Behringer Intros ‘Brains’ Eurorack Module, A Mutable Instruments Plaits Clone

Behringer today introduced the Brains Multi-Engine Oscillator Module for Eurorack modular synthesizers, a clone of the Mutable Instruments Plaits.

Like the Plaits, Brains features a wide range of digital oscillator modes, ranging from virtual analog to FM to drum synthesis. The Behringer version adds a waveform display and a USB connector on the front of the module.

Here’s what they have to say about it:

“Brains comes with multi-functional Timbre, Harmonics, Frequency and Morph controls that can be used to tweak each of the 20 synth models. Just select the active synth mode with the model button then start turning the controls to change the character of your sound source until you get your desired tone.

Set any of BRAINS’ 20 synth or percussion and noise engines such as Virtual Analog, Waveshaper, FM, Grains, Rain, Noise, Dust, Modal Strings, Bass, Snare or Hi Hat to generate dark pulsating beats, bright and spicy tones, ripping leads, lush chords or ethereal pads to really breathe life into your music.”

Note: Behringer includes this text at the bottom of the page to indicate the source of the Brains code:

*(https://github.com/pichenettes/eurorack/tree/master/plaits)

Plaits uses open source software and hardware licensing, which means that anyone can make a clone, if they follow the requirements of the license.

Pricing:

The Behringer Brains is priced at U$149.

126 thoughts on “Behringer Intros ‘Brains’ Eurorack Module, A Mutable Instruments Plaits Clone

  1. Who is low and pathetic enough to buy this copied junk from shit for brains Uli?
    Shouldn’t this company be banned from the western market and sued by the millions if it tries otherwise?
    When are people standing up against this parasite?

    1. Plaits is open source, that was the intention of mutable. Many people build copies of it and experiment with different configurations. You can get the pcb’s from amazingsynth and do it yourself too. Or you can already order other variations on Plaits such as Knits, made by other manufacturers.

      I’d have liked to see a few more new features, and I’d have liked to see some new open source code coming out from Behringer, because that is how open source is meant to work. But hopefully it is the start of something…

    2. Don’t open source your IP and complain about it. Pretty easy if you have any business sense. I am kind of tired of the fake outrage. I am no fan at all of either company anymore. Both drama queens with a mob following.

    3. I’ll tell you ” who is low and pathetic enough to buy this copied junk”..ME..someone who is on a fixed income,someone who just wants to the make music ,not pine about who is more right!!! It should be about the music!! Not everyone has the income to buy high end equipment ,so we do the best that we can. Don’t judge just because everyone won’t do what you would do. Life is about choice,If I choose to spend my money on a certain product,that’s fine ,BUT do not call me pathetic.What’s really pathetic is being closed minded.

      1. they clearly trying to make money on the expense of people who don’t know.
        maybe its “people who just wants to make music” so it’s good someone who does know better will open someone’s eyes to other, better option.
        it cost about the same as a hand made quality clone with much more features, help in development of the project and respect to the original creator.
        but if you really don’t care, why are you here commenting about what you don’t care about?

  2. This has always been Behringer’s business model. Rip off other people’s innovation. I have never, and will never buy anything from Behringer.

    1. Hope you don’t ever buy a Toyota (or Suzuki, Honda, Chevrolet, Volovo…) – they all ripped of the innovation of Benz’ Motorwagen ……

      1. i find it hard to believe people really think they don’t sucks ethically.
        i will have more respect to someone buying their shit knowingly and admittedly it’s shit.

    2. Your loss… some of the Behringer stuff is fantastic… personally, I’d love a real, genuine, full-blooded Roland JP8 but the chance of finding a spare $25,000+ in my sock drawer for a second hand synth is pretty low…. if Uli can make an affordable clone that (to my ears) does the job then I’ll buy one.

      1. not everyone is jerking on the past. i prefer interesting new synths but they hard to find since almost nobody wants to make them. who would want to compete with this simple, “vintage based” cheap recreations mass produced? i can’t blame them, look at the usual comments about something new and interesting “i can buy two behringer’s for half the price”
        ignoring all the features (not even digital control) just to count the number of osc
        so instead of innovation analog synth with complex control or other new features (and a reasonable price tag) we get this vintage like shit build cheaply as possible pissing on the history of synth makers and degrading the synth market.
        most ironiclly some say this is what people want’s and thankful for “uli service”
        humanity can sucks
        you member?

