 as it was Korgs own product, a different matter. But given the size and shape of the Behringer clone, I don’t think it looks too much like the original.
      Oberheim, that company also went under. And we are yet to see Behringers end result of an Oberheim clone.
      The Roland clones are clearly looking a lot like the originals.

      Exact clones is something Behringer could have kept for working prototypes that they show, but then go for a look that is only inspired, on the actual products. Unless another company already copied the originals, then it is fair game. If others use the original design to shift units, then Behringer should be able to do that as well… Not that I think it should be necessary.

      1. Moog has always been Moog. That’s why they did a reissue of the exact same Minimoog barely 4 years ago, using the exact same components with minor adjustments to design, no licensing issues, no outcry that “Moog stole Moog’s design”. Your thought process is embarrassing, an erratic attempt at justification for shoddy business practices.

        As someone else mentioned, my new favorite saying is “No one would buy Behringer products if they weren’t rip offs of everyone else’s products”.

  7. Behringer sucks. Literally everything on this synth is stolen from another device, including the copy and pasted sequencer from Korg products.

  8. This is ok for what it is, and yeah it’s fake polyphony, but we need to tell synth makers that 4-voices is way too little for modern poly synths.

    I’ve got 20 year old synths with 128 voices!

    Wake me up when you can do 12 or 16 analog voices, like Korg or Sequential or Moog.

  9. We shouldn’t HAVE to debate a company’s shabby behaviors alongside an attempt to give their products a fair hearing, no pun intended. What a bore. This has a sensibly improved Mini shape/sound and I appreciate the 3-year warranties the company offers. How well they back ’em up remains to be seen, but its a positive selling point. Notice the gear from other manufacturers on the table. Playing a couple of Uli items in the middle of a robust rig probably won’t put you on Satan’s naughty list. Half of the audience is people who’d love a $3-8k Moog, but will be happy to settle for a $300-600 alternative so they can just play. Its the market, stoopid.

    1. > I appreciate the 3-year warranties the company offers

      I wonder how many people appreciate always having to ship Behringer units overseas, at a cost of $100-$200, at their own expense.

  10. I hope they have patch saving over USB
    That would be fantastic. I can’t blame people who are upset with behringer. I have the deepmind and its fantastic. I don’t think it’s a blatant copy but an improvement on the classic design. I kinda feel the same way about this one.

  11. I was wondering why it looked a little cheaper/flimsier than a Minimoog and then I realized that this was kind of a ‘shrinky-dinked’ Minimoog design.

    If it’s priced at the rumored $700, it should be a pretty good deal. But you can see where they’ve cut corners to get the price down.

    They’ve dropped 7 keys off the left side of the keyboard, which means that synth isn’t nearly as wide as a real Minimoog. They’ve also dropped most of the wood and made the case less deep, too. Based on this, it looks like the knobs and switches are going to be shrunk down, too, like the ones on the Model D.

    I don’t think the Poly D will necessarily hurt Minimoog prices. Behringer’s keyboard will meet the needs of casual users, but serious players are going to want to get a nice full-size classic, instead of something that’s basically been designed to be cheap.

      1. TimS

        I get that you’re attempting to make a joke there.

        We’re talking about real things that may not matter to you, though, but that matter to musicians.

        Lars

      2. I own 0 vintage synths and absolutely hate Behringer. Very few people care about the monetary value of vintage synths anymore outside the $5g+ range. Anything under is sentimental value that makes people despise this wretched company.

      3. Collectors are collectors / Musicians are musicians, those who buy the original items are more collectors with home museums of vintages synthesizers.

        1. Yes – that’s why Behringer couldn’t find any pictures of bands that use Behringer gear to feature in their ads and had to show dozens of bands that use Moog gear.

          1. I dont know if you are aware of this …but Behringer and making synthesizers is still something new…im sure we will see more in the future…

        1. The Korg Minilogue has eight filters, where this has one, so yeah, it’s a different filter layout.

          The more you look at it, the Korg is WAY more synth, for a lot less money. It just doesn’t copy the look of a high-end Moog to justify a higher price.

          Behringer could sell this synth design for $300 as a rack unit, and probably will in 6 months. I’d wait for the rack unit, because otherwise you’re paying an extra $400 for the Minimoog ‘look’, but getting hardware that’s kind of gimped to make it cheaper.

      1. Yes. The Minilogue XD, at $650 ($550 as a module), is an extremely good synth. 4 voices with 3 oscillators per voice, with a filter and full voice stack per voice, savable presets, PWM, analog, programmable digital effects, programmable oscillators, microtonality, ADSR envelopes.

        Of all these features, the Poly D shares only analog. It has 4 voices total each with 1 oscillator. That’s 1/3 as many oscillators for a higher price.

    1. I had a Mono/Poly for several years but eventually sold it because I liked the concept but didn’t like the overall sound – principally that of the filter. This looks way more interesting to me. Respect to Behringer for finding a way to reinvent the Minimoog in an interesting and innovative way.

