Behringer Intros $699 ARP 2600 ‘Blue Marvin’ & ‘Gray Meanie’ Knockoffs

From ‘Banaheim’, Behringer today introduced knockoffs of the classic ARP 2600 ‘Blue Marvin’ and ‘Gray Meanie’ synthesizers.

The original ‘Blue Marvin’ and ‘Gray Meanie’ synths are rare early versions of the ARP 2600. They differed in terms of styling from later 2600s. They also had some electronic differences from later models that affect how they sound, but arguably not as much as the later move from a Moog clone filter to the so-called ‘post-lawsuit’ filter design.

Here’s what Behringer has to say about their two new variations on their 2600:

“Featuring carefully selected high-grade components for improved performance, a mechanical spring reverb and unicolor fader LED’s, the Behringer Blue Marvin and Gray Meanie look back at the rarest first editions of the 2600 that was released in 1971.

We further added some very useful features such as a dual filter, an additional LFO, VCO syncs, USB MIDI, and much more.

Rumoured that only 25 Blue Marvin’s and 35 Gray Meanie’s were ever made, these modern-day and authentic recreations bring you closer than ever before to these rarities that have always been so out of reach. This time, at a price within reach.”

Based on what Behringer has said, it sounds like the build changes in the new 2600s are not to align with the unique electronics designs of the original Blue Marvin and Gray Meanie synths, but to address complaints some had with the sound and build of the Behringer 2600s. For many buyers, though, paying an extra $100 for improved components and a real spring reverb (vs the emulation used on Behringer’s earlier 2600s) will be a no-brainer upgrade.

Update: Synth designer Rob Keeble (AM Synths, Behringer) says that the changes in the two new Behringer 2600s “are to improve the sound quality in the filters, which align further to the original ARP design and vision, and to include a reverb tank.”

Pricing and Availability

Behringer says that they will be shipping their ‘Blue Marvin’ and ‘Gray Meanie’ 2600s in February 2021, priced at US$ 699.

98 thoughts on “Behringer Intros $699 ARP 2600 ‘Blue Marvin’ & ‘Gray Meanie’ Knockoffs

    1. Instant buy? Funny… Never thought the price for a synth is its purchase driver. TV, car, chocolate, slut a.o. maybe, but not a musical instrument. Otherwise everybody buy cheapest possible clones…

      1. Agree 100% Roland! Poor Eoin – you’ll figure it out one day (try to write some meaningful music first, the reread RolandForever’s comment)

      2. ‘Cost’ is always factored in when I’m considering a purchase oF something that is in the $1000.00’s…..with everything so volatile as it is …..it’s wise to factor in stuff like ‘Cost’.

    2. The old version with the digital emulation spring reverb is the one that’s $599.

      I hope that they eventually update the entire line with these fixes, even if that means paying a little more.

  1. these too sound nothing like a 2600… also the same ugly design, terrible spring reverb, not to mention the terrible demo too… behringer, hire a freaking sound designer ffs

      1. Behringer has a habit of demoing their synths with random knob-twiddling and sounds, vs actually recreating some of the classic uses of the original instruments.

        It’s not clear whether their demo guys just don’t have any clue about how the original synths were used, or if Behringer doesn’t think their copies can hold up in close comparisons to the originals.

      1. Before feeling too heated about a behringer product and subsequent article, take a moment to breathe and consider that it’s been a big day for everyone and it might be a good time to nap or take a mental health moment. We all live in a green submarine, and the grey meanies are coming!

        1. Quite possibly one of the stupidest things I’ve read today…and I read an article filled with quotes from Trump supporters.

          1. What are you saying? That every single person who voted for Trump is stupid?
            That only Biden voters are smart enough to know that the limited edition Behringer 2600s have a mechanical spring reverb instead of the digital reverb found in the standard Behringer 2600.

            1. So much for reconciliation….No one needs politics on here. If anything, I find most people into synthesis apolitical. They are too busy enjoying life and music.

  2. Anybody have details on what they changed?

    It would be nice to have a chart that shows differences between all the 2600s out there.

