Behringer Teases PPG Wave Knockoff, Offering Free Synths To Youtube Reviewers

Behringer today shared a teaser photo, above, for its upcoming Wave synthesizer – a knockoff of the Palm Products GmbH PPG Wave 2 series of synthesizers.

The PPG Wave is one of the early analog + digital hybrid synthesizers, combining wavetable oscillators with analog VCFs & VCAs.

Behringer says that the firmware for their Wave synthesizer is getting close to completion and that they are looking for people with PPGs to help them test and promote their copy. The company says it will give participants a synthesizer, in exchange for testing the synth and creating several comparison videos.

Details are available at the company’s FB page.

The Behringer Wave is still in development, so information on pricing and availability is still to be announced.

79 thoughts on “Behringer Teases PPG Wave Knockoff, Offering Free Synths To Youtube Reviewers

  1. Hahaha yea!
    Knockoff this, Clone that
    Even if many companies have done same thing with many other previous amazing sound products

    They are making waves for people on both sides either way

    But let’s not forget that people will buy it anyhow
    Who knew that digital would make a come back as it is currently?
    As if it left at all

    Good time to be alive

  2. This is coming from a company that claims “we don’t believe in the common and dishonest “pay to play” scheme.”

    Giving Youtubers free synths in exchange for positive reviews is the definition of “pay to play”.

    It’s too bad that Behringer can’t just make synths, without all the BS.

    1. Hate to tell you but if you have watched a review on YouTube by a reputable source they got the synth for free to review it. When the reviewers say something like, korg was kind enough to send me…. They didn’t get a preorder, they got a free synth to review- that has been common since the invention of synths to give reviewers a free unit to review in a magazine, trade papers , etc etc all the way up to you tubers.

      1. People like Nick Batt and Loopop are very clear about what is sponsored.

        Nick does both sponsored and unsponsored videos and it’s obvious which is which, because in sponsored videos, he’ll normally have the manufacturer’s rep in the video doing the presentation, and any hyping is direct from the presenter.

        Loopop makes clear in his reviews that his work is Patreon supported. His reach gets him early access to gear, but I haven’t seen any sponsored reviews.

        It’s not unusual for reviewers like Batt to note that they hate to send the gear back at the end of the review, so even at his level, it’s standard for a well-known reviewer to get early access to the gear, but they still have to send it back.

        At least on Youtube, anytime your content is done in exchange for something, you’re required to select the option “My video contains paid promotion like a product placement, sponsorship, or endorsement.”, adds a label to the video.

        A more valid criticism is just that companies won’t give early access to reviewers that are especially critical. Batt and Loopop give fair reviews, in my opinion, but you do always see them balancing what they don’t like against things that they do like.

        1. Being sponsored does not equal being paid, and most companies that provide review units free of charge do not even ask creators to make a video at all.

          1. Dacci – I think you may be talking about ‘sponsored artists’.

            Many music gear companies have ‘sponsored artists’ – basically a program to get ‘influencers’ to use their gear.

            If you’re somebody like Keith Emerson or BT or Richard Devine, they’ll pay you to be a sponsored artist and give you gear and access to dedicated product specialist. Companies do this when you’re really popular and they want your fans to see you using their gear.

            If you’ve got a smaller fan base, companies may still give you a synth or pay you to perform at a trade show, because they want potential customers to see their gear in action.

            With ‘sponsored videos’, video platforms are just requiring content creators to make it clear when companies have given you money or free gear, or if you include advertising in your video.

            1. I think the legal definition of the term “sponsorship” differs between Germany and the US. When American YouTubers disclose that a video is sponsored, they usually mean they received a payment by a company and in return advertise the company in that video.
              In Germany, a sponsorship on YouTube usually means that a company supports the creation of a video by providing a good, for example a synthesizer. If the content creator is not being paid any money and the video does not have a promotional character, this form is of sponsorship is not considered as advertisement and does not have to be disclosed. Consequently, most industry partners over here do not ask for any specific content when providing NFRs to creators.

              1. Dacci – You have to select the ‘Sponsored’ option if you receive any sort of compensation for making the video.

                “Paid product placements are pieces of content that are created for a third party in exchange for compensation, or where that third party’s brand, message, or product is integrated directly into the content.”

