Behringer RD-8 Drum Machine Gets New Firmware To Fix MIDI Sync Problems

Behringer announced today that they will be releasing a free v2 firmware update for their RD-8 drum machine to address bugs, add integration with their Synthtool platform and more.

Users have reported issues with MIDI sync and other problems. Earlier in the year, Behringer acknowledged the RD-8’s MIDI problems and said that fixing the RD-8’s issues was a prerequisite for releasing their TR-909 knockoff, the RD-9.

The company says that it will publish the new firmware over the next few days, together with release notes and an updated manual.

No update on the RD-9 release has been announced.

Update: Behringer has released the update on their site. Some users are reporting that the update fixed their MIDI sync problems. Some users, though, are reporting that the update ‘bricked’ their RD-8, though, rendering it useless, or that it broke features that previously worked. Owners may want to read through the v2 firmware thread on Facebook prior to trying the update.

103 thoughts on “Behringer RD-8 Drum Machine Gets New Firmware To Fix MIDI Sync Problems

      1. Just trying to generate a bit of ‘controversy’ for their tawdry little website I guess – Synthtopia, living off other peoples products and adding nothing to ‘the community’ it so longs to be part of………….

        1. Muzone

          Thanks for your feedback.

          We have to admit that, even after running Synthtopia for 17 years, we’ve never heard anyone describe Synthtopia as ‘tawdry’ before. Kudos to you for opening our eyes up to new perspectives.

          Looks like you’re a first-time commenter today, also. Thanks for taking the time to wade into the tawdriness of our little site to share your thoughts!

          1. Great to see your very skillful use of sarcasm, but you forgot to engage with the “controversy generation” part of Muzzone’s message, which is spot on. Almost every Behringer announcement on this site uses overly negative wording, supposedly to generate traffic. It’s getting a bit tawdry.

            1. Mike Mos

              Thanks for your feedback.

              When you say that this article uses ‘overly negative wording’, you’re ignoring the bulk of the article, which states that the firmware update is ‘new’, it’s ‘free’, it ‘addresses bugs’, it ‘adds integration’, etc. So your main concern appears to be over a single word choice, our use of the term ‘knockoff’.

              We use the term ‘knockoff’ to refer to ‘inexpensive copies of another company’s products’. This is a precise and concise way to categorize some of Behringer’s electronic music products, which are explicitly designed and marketed as inexpensive versions of other companies’ products.

              Your comment suggests that you think using the term ‘knockoff’ in this context is somehow ‘tawdry’.

              We do take user feedback seriously and we do use it to inform our coverage. The feedback on this post, though, makes clear that there are many readers that do not share your perspective on this topic.

              Also – we’ve noticed that you, or someone at your IP address – is using multiple names (Mike Mos, Peter1986, etc) to comment with on this post. When readers use multiple names to comment with – whether intentionally or unintentionally – it artificially inflates their perspective.

              On this article, for example, commenters using multiple names to complain about our word choice artificially creates the appearance that there’s more controversy here than there really is.

              Note that using multiple user names to comment with on the site can cause our spam filter to flag comments for manual moderation. Commenting using a consistent user name minimizes that possibility that your comments will be flagged as spam or be held for manual moderation.

          2. I love the content but to me a knock off was always an illegal product that is made to look like an original. It’s definitely derogatory in the context I am seeing here.

            I would not have a hardware analog 808 without Behringer making one I could find for less than $300. So if the love of hardware and analog synths is what you are all about Behringer is one who seems to be committed to bringing synths to the masses. (Korg too ty)

            I think these products allow Behringer to become experts in what is available now so they can apply this knowledge to innovative synth designs in the future.

    1. Regarding whether Behringer is a “knock-off” or a modern recreation:

      It seems to be that the Behringer version sports several significant improvements over the original TR-808, including lower power/heat, compact/modern mainboard with surface mount components, modern microcontroller, new analog effects, MIDI, USB audio out, etc. while retaining the analog signal path and original/classic circuit designs (and, presumably, sound). In addition to being cheaper, it may be lighter, more reliable (though possibly harder to repair), and easier to integrate into modern workflows due to MIDI and USB support. However, it does seem to lose a bit on usability vs. the original.

      On the other hand, Roland’s TR-08 is a digital emulation, but it seems to have a better sequencer.