  3. Apart from the spring reverb are you saying the component parts are different to the multi led Barp 2600 I just bought because I would love both of these new ones

    1. Yes that’s exactly what he’s saying…”address complaints some had with the sound and build of the Behringer 2600s, paying an extra $100 for improved components and a real spring reverb (vs the emulation used on Behringer’s earlier 2600s) will be a no-brainer”

      1. So they admit the first run components were substandard. Something to consider for the ‘instant buy’ers. You are getting Rev A with all its potential issues. Waiting can be smart in the electronics world.

        1. It’s not that the original BARP 2600 components were ‘substandard’ as much as the parts Behringer chose just didn’t accurately recreate the 2600 sound.

          They are fixing the filter and adding a real reverb tank, and that’s about it. See Rob Keeble’s note.

    1. the orange one also has dimmable LEDs. The difference appears to be that the LEDs on these are all the same color and they were different colors on the Orange model.

  4. These looks way better than their first design. Now I even want one!
    This and the Pro 1 are the only Behringer copies I find interesting

  5. Behringer “knockoff” – Korg “genuine Arp”.

    It’s already pretty clear, but for the sake of the gullible and easily led, shouldn’t you disclose your bias at the top of each post, every time you show it?

    1. Aliens & natefrogg

      Thanks for the feedback.

      Synthopia tries to use the most appropriate terminology for synths that build on earlier synth designs.

      ‘Knockoff’ is used for synths that are inexpensive, unauthorized copies of popular designs. This is how Behringer markets the 2600 – as an inexpensive ARP 2600 – so it’s most appropriately categorized as a ‘knockoff’.

      ‘Reissue’ is used for synths that are new, authorized versions of popular designs. A reissue would be expected to look and sound very close to the original, possibly with minor updates. An extreme example would be Moog’s reissues of their modular synths, which are built with old-school production techniques and NOS (new old stock) parts.

      ‘Clone’ – very few synths are true modern clones (essentially identical copies) of the originals. So this term is generally most appropriately used for things like copies of classic circuit designs. For example, Din Sync has tried to make very accurate clones of vintage synth circuit boards, so you can replace a damaged board on a classic synth with a modern equivalent.

      ‘Inspired by’ and similar phrases are used for devices that build on classic designs, often with new technology and updated feature sets. The Roland TR-8, for example, builds on the classic TR-808 design, but is also a new instrument, based on new technology, with new features. The Korg volca FM may take inspiration from Yamaha’s DX7, but the volca FM is an original design, in a unique format, with different capabilities and an original identity and look.

      When companies make subjective claims, we quote them, to make clear that it’s the company’s claim. For example, when Korg calls their 2600 a “Genuine ARP 2600”, we quote their words to make clear that it is Korg’s claim, rather than Synthtopia’s.

      We hope this helps you understand the logic behind our word choice.

      Regarding claims of ‘bias’: If using appropriate terminology in a consistent way is ‘bias’, then our ‘bias’ is towards being accurate and clear to readers.

      1. @synthhead

        I would suggest that Behringer versions qualify as “clones” to a large extent since they clone the circuit designs and maintain the analog electronics and signal path.

        I expect some readers object to “knockoff” because it sounds disparaging and overly negative, like a “cheap imitation” rather than an “inexpensive clone implementing the original circuits with modern components.”

        “Knockoff” definitely has a negative connotation to me at least, while “clone” does not.

        disclaimer: I own two pieces of Behringer gear: an iStudio with annoying clicks that render it largely unusable, and a USB audio interface that no longer works.

        1. The Behringer 2600s would be clones if they matched the circuit design of the original, if they were full-size, if they sounded like an original ARP 2600, if they didn’t substitute cheap parts for the original (like using a digital spring reverb emulation], if they didn’t remove features of the original( like the speakers), etc, etc, etc.

          ‘Clone’ means an exact copy, so Synthtopia’s use makes sense, and calling a cheap, unauthorized copy a ‘knockoff’ makes sense, too.

          TLDR version: If reality pisses you off, you’re going to frown a lot.