  3. Plaits is open source, that was the intention of mutable. Many people build copies of it and experiment with different configurations. You can get the pcb’s from amazingsynth and do it yourself too.

    I’d have liked to see a few more new features, and I’d have liked to see some new open source code coming out from Behringer, because that is how open source is meant to work. But hopefully it is the start of something…

    1. The point is not that Plaits is legal to copy, it’s that Behringer is using it’s immense resources to make cheaper and crappier versions of things that already exist, instead of innovating…

        1. Stop pretending Behringer uses open source in a respectable manner MrMidi or that I wrote it just for this module. Behringer is a terrible company period. Yes a huge law firm should sue the living daylight out of Behringer when they try selling copied stuff out of China.

    1. I am not sure this is completely Mutable’s code. A lot of the modules there are standard dsp. Of course this doesn’t mean that Behringer won’t be Behringer. Unfortunately they are constantly rewarded by musician’s money so like the situation with music copyrights the game is lost. Behringer have shareholders and they just need to get that next Bentley.

    2. I’ll try again. Emilie has worked hard to share her designs, firmware and knowledge with the synth and modular communities for a very long time. Purchasing Mutable Instruments products instead of mass-produced clones is the best way to support her considerable skills.

      1. I already bought 13 modules from her. Is it OK with you Zaphod old boy, if I buy one of these now?

        Honestly, nothing ever changes here. I would like to express good will but I’ll get attacked. Or worse, ignored!

        I like this. I can buy an off the shelf hardware product, from a retail vendor, that I can use to continue development of the codebase of one of my favorite sound generators. I modify the code for Prologue, it’s a blast. Playing with a bunch of these modules at once is an interesting platform, with or without eurorack.

        1. Knock yourself out, John. I’m not sure what offended you so deeply about saying that it’s a good idea to support the innovators in this industry.

          1. To Zaphod’s point, the problem with Behringer, and Uli specifically is that this is a company that exercises no restraint. Uli has essentially declared war on the rest of the industry by the sheer scale, financial resources, and cheap labour it employs. The marketing veil that it produces affordable equipment for the masses masks the ugly reality that it is also a race to the very bottom. And that eventually hurts everyone.

            Competition is good for the industry and ‘disruptors’ are always welcome. However what Behringer has done is to routinely pick off the low hanging fruit. This is like if VW decided to clone and make economical bicycles tomorrow and whilst they would surely be able to make it for less than anyone else in the industry and many may even benefit from the cost savings, the industry at large would probably suffer.

            To further complicate matters, Behringer routinely fails to accredit designs to the originators, and with something as simple and infringement safe as an Open Source design, they still manage to appear somehow underhanded in it all.

            I honestly believe that companies like Roland, Korg, even Sequential, Novation, and many others would benefit from an outlier entity to innovate and disrupt their business as usual operandi, however Behringer is not that. Uli fancies himself in the mould of Steve Jobs. Yet Jobs at least had the good taste to innovate on the copies made.

          2. Sorry, you made it sound like it’s an either/or; you support her or you don’t.

            I do support her, but I support other vendors as well.

  4. Behringer would do just fine copping designs from the big Japanese manufacturers. I would have loved an affordable clone of an MPC. Glad I’m not into eurorack so I’m not tempted to get Brains. Price matters to many of us and Uli has done a good service cloning old Roland and even Moog instruments, which are either pricey new or vintage scarce. I really love the Model D I got slightly used for only $200, and the Crave for even less. But I guess he’s ‘on a roll’ like many captain of industry with his head in the clouds (of cash) and ethics just something for us ‘little people’…

  5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, now thats funny. Someone did guess Braids/Plaits clone. Get ready for a whole line of Mutable Behringer clones for $100 bucks less.

    1. Behringer does not appear to explicitly credit Plaits or its creator Emilie Gillet on their Brains page, but they include this text at the bottom of the page to indicate the source of the Brains code:

      *(https://github.com/pichenettes/eurorack/tree/master/plaits)

      We’ve updated the post to make this clear.

      Plaits uses open source software and hardware licensing, which means that anyone can make a clone, if they follow the restrictions of the license.