    1. It fits the exact definition of knockoff, ”
      a copy that sells for less than the original”,
      “A cheap imitation of something popular”…

      I don’t think behringer insulted by this since it leaves a lot of room for debates here and this is part of the fuel that behringer runs on.

      1. Here’s the wording from the Synthtopia announcement of the Roland TR-06″

        “The TR-06 is a modern take on the Roland TR-606 Drumatix from the 1980s, in Roland’s ‘Boutique’ format.”

        So why is Roland’s knockoff a “modern take”, and Behringers modern take a “knockoff”? You’re smart enough to understand why, right?

        1. Because a knockoff is a cheap, third-party copy of the original.

          The RD-8 is designed to be a cheap 808. The RD-9 is designed to be a cheap 909. That’s the reason people are interested in them.

          Why would stating that fact be controversial to anyone?

          1. Ah, so now a knockoff also has to be third-party? You’re simply bending the definition of ‘knockoff’ so that it only applies to Behringer products.

            It’s not controversial to state Behringer synths are knockoffs. But you don’t get the point. Synthtopia consistently only reserves that term for Behringer products and doesn’t apply it to other manufacturers’ knockoffs. The TR-06 is designed to be a cheap TR-606. The TR-08 is designed to be a cheap TR-808. The TR-09 is designed to be a cheap TR-909. Knockoffs.

            1. They knockoff what’s counts. The schismatics, the sound and the look.
              Roland can’t knockoff their own products and they also do it very differently from the original.
              Lots of r&d vs almost no r&d at all.

              1. As Sten sarapson told us above: “Oxford Dictionary defines a knockoff as a copy or imitation, especially of an expensive product.” So yes, Roland does knockoffs. Or are you really trying to argue that a TR-08 is not a cheap imitation of a TR-808?

                And a word about R&D… why did it for instance take 20+ years for a mass market analog TR-808 copy to see the light of day? Exactly… because of the insane amount of R&D needed. Not just to get the product right, but also to set up the production chain. Roland can’t do analog anymore (they need to hire other companies) and Yamaha can’t do analog anymore (but they can make videos of their museum though). You seem to assume Behringer just copies some schematics, tunes the sound a bit, copy the look and then produce thousands of units just like that. Nonsense.

                1. This knockoffs involve much less work and cost hugely less then making their own design’s/schematics/concept and adverting. This is the basic of their business module.

      2. true, although the full OED also mentions piracy and stealing, which this isn’t. That said I would probably be more inclined to buy this if they’d redesign it and I didn’t feel like I was buying “Nkie” shoes — the insides and the extras seem very nice. Then again I may be missing out on some kind of knock-off kitch subculture.

          1. Inaccurate. Knockoffs masquerade as being manufactured by a brand which they are not. The product would literally have to say “Roland” and have a Roland logo to be a proper knockoff.

            This is a clone with very little poetic license taken with the paint job and naming convention.

            But whatever. Fuck Behringer. Just also the meanings of words don’t change just because you want to apply it to someone you don’t like.

            1. You’re confusing knockoffs with counterfeits. Big difference.

              Knockoffs rip off other company’s products, and tiptoe right up to the edge of the line of being illegal. Behringer copies the look, the layout the sound of the 808, even the fonts of the 808. But they mix a few things up a little, like changing the colors of the buttons, and they don’t put a Roland logo on it.

              So nobody would be fooled into thinking that the RD-8 is a TR-808, just that it’s a cheap alternative that’s pretty close to the original. A knockoff.

              Counterfeits would cross right over the line and put a Roland logo on it. I’ve never heard of anybody making counterfeit synths.

              1. Nah. I’m saying knockoffs describe counterfeits. It’s a slang term for counterfeit. Interestingly, when you simply search the word “knockoff” in google, you’ll (or at least I) see two things: the vague definition people keep citing, and a big ol wiki card for, and I quote, “Counterfeit consumer goods.”

                One of the first questions is “Are Knockoffs Illegal?” and the entire article discusses counterfeit goods. Specifically.

                Not suggesting that words can only be used one way. Just saying that the top usage of this word currently is still often associated with counterfeiting specifically. And in the realm of consumer goods it may come with more legal ramification than just throwing out how, say, “Gary Numan was ironically a huge influence on Trent Reznor who then himself became a knock-off Trent Reznor.” (Sorry Gary, love your whole repertoire)

                Of course, meanings do change with time. People stretch meaning often for hyperbole. People often also stretch meaning to frame – or in journalism, spin – the perception of the subject. And that’s why it’s important to acknowledge the implicit bias associated with word choice.