        2. Open up a Behringer and you’ll see why they are knock offs. They use the absolute cheapest components possible with subpar craftsmanship. Cheap components made by cheap labor, Behringer is the Walmart of synthesizers. You get what you pay for.

      2. “‘Knockoff’ is used for synths that are inexpensive, unauthorized copies of popular designs. This is how Behringer markets the 2600 – as an inexpensive ARP 2600 – so it’s most appropriately categorized as a ‘knockoff’.”

        Please explain how Behringer could’ve made an authorized design. Because if you’re so anal about using the most appropriate words, surely you understand that “knock-off” implies that something illegal is going on. There isn’t. Patents have expired, so beyond goodwill towards the original company, there is nothing much that Behringer can do. “Knock-off” makes me think of a Louis Vuittom bag, and that is not what the 2600 is.

        And if you’re so keen on including the manufacturers’ wording, maybe next time include “homage” or “tribute” in Behringer articles, as Behringer consistently calls their products. From the 2600 page: “An ultra-affordable and even more feature-packed homage to that iconic synthesizer comes in the form of the Behringer 2600.”

        1. “Please explain how Behringer could’ve made an authorized design. Because if you’re so anal about using the most appropriate words, surely you understand that “knock-off” implies that something illegal is going on. ”

          Mike – you are confusing ‘knockoff’ with ‘counterfeit’.

          A fake Rolex, designed to pass as a real Rolex, is a counterfeit and is illegal. Counterfeits are few and far between in electronic music gear – the main example we’re aware of is people selling counterfeit vintage synth chips.

          A Behringer D is easily distinguishable from a real Moog Model D – but is also clearly a cheap, unauthorized alternative to the original – so it’s a knockoff.

          If Behringer wanted to make an authorized reissue, they could work with the original company/designer behind a classic synth design and create an authorized reissue. This is done fairly frequently – see the Korg ARP Odyssey, the Sequential OB-6, etc.

          Don’t confuse using appropriate the terminology with ‘bias’.

          1. Arp can’t authorize anything because they don’t exist anymore and patents have expired. Moog can’t authorize the Minimoog schematics because the patents have expired. Sure, having the original creators on board can give a product some weight, but there is nothing official about it in these cases. And that is what “authorization” is about: Official permission.

            And as for your bias: As the Behringer Swing story unfolded, everybody got their say with lengthy quotes. But not Behringer, even though they put out a statement on the matter. Not newsworthy enough?

            Calling Behringer synths knockoffs is part of a pattern. Don’t confuse being able to come with clever rationalizations for your choice of words with not being biased.

            1. Enough with the butthurt.

              Your comments make it sound like you either work for Behringer or that you take Uli Behringer’s Facebook BS as gospel.

              If you can’t see that the Swing is a knockoff of the Arturia Keystep, you are denying what you and everyone else can see with your eyes.

              If you think that there’s no difference between what Moog is trying to do with their Model D reissue and what Behringer is trying to do with their Model D knockoff, you are denying reality.

              The Behringer victimization whining is tiresome. They are a corporate conglomerate and Uli Behringer has personally said that their strategy is to create copies of the market leading products. If that’s not the definition of making knockoffs, tell me what is.

      3. I don’t believe your attempt at justifying a clear anti Behringer bias.

        Anyway, explain how

        “Here’s what Behringer has to say about their two new variations on their 2600:

        “Featuring carefully selected high-grade components for improved performance, a mechanical spring reverb and unicolor fader LED’s, the Behringer Blue Marvin and Gray Meanie look back at the rarest first editions of the 2600 that was released in 1971.

        We further added some very useful features such as a dual filter, an additional LFO, VCO syncs, USB MIDI, and much more.

        Rumoured that only 25 Blue Marvin’s and 35 Gray Meanie’s were ever made, these modern-day and authentic recreations bring you closer than ever before to these rarities that have always been so out of reach. This time, at a price within reach.”