      1. For what it’s worth, if you click “Show More”in the product features section, they do actually mention the following:

        “20 digital oscillators including 15 Mutable Instruments Plaits* engines for infinite sound creation”

        I imagine the asterisk in the above quote is why there is also an asterisk in front of the plaits URL.

        I notice many people here and elsewhere saying that there is no attribution (the text of this post included), and while the explicit attribution is indeed hidden in the “Product Features” section (under “Show More”), it is the first section you can expand on the page. If you’re at all interested in this product it’s likely that you would click that to reveal further information.

        I only own one Behringer product (DM12D, rarely used) and I get it, but it looks like they did everything right in this case, including expanding a little on an existing design and crediting MI. I do not know if the attribution was added after the page went live, but I do recall seeing it there this morning, when I checked the page after a commenter on Twitter also seemed to think there was no attribution.

  6. Love or hate clones… it’s not even a great clone. There are plenty of Plaits clones (beehive, etc) which are far superior. It’s a super clunky design too.

  7. The more Uli produces the less I’m inclined to buy ANY of it. Sure, this is legal under the MIT open source license Emilie chose to use but sure goes against the spirit of it.

  8. ITT a lot of people having no idea about the open source nature of Plaits, what is open souce, and speaking for Mutable’s Emily and how they believe she feels about it.

  9. The synth community is funny… I don’t think this development would offend people in any other industry. Android is based on Linux, MacOS is based on BSD. Those companies are WAY bigger than Behringer. But with Linux I think people have a better understanding of what open source means, and people don’t get butt hurt about big companies modifying it.

    I actually posted to note the fact that the name is ‘BRAIDS’ with one letter changed. Maybe it’s so obvious it doesn’t need mentioning. Anyway, I think the name is the trolliest part of this whole thing.

    1. Not sure that it’s ‘offending’ many – seems like many are welcoming a cheap Plaits clone.

      People that understand open source, though, do get ‘butt hurt’ about companies using open source code without following the licensing requirements.

      Apple doesn’t do this – they have a big open source page where they give back to the community:

      https://github.com/apple

      Google does the same thing:

      https://opensource.google/

      Unless Behringer follows the licensing requirements – which they won’t – they’re acting as a parasite on the open source community.

      1. It would be great if Behringer and Arturia gave a bit back to the open source community like Apple and Google do. They could have open-sourced their modifications to braids — people are saying there are new oscillator types? And we would love them for it. It could become a really rich community.

        But it’s not just Behringer. For example, evidently Korg had to release some open source software from the wavestate, presumably because they modified some GPL libraries. It’s on github. But the repo is pretty much undocumented and obviously just lip service to the license.

      2. I guess the thing I wish people on here would realize is that if Behringer was just another Chinese company doing this, without the German persona, nobody would give a crap. Apple and Google are more powerful and controlling of their markets than Behringer. It’s like getting mad about Walmart when every other big retailer does business the same way they do. Except Behringer is much smaller than that. And it distracts from the fact that these are systemic problems with capitalism. I mean Uli is small potatoes compared to all the other bad corporate shit going on. Also it’s always super obvious that he thrives on this negative attention. He probably gets off on threads like this. That’s why he just changed the ‘d’ to an ‘n’, that’s why the guy in this video has such a smug attitude. They are just trolls that feel more powerful by being annoying, and a lot of the people in the synth community feed right into it.

        1. Behringer is not a German company – they’re a multinational conglomerate, based out of the Philippines to avoid paying taxes, founded by a Swiss guy, with their manufacturing done in China for 25+ years.

          If there was a Chinese company monopolizing the market with knockoffs like Behringer, even more people would be bothered by it, because of racism and racist stereotypes about Chinese manufacturing quality.

          Also – I don’t get the whataboutism you’re spreading. Are you saying that Behringer gets a pass because Wal-Mart is worse?

          1. Ok, it’s a company founded in Germany by a Swiss guy and it was moved to China/Philippines, whatever. The point is people want to hold this guy to a higher standard because he has a white face, he started in Europe, and he has a shitty personality. People are attached to the idea of him as a villain. White people would not vilify a Chinese company with Chinese leadership that way because they wouldn’t relate to an Asian face that doesn’t speak English. The comparison to Walmart is that if everyone demonizes Walmart, and they keep shopping at Target, they are ignoring the fact that the industry and the system is the problem.