                IMO, rip-off would generally be more accurate while also conveying the contempt that Synthhead has for Behringer. Which, meh, fuck Behringer.

                1. The way you use the term may not reflect mainstream usage.

                  From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfeit_consumer_goods#:~:text=The%20colloquial%20term%20knockoff%20is,or%20logo%20of%20a%20trademark.):

                  “The colloquial term knockoff is often used interchangeably with counterfeit, although their legal meanings are not identical. Knockoff products are those that copy or imitate the physical appearance of other products but which do not copy the brand name or logo of a trademark. ”

                  Based on this definition, Synthhead’s use of the term seems accurate and unbiased, not ‘contempt’ as you suggest.

                  The bias seems to be on the part of people whining about Synthtopia’s use of accurate language.

                  There are no counterfeit synths, and you’d be hard pressed to come up with examples of another mainstream manufacturer making knockoffs of a competitor’s synth.

                  But no one can deny that all of Behringer’s synth line is knockoffs, with the exception of the Neutron and the DeepMind 12.

                  1. Neutron, DeepMind _and Crave_ too surely.
                    (I know Crave is a bit similar to some of the Moog offerings, but it is different and most importantly it looks different, it is not “passing off”, and so is more in the established spirit of building on other ideas that everyone does.)

                    1. It’s exactly like the mother32 but looks diffrent.
                      Just admit it, They cheap on r&d by copying other where ever they can.

                    2. Crave is a cheap Mother 32 knockoff, but Behringer couldn’t copy the look or they’d get sued, since the Mother 32 is still in production.

                      It’s not a clone, though, they used cheap IC’s for most of the synth voice.

      3. RD8 is not bad, if i have spare cash and room for it ima get one eventually

        But yeh the RD9 looks supercool and way more interesting – although id imagine its roughly the same, ive always liked the 909 more overall and use those sounds far more frequently than 808, which is my go-to for only a few genres

        1. Yeah, I’ve got an RD-8 and while it is a not as intuitive and user friendly as, say, a drumbrute or impact, it sounds better than the brutes. Its a little harder to use in low light situations though lol. Needs a little usb lamp to see it properly.

          I was stoked to hear that the firmware update is finally here – it needs it – but am a little nervous about the mixed reviews and idea of current functionality breaking.

          That said, I like it enough that I’ll definitely be getting AN RD-9. Because I fully agree, 909 sounds > 808 sounds

    2. Behringer sells imitations of other company’s famous products. That way, they don’t have to heavily advertise and people believe that they’re getting the equivalent of the famous instrument at a ridiculously low price. By definition, they’re knockoffs.

      Sometimes it’s important to call things out for what they are.

    3. Exactly. This is clearly intended as an insult. I don’t see the same used in the title for ‘knockoffs’ made by other companies that copy the Moog ladder filter, DYI 808 kits, TTSH 2600, etc.

      1. See Zaphod’s comment:

        “Behringer has released copies of the Roland TB-303, TR-606, TR-808, TR-909 (pending), SH-101 and VP-330. Please name *any* other hardware company that has done this sort of mass copying of a major manufacturer’s product line.”

        You can’t respond to Zaphod – so whataboutism and complaining that Behringer is getting insulted is the response.

      2. “Knockoff” implies cheap and made without love. The other things you’ve mentioned were boutique items that won’t hurt the original manufacturers brand.

    4. Insulting to whom?

      If you feel personally insulted that’s on you. I don’t know how one could buy one of these products without knowing their knockoffs.

    1. people like cheap choices and don’t know much about them usually.
      They check one video that sounds good and they sold.
      Also people memory is very short.

  1. “Knockoff” or not, at least Behringer gives a shite about us musicians eh. Long live Behringer…the only ones that actually listen to us.

    1. It’s just that most of their costumer didn’t know all this instrument exist 🙂

      I heard this argument before. I’m on synths forums and media for 20 years, I remember everybody always wanted the original classic, Never this way of copy. Nobody asked for this.