                Getting a synth is definitely compensation.

      2. no, i know a synth youtuber, he buys most of the stuff with a dealer discount. some he get for free (but if it’s aboard he may still need to pay taxes for the full price) some expect to return the unit when he finish.

        brands don’t usually declare it like that, remember this one. remember 🙂

    2. Pay to play is more commonly used when the venue forces the artist to bring punters to the gig in return for putting you on the bill. This is more akin to payola although these PPG owners are doing beta testing and it’s always been common for those to get a copy of the software and sometimes hardware.

    3. @Sandip, you didn’t even bother to read the post on the Behringer facbook page did you?. The one linked right there in this article. If you had, you would realise your comment makes no sense and it’s clear your just taking the opportunity to bash on them without having tried to inform yourself whatsoever

      They’re looking for beta testers not reviewers

      Let me help. A few excerpts from the facebook post:

      “If you like to participate in the testing of the WAVE, come join the beta tester team. However, please note that there a critical requirements associated with this program.
      1.) You must own an original “WAVE” in order to do extensive comparisons.

      3.) You own a video channel and you’re willing to create several comparison videos.

      1. eoin – You’re ignoring requirement #3 – to be considered, you have to be a Youtuber and be ‘willing to create several comparison videos’.

        A video comparing of the pros and cons of a synth is a review.

        Youtube will require participants to label their videos as ‘Sponsored Videos’, since Behringer is giving them something in exchange for making the videos to promote their product.

        No normal ‘beta test’ involves creating Youtube videos to promote a product.

        1. Behringer appears to be looking for marketing videos that favorably compare the sound of the original PPG 2.X to their copy. The goal is simply to sell lots of synths.

    1. And you can prove that how? What I’ve seen so far from the testers of the UBX-a is just video demo’s of the synths abilities and patches the testers have designed. Pretty much exactly the same as you’d get from any beta tester of products such as the Hydrsynth, Moog One and many, many others.

  3. Good or Evil – the sheer number of different Behringer clones is amazing!

    Ofc i like the crystalline sound of the ppg wave – so i guess this is the only option to get it in hardware form these days ?

  4. This headline is actually slightly misleading. It isn’t like they’re giving free synths to reviewers in exchange for positive publicity. They’re specifically looking for owners of original PPG’s to make comparison videos, not your usual “influencers”.

      1. Actually it’s not 100% accurate because it says nothing about:

        A) they’re looking for Beta testers – not reviewers

        B) that you need to already own and be able to compare to an original PPG

        Both these things left out deliberately to make it look like they are buying reviews

        Reviews and comparisons are not the same thing

        I’m not a Youtube reviewer – but I do have a mate with a PPG

        Meaning I could potentially make a PPG comparison video – that nobody would watch because I’m not a well known Youtuber

        Anyhow, just how many PPG owners are out there that just happen to be popular youtube reviewers ?

        I’d say one or two max – at a push

          1. Mike Mos

            As gadi has noted, you accuse Synthtopia of bias on every Behringer post, but when Synthtopia, gadi or anybody else asks you to back that up with facts, you got nothing.

            I’m surprised the site has not banned you for spamming – your comments are consistently pro-Behringer and anti everything else. It makes your comments completely uncredible.

  5. It should be mentioned, that Behringer explicitly only searches for people who own a pgp wave and who would create comparison videos between the original and the behringer one.

    1. Looks like you didn’t read the article:

      “They are looking for people with PPGs to help them test and promote their copy. The company says it will give participants a synthesizer, in exchange for testing the synth and creating several comparison videos.”

    1. Most news sites and reviewers will only touch Behringer with a 10 foot pole, because of the company’s history of harassing and suing them. That’s why you don’t see reviews of their gear from many legitimate sources.

      It’s unfortunate, because you really have to dive deep into Gearslutz threads, as a result, to figure out the real story on their gear. That’s about the only place you’ll find out about the RD-8 firmware and hardware problems, the problems with their 2500 VCOs, the design issues with the 2600s and so on.

      You won’t find any reviewers talking about any of these issues because they’re worried about getting sued.

      I don’t see the problems with Behringer synths as show-stoppers (except maybe the 2500 VCOs), but more you-get-what-you-pay-for.