            Second… Behringer has by no means monopolized the market, at all. That’s a huge mischaracterization.

            Third, people are getting whipped up about a company using open source property, and that is just absurd. Does Behringer have a pattern of shitty behavior? Yes. But getting this worked up about it in this context doesn’t make sense.

    2. It depends. I remember how many computer programmers had the moto “if it isn’t free, it doesn’t exist” and used to gloat about how easily they could download pirated music and films. They all had that mentality of “nothing can be done about it”…And now years after you look at them, dongles, elaborate encryption systems, monthly transcription services, a lot of nagging, theories about “renting not owing blah blah blah”. Btw this is an issue not because of lack of understanding of open source (clearly mutable did not reinvent the will with their dsp code) but because of who Behringer is and what they stand for.

  10. It’ll be awhile till Brains is available. I for one love mutable instruments and all the gear that they design! I’m open to buying clones. I own a clone of clouds…..! I love clouds n the company that did the clone did a beautiful job! I feel brains will be globally accepted!

  11. Berringer did the bare minimum to adhere to the open source requirement of including a link to MI in their document. And they added very little in this fairly ugly design. I won’t buy their stuff.

  12. The most surprising thing to me is that the Brains pricing isn’t better than it is.

    Plaits clones are already available in the $150-200 price range from multiple indie manufacturers. You’d think that Behringer would be able to make them much cheaper, without cutting corners.

      1. But as a customer, I get mass produced, wave-soldered, factory tested, 3 year warrantee, from an online commercial retailer, with their own sales and support staff.

        Those others? Are one man operation basement guys – you got to love them – but completely different value prop for many new customers getting into eurorack for the first time.

        1. Lol you make those 3 years sound like Behringer is convinced that their gear will last that long. They only provide 3 years cause even after that they can still through it in the trash, sent a new one and still make profit. That’s how terrible their stuff really is. Behringer with their millions on the bank cant even get close to what a one man operation produces.

          1. I’ve taken 50 of their products apart and found no basis for your opinion. Their pots are crap, and most of the electro-mechanicals are weak, the copper on the PCB a bit thin, but the rest is solid, and it all would certainly hold up under normal use.

            No, it’s not Pro level. It’s isn’t meant to be. It wouldn’t be the one of the most inexpensive options on the market if they were.

            Have a sense of proportion to your critiques, please.

            Many companies never repair returns, labor is EXPENSIVE. Again, sense of proportion.

    1. Yeah, kind of like how the ‘Swing’ is 20-30 cheaper than the keystep. And there are a ton of used keysteps out there. I think 10-30 dollars is probably worth getting the Arturia keybed.

      That’s the thing, if everyone could calm down and step back a bit, it’s questionable whether this is a winning strategy. The company was making money before all the cloning nonsense, I wonder if all the peacocking is worth it for them? Are they actually making money with their bad attitude and what not?

      1. The ‘cloning nonsense’ knockoffs is what Behringer has always been known for.

        They’ve made knockoffs of every popular guitar pedal, for example:

        https://www.tonestart.com/ultimate-behringer-guitar-pedal-clone-list/

        The founder, Uli Behringer, has said that they want to copy all their competitor’s successful products, only making enough changes to minimize the risk of lawsuits. That’s how you get something like the Swing.

        With something like this, Behringer won’t make any real attempt to honor the Plaits’ license, because Mutable Instruments isn’t they type of company that has staff lawyers.

      2. Not sure if you know the history of Behringer but they’ve been stealing designs since day 1.

        All Behringer (Musictribe) does is built cheap factories where people are forced to work for the lowest paychecks. His fully automated factory sounds nice on paper but he’s been lying so many times that this probably another one of his scams.

        Uli could release a Deepmind MK2 or something with better quality in just about everything but no. In the meantime most one person companies around the globe built superior quality over his junk. I think that says enough that Uli only cares about himself.

        1. I see, my mistake. I guess I always see audio interfaces and pedals as being similar to each other anyway so I don’t think about legal disputes with that stuff. And I only started hearing about it when they got into synths.

    1. I don’t get the hate with this one.
      It’s not a knockoff, it has an OLED screen and a USB port that Plaits doesn’t have.
      Did Arturia get this much flak for the MicroFreak?

      1. “Did Arturia get this much flak for the MicroFreak?”