      It’s a clever but simple business module who fools us to think they are on “our side”

  2. Only Behringer seems to get that treatment for something “cloned”

    Its not like any other company hasn’t copied another in some way

    1. So far, Behringer has released copies of the Roland TB-303, TR-606, TR-808, TR-909 (pending), SH-101 and VP-330. Please name *any* other hardware company that has done this sort of mass copying of a major manufacturer’s product line. It’s unethical.

      1. DeWalt? Caterpillar? Craftsman? Oh, you don’t mean that kind of hardware. I guess synthesizer designs should be given some special protection not afforded to other tools, eh.

      2. I didn’t know the Roland TB-303, TR-606, TR-808, TR-909, SH-101 and VP-330 were part of a major manufacturers current production line. Good to know, people have wanted reissues of these for years!

        1. spot on Mike. i sincerely hope the mods consider using an alternative to knockoff such as “copy” or “remake”. The term knockoff also has the connotation that its a dodgy underground back-street ripoff and the customer is being “fooled” and think they are buying the original, and the original company is losing sales by the existence of this so-called “knockoff”. Thats not the case here. Roland had every chance in the world, years and years to avoid this situation. Theyre not losing any sales here because they refuse to want to sell these analog products. Their loss. At least we have Behringer that listens.

  3. Synthhead, I have to admit that, while I commend you for sticking it to the man who has mistreated a-many in your community of synth journalists and committed other general fuckery and dickery, but it does kind of smell of petty to be using “knockoff” in these contexts.

    My main issue with the term is that it means “counterfeit” in the proper lexicon, i.e. something pretending to be an original, masquerading as a brand and model of item that it is not. In other words, if these clones had Roland logos on them, then they could be considered knockoffs.

    Regardless, it’s your rodeo and do as you please.

  4. I really wish people would get off the whole “cheap knockoff” crap. You want to question their business practices, that’s up to you, but it’s ridiculous to bash a company for legally providing a product that’s similar to another.

    Let’s take this out of music. You ever buy generic drugs? I do. I buy the store brand because it’s the same thing that costs less. What about cars? I won’t name brands, but I have a car that borrows looks and features from another manufacturer, but it’s 60% cheaper. Sometimes I need medication, so I buy what I can afford. Sometimes I need transportation, so I buy what I can afford. Sometimes I want to make music, so I buy what I can afford. So many people will get to experience the sounds from the big name brands because of Behringer – myself included.

    1. You seem to speak just to convince yourself you’re already correct.

      There’s no brand out there called TYLENUL, with the exact same packaging as TYLENOL.

      NO ONE CARES if Behringer uses an oscillator through a ladder filter.

      People care that they’re clowns within the industry. The lowest hanging fruit, the worst tasting, the easiest route, living off of others’ legacies, stealing artistic engineering designs. Behringer makes everything under the sun regarding music, they’re now bullies to the synth industry. Turn a blind eye so you can have a knockoff, the only one it hurts is yourself. Those of us who care, at the end of the day, sleep just fine, and I’m sure you do too.

      1. Behringer takes expensive synths, duplicates the design and sound as much as they legally can, and sells them – usually for much less because they are made cheaper. They do this because there are many people who would love those sounds, but couldn’t dream of spending that kind of name brand money. So, they sell them for cheaper, and make money. If something isn’t patented or copyrighted, they have every right to do this.

        If you feel this is unethical, that’s fine – don’t buy their products. Buy the name brands. I see it as a way into electronic music for millions of people that would never be able to afford a real piece of equipment.

    2. Agree wholeheartedly. If it’s legal then that’s called Capitalism. And if they are making a product that sucks, the market will eventually catch up with them. If it’s a great product, they will win.

    3. Typical Behringer comment thread.

      The question nobody’s answered is “Does this actually fix the RD-8’s MIDI sync problems?”

      1. I’ve been following the thread on Gearslutz very closely. The firmware was released to the public yesterday, and yes, consensus is that it fixes sync and adds a lot more too.

  5. Let’s not forget all those guitar pedals they knocked off. $200 Boss pedals for $50 bucks and they really sounded…not good.

    I grew up in philly, a knockoff was considered top of the line for poor folks. Only someone insecure wold try to change the definition of “Knockoff” to make them comfortable with purchasing a knockoff. I bought the RD-8, it sucked, I returned it.