        Means anything like

        “Based on what Behringer has said, it sounds like the build changes in the new 2600s are not to align with the unique electronics designs of the original Blue Marvin and Gray Meanie synths, but to address complaints some had with the sound and build of the Behringer 2600s.”

        1. Aliens

          When companies make subjective claims that are newsworthy, we will quote them, so it’s clear that it’s the company making the claim, not us reporting it as fact.

          That’s why the article features that three paragraph quote that you copy and pasted.

          The last paragraph you quote – about the build changes – is summarizing what the changes appear to be between their original 2600’s and the new models. If you check out the comment from Behringer’s 2600 synth expert Rob Keeble, you’ll find that our summary was quite accurate.

          1. You wrote

            “Based on what Behringer has said, it sounds like the build changes in the new 2600s are not to align with the unique electronics designs of the original Blue Marvin and Gray Meanie synths, but to address complaints some had with the sound and build of the Behringer 2600s.”

            When the Behringer quote a top this page clearly states or implies nothing of the sort.
            I challenge you to quote the part where

            “it sounds like the build changes in the new 2600s are not to align with the unique electronics designs of the original Blue Marvin and Gray Meanie synths, but to address complaints some had with the sound and build of the Behringer 2600s.”

            I get it, you have an issue with the company, that much is evident, but at least be honest about it and not make up excuses that aren’t truthful in the slightest.

            1. Aliens

              What are you going on about?

              People complained that the Behringer 2600 didn’t sound like a 2600, and they complained about the fake spring reverb.

              Behringer responded by introducing new versions that fix these issues.

              Are you arguing that these changes are not improvements to the build? That’s bullshit.

            2. Behringer: “The new 2600s have carefully selected high-grade components for improved performance”

              Synthtopia: “Behringer improved the build.”

              Behringer Fanboys: “That’s so biased, Synthtopia! Where did they say that?”

            3. Aliens

              Where does Behringer say that their Blue Marvin and Gray Meanie try to match the unique circuits of the originals in any way?

              The new synths do two things:

              Introduce two new ‘styles’ for the BARP 2600; and
              Fix the biggest complaints people had with the original BARP.

              Behringer should make these changes to the orange/black version too, because it’s the best looking version.

          2. Rob Keeble even corrected you directly about the evolution of the product, which you added to the post, yet you left the unfounded assumption, even though it directly contradicts what you’d wrote.

            Explain how, from Behringer’s text, you get

            “it sounds like the build changes in the new 2600s are not to align with the unique electronics designs of the original Blue Marvin and Gray Meanie synths, but to address complaints some had with the sound and build of the Behringer 2600s.”

            Focusing on

            “but to address complaints some had with the sound and build of the Behringer 2600s”

            That looks made up to me and a shameful exposed bias.
            You should do a lot better.

      4. ” When companies make subjective claims, we quote them, to make clear that it’s the company’s claim”

        No you don’t, and you didn’t in this case.

        “Behringer markets the 2600- as inexpensive ARP 2600_…”

        But my biggest GRIPE of all is your altering of the definition of KNOCKOFF.

        Per Meriam Webster:
        a copy that sells for less than the original.
        broadly : a copy or imitation of someone or something popular

        Meaning that “authorized” is the word that is being used to encourage Korgs marketing of “Genuine Arp 2600” and not calling it out for what it is, which should also be categorized as a knockoff, given that it is by definition : a copy that sells for less than the original.

        While not as cheap as a Behri copy, the korg 2600m is by all means “less than the original”

        1. hmmm

          The term ‘knockoff’ is never applied to a company’s own products or officially licensed products.

          Nobody ever says that Nike’s latest shoes are knockoffs of last year’s shoes. That’s idiotic.

          The Korg 2600 is not a copy of the original – it is an official reissue of the original, licensed as an ‘ARP’ and created with the supervision of ARP’s co-founder.

          That doesn’t mean the Korg is better or worse than the Behringer, but Synthtopia is just pointing out the obvious, while you seem to be denying the obvious.