        They got a lot of flak for not properly crediting Mutable Instruments. They marketed the microFreak like they collaborated with MI, when they really just copied MI’s source code.

        So it wasn’t their use of open source code that people took issue with, it’s that they weren’t professional about it – just like Behringer is doing.

      2. they sucks, and it’s clearly seen in anything they do, i don’t get how people miss that,
        i guess uli knows his costumers better or most of the favorite comments are sponsored.

  13. It partly leaves a bad taste because behringer are not going to contribute anything to the open source community, and have actively tried to use copyright to steal people’s IP. Just a shame as I’m sure B have lots of clever people working there, and can create original designs at a good price like the deepmind.

  14. Since the MI hardware is under CC BY-SA 3.0, I assume Behringer should have at least respected the following :

    Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

    ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

    I don’t see anything except that “poor” “hidden” link on their product page.

      1. I don’t think they had to, since they only used the code, I believe that is under an MIT licence, and thats a different license from the hardware.

  15. i’m a little surprised that behringer jumped onto the plaits clones train with so many clones of it already out there

  16. Lots of people (legally) clone MI stuff, but they don’t make teaser videos and ridiculous press releases about it! They also credit the original designer!!

  17. Every time Behringer brings something new, i just come here and enjoy reading all the comments … what a soap 🙂

  18. That they didn’t make the “link” to the github page an actual hyperlink nor did they add any sort of attribution pretty much says it all. I’d be willing to bet that the url was inserted with the asterisk and parenthesis specifically to prevent whatever CMS they’re using from automatically converting it into a clickable link.

    *(https://github.com/pichenettes/eurorack/tree/master/plaits)

    Yes, it’s open-source software and hardware. Yes, Beh still managed to make it shady.

    1. It’s not Behringer making a clone of an open source project that’s douchie, it’s that they’re being douchie and ignoring the rules of open source licensing.

      Not sure why people can’t understand the obvious or why they would want to be apologists for Behringer.

        1. What do they say – ignorance of the law isn’t a defense?

          On the MI Github, it clearly lists the licensing that they use. If you agree that this is a Plaits clone – which Behringer cops to and everybody seems to understand – then at a minimum they should follow the CC attribution guidelines that Gillet documents in the repo.

          Here’s an example of a developer that tried to do it right:

          “KNIT is a smaller redesign of the Mutable Instruments Plaits module by Émilie Gillet.

          CC-by-SA Émilie Gillet”

          https://www.antumbra.eu/redesign/knit

          Not hard to get right at all.

          1. CC licenses are for copyrighted material, which does not include circuitry. You cannot copyright circuit implementations. Mutable’s implementations are bog standard “spec sheet” schematics for most microprocessor units. There is nothing unique there and claiming that a CC license applies to this stuff was either very naive or very disingenuous.

            1. You appear to be uninformed.

              Under United States Copyright Law (17 U.S.C. §§101 et seq.), circuit boards designs can be protected via several copyrights, including the PCB design.

              The reality, though, is that Mutable Instruments does not have a ‘horse in the race’, financially, since they’ve been generous and given away their designs. So they won’t invest in lawyers to protect their IP and Behringer’s lawyers know this.

              Anybody experienced with open source, though, can recognize a parasite when they see one.

              Behringer is probably unusual for a larger company, in that they aren’t really known for creating and protecting their own IP as much as copying other company’s IP.

              Big companies in general tend to trip over themselves when they do open source. Remember how Arturia stepped in it when they copied Plaits?

              1. That’s misleading. You can copyright the exact layout and the exact schematic drawing but you cannot copyright the arrangement of parts and how stuff works. To protect a circuit you need a patent. Mutable would never quality for a patent.

                I’m not talking about them suing B, I’m talking about them getting a lawyer 10 years ago before they decided to use a flawed license for their company IP.

                1. Cool story, bro.

                  What’s misleading is to state BS as fact, like you have been doing.

                  You’re acting as a Behringer apologist – posting a bazillion comments defending the company, saying you can’t use CC to license hardware designs, then saying ‘Oh yeah, I really meant patents’ and then changing the subject when somebody points out how obviously incorrect you are.

                  Do you really think it is in any way complicated, or expensive, or challenging for Behringer to comply with the simple guidelines of the Plaits licensing?