    1. That’s what I don’t get. I have one of the few Behringer Boss clones that is pretty good (the fixed chorus with buttons not knobs…can’t remember the model, not around it.) At the time, Boss hadn’t made them for many years, I was broke, and I gladly told everyone it was a cheap ripoff. Big deal. Some people have such weak, important egos. Own your purchase….it is what it is.

    2. That’s a falsehood. Those Behringer pedals were in many ways just as good if not better than their counterparts. Everyone saw that they came in plastic cases and immediately decided that they were just cheap garbage not worth looking at when in fact they pretty much used the same exact circuits as their counterparts. Also those plastic cases are actually strong and aren’t gonna just break on you after a few stomps.

      This video goes into pretty good detail comparing them with eachother. Mind you this is a video from a guy that builds and sells Boutique pedals for a living and even he’s saying there is hardly any difference in sound. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJZa8yCMCQ&list=RDsMczv5CPcmk&index=13

      1. “Everyone saw that they came in plastic cases and immediately decided that they were just cheap garbage not worth looking at when in fact they pretty much used the same exact circuits as their counterparts. ”

        So you’re saying that they ARE cheap knockoffs, while also saying that they are better? Hmm.

        The Behringer pedals are in fact cheap knockoffs. Roland sued them and Behringer had to settle the case and change their designs to make them less of a ripoff. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behringer)

        The circuits are essentially cloned, so they’re going to sound pretty similar. But the build quality on the Behringer pedals is pretty terrible. I have their Vintage Phaser, and the way it’s designed, the battery can flop around inside the plastic case and hit the circuit board.

        Very different than your usual stomp boxes that are designed to be stomped on.

        1. My argument was that they sounded the same if not better, not that they weren’t clones. So poor job trying to put words in my mouth.

          Fun story no one bothers trying to look up cause it doesn’t fit their “Behringer is evil” narrative. Roland Japan actually approved the Clones made by Behringer even including the original pedal cases. Unfortunately when they tried to release them in the USA, Roland USA then tried to sue behringer because of poor communication at the time between the two subsidaries. Behringer decided to settle by changing the cases of the pedals.

          I’ve also bought Boss pedals that were poorly made with similar problems with loose batteries, Inherent noise that wouldn’t go away, loose jacks, etc. No company has perfect quality control but Behringer have at the very least turned theirs around quite a bit in recent years. I own a number of pieces of Behringer gear, some of which for several years, and I’ve yet to have any of them crap out on me.

      2. The point here is simple. Did Syntopia intend to make a somewhat derogatory and insulting remark when discribing a behringer product because they have some prejudicial feelings about the company?
        Undoubtedly yes.
        It may not win them a lot of enthusiastic support from a large and supportive group of behringer fans including me.
        But they are at liberty to do so.

    3. Hey philly native! I’m also from the land where bad things happen.

      My issue with “knockoff” in this context is that knockoff implies forgery. Behringer didn’t put a Roland logo on this and try to pawn it off as a Roland original model.

      That’s a knockoff. What you’re describing is cloning. Which most pedals nowadays are clones or at least VERY similar circuits to classics with some minor, generally inconsequential adjustments/enhancements/part replacements.

      1. You’re using your terms pretty loosely, which may be why you’re taking offense about the ‘knockoff’ term.

        A ‘clone’ is something that’s exactly the same as the original. So it’s probably true that a lot of a lot of cheap pedals ‘clone’ the circuit boards of the originals. Cloning circuits is legal, if the circuits are public domain.

        Knockoffs may or may not be clones – but they copy the look of an original, basically trying to be a cheap alternative. They’re legal, if they’re not making unauthorized use of another company’s patents, trademarks, trade dress, etc.

        Counterfeits are illegal, because they do make unauthorized use of another company’s patents, trademarks, trade dress, etc.

        So while you may think of ‘clone’, ‘knockoff’ and ‘counterfeit’ as interchangeable terms, that’s not factually correct.

        1. “Factually correct” Don’t gas up your own point of view too much now. One of the issues with language is that a words meaning is in however it is used by people. Dictionaries and your personal interpretation notwithstanding, it’s still how you interpret the lexical usage of the word vs. how I do, Mr Knows What He Is Talking About.

          And, since we’re talking intricacies of language here, this is so far from an absolute that I’d say it’s flat-out wrong: “A ‘clone’ is something that’s exactly the same as the original.” wrong wrong wrong. If you took out “exactly” and said “functionally” then that would be much more accurate.