          1. There can be no offical reissue of any ARP or Moog music product of the old Moog music company, they can re-issue synths from the Voyager and later), as the original companies are gone, and there isn’t any patent protecting them, so there is no company that can license/authorize,and the original companies can’t take up their production, as those companies no longer exists.

            1. You comments appear to reflect a lack of basic business knowledge. Knockoffs are only possible BECAUSE patents expire.

              And – while patents expire after 20 years – branding does not, trade dress does not, trademark does not, etc.

              Korg has been OCD about making their reissues as close to the originals as possible – including licensing the name ARP, using the ARP branding and getting ARP people involved in the reissue.

              Behringer has no interest in doing any of those things.

              The Moog Music of today is an extension of the RA Moog company and Moog, Inc. Bob Moog got his company back in 2002 and it’s as ‘Moog’ as any company has ever been. Anybody can make a knockoff of a Moog, but only Moog can make a reissue.

              1. You completely missunderstood my text. You should read again.
                ARP and Moog products, can’t be re-issued. They can be cloned, copied, have tributes made. But they can’t be re-issued, as that requires, original maker or patent holders to be involved, and those companies are long gone, and there are no patents. Moog music may have the same name, and apparently someone has the rights to the ARP brand. But then those aren’t re-issues, but clones, copies, just as much as a Behringer product.

        2. you are almost always better off getting the oxford english dictionary definition

          > an object such as a fashion item or an electronic device that is a cheaper copy of the original, more expensive version

          or the cambridge dictionary:

          > a cheaper copy of an expensive and popular product

          meriam webster, a cheap knockoff?

          do gucci and versace sell knockoffs of their own items?

        1. No. Our decisions about what to cover, and how to cover it, are our own.

          We understand that, when we cover controversial companies or topics, some readers will inevitably take offense. What’s ironic in this case is that there are also people saying they’re going to unfollow us because they think we’re Behringer shills (https://www.facebook.com/Synthtopia/posts/10157478209356956).

          We have explained the decisions behind our coverage and we are glad that we can provide a platform that allows readers like you to share different perspectives.

      5. This post, is a clear sign of Bias.
        Re-issues;
        Moog music of today, is not the same company as the Moog company, that made synths in the past.
        So as a company, they can’t re-issue legacy products, as the company is not the same. Both companies were started by Robert Moog, but, the old Moog company went under, after Robert Moog left. The New company, shares the name, and the founder, but it is not the same company, so based on company history, they can only re-issue products, that specific company actually made (voyager).

        The other way to re-issue something, is to produce something that is under patent, with license, or as patent holders, neither is applicable to Moog Music.

        Korg, of course can’t re-issue ARP products, for the same reasons.
        The korg company has as a brand been continuously operating. so they can re-issue Korg products of the past.

        SInce, as far as I know, not even Moog can use, the exact same components, by your logic, the Moog products, aren’t even clones, neither the ARPs made by korg.

        Those are however the closest one can get to knock-off, from major brands.

        Because Dave Smith, is at least involved with the DSI/Sequential products, I can accept those products, being called re-issues. But the actual company, went under, so, they are really knock-offs as well.

        There are a couple of Behringer products, that could be called knock-offs, as they closely resembles the original products. But then, so should any ARP by Korg, and any “Re-issue” by the new Moog Music, and really any “re-issues” by Dave Smith/Sequential as well.

        In most cases, this far, when Behringer has made a new version of a classic, the size, shape, aren’t identical, and they do add additional features. A 2600 that is made for 19″ rack, is quite different in size and shape to the original.

        Quotation marks, in a text, without stating that it is a quote, isn’t read as a quote.

        Better to use other words;
        Like new-take, for products, that is similarish, but partly different or simply clones but with the components replaced where necessarily, that can result in different sound or response.
        And re-imagined, for products, that goes far beyond the original (re-imagined, also, does not mean that it is as good or better in every aspect).
        Keep the headlines and news section clean.

        Any opinion should be cleary stated as such. And as far as the actual news goes, it should be objective.
        If you want to post the news quickly, you can always publish a opinion post, later, using subjective wording in a news article, instead of a proper opinion post or opinion section, doesn’t add anything interesting to the article, while a clear opinion post or section, could actually add something of worth for the readers, even if it is just starting points for a lively discussion in the comment section.