  12. Behringer copied the look of the Model D to make people think of the Poly D as a cheap Minimoog, instead of as an expensive monophonic synth.

    It the Poly D is really $700, that’s about 3 times as much as a Korg Monologue, which is arguably a more powerful mono synth.

  13. I can’t believe they built this keyboard. I am currently building a custom keyboard case that will house 4 Behringer Euro rack modules. I currently have the Model D, K2, and pre-ordered a Pro~1. You will be able to fold up the Euro rack case just like the original Model D. The left hand side of the keyboard will house some custom circuitry controls. A spring loaded center joystick will control the pitch and modulation. You will be able to route this information to one or all the modules at the same time. A second non spring loaded joystick (similar to the D50) will allow you to blend the audio out of each of the 4 modules out to a single output. There are also separate audio outputs for each modules as well. The wooden end panels will have the Behringer Logo Laser engraved on to the surface and the back of the synth will have “ULtImate 80’s Synth” laser engraved as well.

  14. Behringer’s next synth should be called the “ULtImate 80’s” Yes that is ULI’s name in caps. The logo would also look great on T-shirts. Behringer feel free to use my idea…all I ask for in return is a couple of free synths. 🙂

  15. So, I can’t be against Behringer? Because of what? Behringer Trolls? So, first it is not quite sound like Moog D. I have Moog D, and I not feel Moog D in Poly D (filter resonance is reacting other way for sure). Second, it looks like no one care about design. It looks like pimped up Moog D without caring of how it looks, only how knobs are to reach. It is like throwing out knobs and buttons on old Moog D. Also, somehow it looks even on movies dizzy, like Behringer shitty quality for 100$. And again. It is just copy. Fortnite is copy of some game, but it is cool copy. Behringer didn’t make cool copies, only good low in price copies. Only good copy of Behringer is VC340. The rest looks like pimped up originals with amateurs designers, only caring about functionality not how it look. But anyway it is a real shame, that Roland can’t make analog stuff again and is making shitty old VA and try to sell us it as modern. Now modern analogs are trendy. VA was trendy in 90s. Moog make paraphonic Matriach and it is look gorgeous.

    1. I don’t agree and I have the feeling that Moog owners are whining about the public loss of interest in their museum collections…:)

      1. If you settle for cheap imitations and feel like you have to defend your decision, you just sound insecure and sad.

        People that buy pro gear do it because it’s a joy to play.

        1. I can’t wait to see Cory Henry playing on some Behringer, and David Gilmour using their pedals… /s

          The Behringer clowns put Parliament in their advert as if they’d ever use their trash.

            1. No I did not say that and I do not understand your point.

              Some users bought Deepmind and Crave….

              Note:
              Deepmind and Crave are not really knockoffs of well-known designs, are they?

              1. Yes they are if you can analyze anything beyond skin deep.

                DeepMind == Juno rip off.

                Crave == Mother 32 rip off.

                Neutron is the legitimate only, ONLY “original” synth they’ve put out. Funny enough, I bought one before I knew anything about Behringer and returned it two days later because it felt like using garbage. Then I started to learn about their company and was extremely satisfied with my instinctual decision to return it as well as never support them again.

  16. Is Behringer even allowed to do this seeing as Moog did a run of Minimoogs but a few years ago, I mean come on. Who buys this stuff? I feel bad for them. If it “helps your music”, I’d love to hear some of those sweet sweet Behringer beats.

  17. 700€ and only one more osc and a simple sequencer? I know I’m spoilt. But then I rather get the normal D and an external sequencer. Too bad the se-02 has this stepping issue. Otherwise it would be a great choice as you can save patches, control it by midi CC and you have a sequencer.

    Obviously feature-wise the Minilogue is the better choice. But I just doesn’t have this fat, overdriven, creamy sound…

  18. I’d really like to use some of these clone synths but they are pretty useless to me in modern times without patch saving. …I guess that is why I have mostly digital synths. …blasphemy, I know.

  19. Real polyphony would have been nice but this synth has something very few, if any, synths have, and that’s a fourth oscillator. The fourth oscillator makes it capable of creating sounds impossible to replicate by other synths….except of course a modular with four oscillators.

  20. BEHRINGER IS UNSTOPPABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
    Thankyou Behringer for doing all these amazing repro’s & then some!
    This sounds so thickkkkkkkkkkkk & pppppphhhhhhhhhhat that I creamed maaaaaaaa jeans watching the
    demo video.
    And Poly D sounds better than Para D (and you can imagine all the Behringer critics taking the piss out of it, calling it the Parody….so screw them, this is amazing either way.)
    Wonder if they’ll repro the Jupiter 8, cos I believe an OB-8 type is in development, yes?

    Now, kindly go follow my bandcamp link and check out my soundtracky synthwave/outrun nonsense!

  21. wow! 123+ plus comments. That shows you Behringer is stirring up the market whether it is good or bad depending on your opinion. Even the amount of YouTube views and subscribers are up in there in the stratosphere. I am certain other manufactures wish they could do the same too.

Leave a Reply