          And it isn’t just “probably” true about pedals, and not just cheap ones at that. Go check out JHS Pedal’s youtube channel for an easy, quick source on discovering just how incestuous and copy-riddled the mass market commercial pedal world is. May as well be buying from BYOC when it comes to half the shit on the market.

  6. Anyone who has had the “pleasure” of studying the Behringer catalog, while working out logs of prior meals, sees a wide range of offerings. It’s difficult to say how many of the products are “derived” from the design work of other manufacturers– but it looks like a significant percentage. Not 100%, though. However, it is fair to say that the main business of Behringer is making and selling copied, tribute, knockoff, spinoff, non-original, borrowed, doppelganger, remake, played-your-eyes-‘d, unauthorized, entry-level versions of existing products. In my experience, Behringer is NOT in the business of making durable, reliable, cutting-edge, innovative products. YMMV.

    Does Behringer have a valid place in the market? I don’t really care, but you can care if you want.

    I stand with the cork-sniffers on this one (if you don’t get that reference, search “behringer cork sniffer”). At some point, if I want/need to buy something made by them, I will hold my overly large nose.

    1. Synthtopia only post news and videos ‘knocked off’ from other sites anyway or stuff spoon fed to them by influencers – hardly first dog on the biscuit are they…..

    2. Sean

      Thanks for the feedback, we appreciate the input, though we may not agree with it.

      Also, you’re using multiple names to comment with on the site (Sean, pteds, TED, sean clarke, etc.) This results in your comments being held for manual moderation because that’s a common characteristic of spam. Using a consistent name will minimize the likelihood of your comment being flagged as spam.

  7. A knock off…
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knockoff
    It doesn’t even imply a lower quality product. Necessarily. I think has become a shared understanding that a knockoff product is of lesser quality than the original. As I have repeatedly tried to make plain, you can’t make a $4,000 synthesizer for $600. Not without cutting a lot of corners. Lower quality parts for example.

    In recent years Uli Behringer has courted the ill will that is directed at him. The “Sorry if you were offended” non-apology that was offered after the Kirn incident was the last straw for many. We don’t accept that sort of “apology” from men who are credibly accused of bad behavior in the workplace, but it’s okay if a guy makes $400 knockoff of a Minimoog? That says more about you, if the only thing you care about is getting it as cheap as possible.

    As to the quality of these knockoffs? I worked at Guitar Barn (not their real name) a few years back. They brought in a truck load of Behringer products for the grand opening. We blew that crap out of there in no time. And in the next 30 days well over half of it was returned. Mixers with channels that stopped working, wall warts that made burning smells, and audio that hissed like a cat. There is no other way to put it. This was crap. Not top quality stuff.

    If Behringer want to sell products at lower price points, why copy the designs of other products? Why not just make some affordable mixers that aren’t direct knockoffs of Mackie designs? Well, I think it’s because they want you to think that their version is just as good, and for a lot less money. It isn’t. It can’t be.

    Also, a video, linked from YouTube, cannot be a “knockoff”. Not unless someone copied someone’s video and made it available for less money. Posting videos that are made by “influencers”? WTF does that even mean? All of the companies, including Behringer, make products available to reviewers. You know, to review. How else do we get sweaty in the pants area and desire their stuff?

    To review. A knockoff is defined as a copy of a well known product that sells for less than the original. When Behringer, or anyone else, copies a product it is a knockoff.

    Sorry if you were offended.

    1. BTW. The Roland minimoog knockoff (se 2) is 400€ too.
      Nobody complains about Roland copying Moog.
      But if Behringer does it people get emotional.
      Popcorn anyone?

      1. The SE2 is a new synth design, both in look and in capabilities. It takes the Minimoog concept and modernizes it with things like full MIDI control and patch memory.

        How many patch memories does the Behringer D have?

  8. I had a blip of interest in the idea of a modern hardware OBX, but Uli’s version looks like a fancy breadboard next to Synapse Audio’s Obsession. Its two OBs you can split or layer with excellent effects. It also gives you added parameters that enhance it by a couple of orders of magnitude. Its a nice case of Vintage-Plus. Its everything I liked about the early Obies I got to demo, folded into one instrument. I’ve owned my share of hardware, but software keeps winning me over with far better programming tools.