          1. ARP went under, so there is no original company that can make or approve production. And there is no patent holder to produce or license.

            So any new ARP, is not an ARP. It may have the same brand on it, but it is not an re-issue, it is a clone/tribute, just as much as the behringer products.

    2. seriously makes it hard to take synthtopia seriously with such overt bias, one copy is genuine the other copy is knock off, knock offs all the way down

      1. natefrogg

        Thanks for your feedback. See our response above – we outline the logic behind the terminology we use for various types of synths based on classic designs.

        Most of the feedback that we’ve received on the use of the term ‘knockoff’ just expresses anger that we’ve applied it to a Behringer synth or suggests that it’s ‘bias’ to distinguish between knockoffs, reissues, clones, etc.

        Much of what Behringer does is controversial, which makes it difficult to avoid controversy when covering them.

        If you can find an example of bias in our use of these terms, though – especially if we have failed to use the term ‘knockoff’ for synths from other companies that are clearly designed to be inexpensive, unauthorized copies – please let us know.

        There is a feedback form link at the top of every page of this site.

        1. I think that “Reproduction” is the appropriate term, as it is commonly applied to furniture, ornaments etc. that are modern day examples of items that were once popular, but now no longer made by their original manufacturers. These are usually high quality items that make no pretence to be the original item, and often employ modern manufacturing techniques to bring the price within range of a broader customer base. “Knockoff” on the other hand implies theft of intellectual property and poor workmanship, neither of which have been demonstrated in this product.

          1. Why are you guys so hung up on the obvious?

            ‘Knockoff’ just means that it’s a cheaper copy of somebody else’s product – nothing more or less.

            Just about everything you get at Aldi is a knockoff of some other company’s stuff, for example. It’s not illegal – it’s just a copy of the original product. I shop at Aldi all the time and appreciate that you can get essentially the same stuff for a cheaper price.

            The complaints about the term ‘knockoff’ seem like they have to be either butthurt or astroturfing.

        2. Using Knockoff for Behringer products, but not ARP products made by Korg, or Moog music products, from the long extinct Moog Music company made by the new Moog music company, is inconsistent.

          Neither the ARP company or the old Moog company can authorize re-issues, since those companies no longer exists, and there is no rights holder of patents that can authorize either, so they are clearly not authorized by either the original company or any rights holders, which are the ones that could actually grant an authorization.
          Having the rights to use a branding, is not the same as having the rights to authorize an actual product.
          If Berhinger, would get hold of the rights to major brands, and put them on their products, you would not call them authorized, and that is the only thing Moog Music and Korg with their ARP synths, has going for them. It is a brand sticker, not a label of Authorization.

          Knockoff, is considered a negative term, and I am sure you know that.
          If you don’t want to use the term Knockoff, for products, that you by your bias prefer, like products from Moog, and Korgs ARP products, you shouldn’t use it for Behringer products either.
          Keep in mind that Korg made knockoff, of their own products, it only complicates the whole issue, when using loaded terms like that, as it becomes a jungle, for when that term is appropriate and not, even when the original company is actually involved, where both the term re-issue and knockoff would apply.

          The way to cover a controversial company, is to keep the news straight, but add opinion section, or write opinion pieces, or to prove that one’s bias is actually factually accurate.

          Keep in mind though that you are colored by your bias, and some opinions, may be based on inaccuracies, both negative ideas of certain companies and overly positive of other companies.
          Pretty much all of the major music instrument brands today, have produced products with issues, or delivered units that are dead or defective on arrival.
          Most of them rely at least on components made in china, in factories we have no knowledge of the working conditions of, and most even buy circuit bords, and casings, many even fully assembled products from china. There has been no journalistic coverage of the working conditions of music electronics factories in china, not even one of Behringer, though some think so, because of a piece that was published on a blog, that suggested there were issues, though non of them were actually investigated by any journalists or any other independent sources.
          Proving a negative thing about one company, but not investigating others, though, is not proof of factually based bias.