                  Do you think that there aren’t plenty of examples of other companies supporting the spirit of Plaits’ licensing?

                  If not – you are just making excuses for a company either being lazy or corrupt.

                  1. I strongly dislike the company, but you need to stick to the subject. The only form of IP that can protect a circuit implementation is a patent. Mutable’s choice of CC licenses is not based on a coherent understanding of IP law.

  19. It really is unfortunate to see this kind of behavior from the company behind the DeepMind 12, which I still think is an amazing piece of kit at the price.

    Behringer could have easily attributed Emilie’s work by name, and they could have easily contributed their modifications, adding the screen and USB, back to the open source community. Instead, it looks like even the small effort they went through to acknowledge the open source roots of their product was an afterthought. I’m sure it’s all perfectly legal, but it’s still pretty sad.

  20. it’s an MIT license – there are no requirements. people making up stuff just to get mad at their synth enemies will never not be hilarious.

      1. You can’t copyright a circuit design, period. CC license applied to hardware has no basis in law. Behringer blows but stop claiming hat some kind of license was violated.

  21. Behringer successfully dodged Moog, Roland and Korg (and probably others) copying their IPs, regardless of the ethics of the whole thing. They’re not gonna have many problems with open source code, they’re not doing anything any of the other cloners aren’t doing with mutable’s designs. I do wish they had been totally transparent about it though, just as most cloners do. If they opened their video stating they had built a module based around plaits, with their own additions and alterations, I think a lot of people would have been happier about it, but they’re not, they’re shouting how amazing their module is like they just invented the wheel. Personally I wonder how big the market for this module really is, if you want plaits, its been around for years, if you want a cheap plaits, get a clone. How many people actually need to buy a new plaits in 2021?

  22. Behringer will accidentally copy one of their few original products, thus causing them to sue themselves, forcing ULI into a paradox he cannot escape.

  23. I met a Vietnam-era helicopter pilot who ferried troops around in a “flying banana,” the model with a big prop at each end. He said (IIRC) that engines slated for overhaul at 4000 hours were junked after 2000. The sheer crap that got sucked into them trashed the works.

    Even high-quality consumer electronics have an expiration date. Some pieces I’ve bought couldn’t even make the one-year point. I also have a couple of things that are pushing twenty and still rolling. I have better things to do than argue with your gear choices, such as crapping a few mini-brickbats as I prepare to shift to a new Mac.

  24. Quite sure the China plant is not just a factory. The cloning (“design”) probably happens there as well. The stereo type image of slavery, forced labor is often very false and does not match the reality in many factories in China. What is really disappointing here is the lack of recognition and respect given to the original developer (just one little link w/o comments). For any changes, the company should publish the related materials under the same terms or state it is an unmodified design from the original documents. For example the BOM will definitely be different (a least for part suppliers) so there you go ! But yeah, that will need a bit of goodwill.

  25. As this module is targeted to people like myself that I am neófit and brand new to the modular. I will dare to ask this question. It is feasible to use like all the sounds at the same time (say kick, hats, snare and super saw and chords for instance)? Or is one at the time.

    Thanks for taking the time reading and clarifying this old fart question o this appealing module

    tía

    Sid

    1. We have used the Plaits module that this is derived from, but not Brains.

      Plaits only lets you create one type of sound at a time. It’s possible to change between them quickly, though, using the ‘Model’ CV input – so you could for example sequence a kick on one beat and a snare on the next.

      1. Synth head

        Thanks bunch for taking the time replying to my question. It is indeed highly appreciated man….guys like you Rock in my book buddy 😉

    2. I was curious about this as well, because to me ‘multi engine’ would mean multiple engines you could use that the same time. Based on the video, it doesn’t seem like that’s what this is.

      1. Exactly…thanks for also joining on this MFich!….for the price it would be perhaps worth it to buy several depending on what you have in mind.

        Cheers

  26. Thankfully the humble pizza is safe from Behringer’s evil hands. Imagine someone started mass producing cheap shit ones. The outrage. Hunger srike, anyone?

    1. Haha I was confused for a second and thought maybe ‘pizza’ was a nickname for a circular baby 8 sequencer. Also a humble design.

  27. If Behringer were to put all the open source code that is ‘out there’ (oscillators, effects) inside their owb Deepmind enclosure… imagine what kind of monster synth THAT could be.

Leave a Reply