  9. as someone who has read 1984 and understands the concept of newspeak, it is not inconceiveable to me that multinational conglomerations would looooooooove to delete and ban as “offensive” the word that differentiates genuinely nice things from cheap imitations. congratulations, everyone. now put down your synth and go read a book.

    1. You read my mind!

      It’s almost like Behringer or Behringer fans want to censor the use of the word ‘knockoff’.

      Thought crime!

  10. While all you b!tches argue, whine, complain, debate, and explain, I’ll be updating my RD8 OS to the new version and waiting patiently for the RD-9 and UBXA. Call it a knockoff if you want, nu hurt feelings here.

  11. If you are an experienced musician and purchase this you know what you are getting. However if this is your first drum machine I would recommend a used Roland TR-8 or a Korg Electribe 2 which both are working fine after many years of use. Both of them can do the same and more than an 808.

  12. All this talk of knockoffs has me excited for a 909 knockoff that I can make music with and don’t care if it’s a Roland 909. Make music. Use tools.

  13. Who don’t we all take a minute to contemplate what great opportunities both manuafacturers and consumers have with the possibilities to have these firmware upgrades. I recall the days we had to either just deal with it or replace chips (e.g. Yamaha RM1X). Kudos to Behringer, as well as other companies that actually fix and release issues and publish enhancements. I recall the joy of upgrading my Waldorf microQ to more polyphony and other enhancements, just by sending it a crafty sysex file.

  14. Wow, almost all of this thread is about the use of the term knockoff, my guess is most of these are directly from Behringer (affiliated) or fueled by them at least, trying to influence public opinion. They have shown to get easily offended in the past and taking real effort to defend themselves (or even counter attack). I think many musicians could care less what term was used, let alone to blame synthead for doing so. What Behringer pulls of is admirable from a Business (production and distribution) standpoint. They can be proud of this. But anyone that largely copies other people’s material, especially on a large scale while walking the boundaries of legality, can expect to receive little praise nonetheless.

  15. It was fun for a while but after some time the knockoffs definition got me bored, because i would want to know about what more is in that firmware update, and if there is more technical talk about the actual machine at the original announcement.
    But there is no link to the actual announcement. But links to to the old ‘problematic firmware’ discussions only.

  16. OMGWTFBBQPPL!!!!!!! Corporations do not have feelings. Stop shilling like defending a 5 year old child, it desperate, outdated and makes the company look worse than it already does.

  17. Whether true or not, some companies appear to have a long standing reputation for knock-offs and have been criticised for this over the years (some for 30+ years).
    The recent spate of clones released just seems to reinforce this view.
    Not sure why those manufacturers don’t expect criticism.

  18. While I wouldn’t use the term “knockoff” to describe the RD-8, I support Synthtopia’s prerogative to say it.

    To me a “knockoff” doesn’t differentiate itself from the product it copies, while the RD-8 attempts (for better or worse) to modernize the sequencer, and adds the filter/wave designer. On the other hand it is a knockoff because it deliberately looks similar to the TR-808 (colour scheme, panel typeface, knobs etc). It is as much a knockoff as the revered Acidlab Miami.

    Synthtopia is a site I check daily to get a quick lowdown on synth products I care about, and it seems like 99% of the stuff I want to hear about is here. There is very little editorializing or opinion in the articles here, which I like, which leaves me a bit surprised to see the use of “knockoff” in this article. But at the end of the day who gives a crap – the info is here, and I’d like to hope we are all grownups who can decide for ourselves whether we like this product.

    What I do find interesting is that if the article had not used the word “knockoff”, this thread would instead be filled with Behringer haters complaining about Uli’s ethics. It’s funny really.

  19. I am disappointed that roll record is not really what i envision it to be yet, it’s just ratcheting which is cool but i want to roll record like on my mpc. The copy bars and pattern functions work very nicely and were much needed.

  20. question – if you install / update the RD8 firmware on a PC, is it crossplatform? I mean to ask is there any issue using it connected to a mac afterwards?

    thanks
    P

  21. I’m so stoked to try this update but Synth Tool keeps giving me an error after I hold the pin down and power up. I tried a different USB cable too. Same thing.

    1. NM. Got it working. New sound trigger buttons are exactly what I wanted so now I can finger drum beats on it awe yeah. The sound is great. I wish there was a tune knob on every drum and the ability to tune down an octave.

Leave a Reply