  6. The changes are to improve the sound quality in the filters which align further to the original ARP design and vision, and to include a reverb tank. The extra features mentioned like USB MIDI are in all the models and there is no compliant adjustment feature. These are the real deal, enjoy!

      1. Hi Rob – are the filter improvements specifically on all 3 Behringer 2600’s or just 2 new ones? Do the 3 units differ apart from the Spring verb in any way?

  7. I try to stay mostly impartial on the brand wars, but this is not a particularly favorable comparison for korg with the 2000 dollar minikorg 700.

  8. I highly doubt Behringer has a stash of MC1539G’s, or would bother with the reworking needed to use them. And it’s not going to be close to sounding like a blue marvin without them.

  9. Just to show Korg has shooting them selves in the foot.
    Oh and why don’t you describe Korgs as a knock off.
    Said it before just don’t bother reporting it.
    This site is Itself knockoff .

  10. I’ve got loads of analog synths but only ever had one just die on me. It was one of Behringer’s knock offs. The Boog. When I posted about it on GS I got loads of abuse off the so called Behringer fans. I suspect these fans were paid lackeys. Behringer makes cheap and nasty knock offs and I love Synthtopia for having the guts to call them out for what they are.

    1. I’m glad Synthtopia calls it like it is, even if it’s because I enjoy seeing the Behringer shills heads explode.

      Can we just agree that these synths can be good sounding synths AND pretty crappy knockoffs at the same time?

      My Behringer D sounds good, but god they made a lot of stupid design decisions in the process of making it cheap.

    2. I have somewhere in the realm of 60 synthesizers, samplers, drum machines, and effects pedals. This includes 9 Behringer synths and not one of them has failed or caused any issue. I have had an Analog Rytm completely die, a Machine MKIII that was broken out of the box, a Digitone Keys with a broken volume knob out of the box, and my current Digitone Keys has a Filter key where the LFO key should be. I don’t even want to get into all the problems my vintage Roland gear has caused me. Anyway, the Behringer gear I own is no better or worse than the Moog, Korg, Novation, Roland, Arturia, Yamaha, Sequencial and ASM gear that I own.

      BTW: I too believe the author is showing his/her bias against Behringer. He or she does not apply the same negative connotation to things like the Yamaha YC61 that pretty much appears to be a direct ripoff of the Nord Electro…

      1. Nobody would seriously argue that the Yamaha YC61 is a copy of the Nord Electro.

        That’s like saying a Chevy Truck is a knockoff of a Dodge Truck!

      2. what behringer synths do you have and we can tell what known bugs are in them?

        maybe you haven’t got around to noticing them yet, what with all the other equipment you have.

      3. Agree. I have some Behringer synths, and they have been totally reliable and problem free. They certainly have better build quality than my Korg MS-20 mini and Alesis Ion.

  11. Looks good but unpurchaseable anathema as it is made in Communist China. Behringer needs to accelerate its plans to move manufacturing away from that country. Free Tibet!

  12. Ok synthhead
    How about the fact the no one else is using the term Knockoff but you. Not musicradar, not sonicstate not gesrnews. JUST YOU.

    1. Ron

      Synthtopia makes independent decisions about what to cover and how to cover it, because we are not part of a large publishing conglomerate and because we are not worried about losing pre-release access to new gear.

      We trust that our readers will not be told what to think, either.

    2. Synthtopia is the only blog that seems willing to present things honestly. It’s a brave move, especially since Behringer attacked CDM and Peter Kirn because he gently called out Behringer’s long-running habit of copying other people’s designs by suggesting that they focus more on original instruments. You will notice that CDM no longer covers Behringer at all; the company scared him into silence.

  13. This does seem like a nice value for some pretty extensive semi-modular capabilities. Honestly, I am happy they will do single color lighting for both of these limited editions. I watched a Youtoob video and wondered if it would be possible to watch a Christmas tree while making bad music. The dimmer would be necessary, or sunglasses.

Leave a Reply