      I’ve got a couple of their synths and can accept that when you get a $400 minimoog knockoff, you might have to do the initial calibration yourself.

      1. It has always been my understanding that in general, you can only be sued if you say or print something untrue, however my experience is limited to Western Europe. Also, that you can make quite a broad range of statements provided you make it clear that it is opinion, not fact. I also believed that inn the US there was even greater latitude, with the added requirement to show actual damage had resulted. How can Berringer (or anybody) sue an honest reviewer under these conditions?

        1. Skee

          Anybody can sue you for anything in the US, the question is whether the person suing you has a real case or whether they’re just suing you to harass you.

          It’s not unusual for people and companies to use lawsuits for the purpose of harassment or to stifle free speech that they don’t like. These are sometimes called SLAPP lawsuits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), because they’re used by big companies, politicians, etc to stifle public discussion.

          Let’s say you criticize Trump for trying to overturn the election in an online forum. He can sue you with a SLAPP lawsuit, without having any legitimate case. You have no money to defend yourself against a lawsuit, and Trump does, so you agree to shut up.

          Which means that, in many ways, ‘free speech’ is limited to the wealthy.

          Behringer has done this sort of thing several times.

          The most famous case was when Behringer sued Dave Smith for a quarter of a million dollars, because one of Dave Smith’s employees left a comment on Gearslutz that criticized Behringer for making knockoffs.

          Because these lawsuits are designed to harass people and shut them up, there are Anti-SLAPP laws in many states. Anti-SLAPP laws basically say that you can’t use lawsuits to stifle free speech.

          Anti-SLAPP laws are good, but if Trump or Behringer sues you to shut you up, you have to have the money to pay a lawyer to defend you. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourself against a lawsuit like this.

          In Dave Smith’s case, he had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend his company. The judge ruled that Behringer was harassing Dave Smith with a SLAPP lawsuit, but meanwhile Dave Smith was on the hook for all the legal fees. After he won, had to try and recover what he’d spent on legal fees from Behringer.

          Most synth reviewers don’t have an extra hundred thousand lying around, so SLAPP lawsuits – even when they are completely frivolous – stifle free speech.

  6. Not going to be a ton of people doing this, the only ones that will will be synth collectors since one of the requirements on the page is that you have a working original ppg wave to compare it to

    1. true, I have a working wave 2.2, but rather unstable. The OS crashes often, and I usually get 10-30 minutes of play time. I should participate because I wouldn’t say.no to a clone version that is new, but I’m not on Social Media, especially not on Facebook.

    2. They actually made this offer on their Facebook page last year, too, but they didn’t find anybody. What they’re looking for is a unicorn.

  7. Dear Synthtopia, As you’re always so anal about what to call a clone and what to call a knockoff… pricing is still unknown, so how do you know this will be way cheaper than the original, aka what you call a knockoff? Or might it just be your bias showing?

    1. Now who is biased? Are you forgetting how Behringer has played the game since day one? lol

      Dear Uli, Can you sent me free Musictribe junk so I can destroy it? I’lI promise they’ll make a huge hit. 😉

    2. Vintage PPG Waves are selling used for 14K these days. You don’t have to be either an astrologist or a quantum causality mad scientist to predict the knockoff will be retailing at cheaper than that.

    3. like they explain to you lots of times, this is the most accurate term.

      i google advance search “mike mos” with the term “knockoff” and got 4 pages with about 30 results you complain about that.
      and you talking about “biases”…

      1. Slush

        Thanks for your feedback!

        This is your first comment as ‘Slush’ on the site. Every comment from a first-time-commenter is automatically flagged for moderation. This is standard procedure for websites – it keeps spammers from taking over the comments.

        Comments are approved, like yours, as long as they are not personal attacks, hate speech or spam. This approach is why Synthtopia’s comments are more actively used than most synth gear news sites, but are still relatively free of personal attacks, hate speech and spam.

        You and Mike take issue with the use of the term ‘knockoff’ for categorizing Behringer products that copy other company’s designs.

        Behringer has publicly described their knockoff strategy as them acting as a ‘Market Follower’, using this definition:

        “The market follower effectively rides on the market leader’s coattails, while positioning its brand just far enough away from the market leader to be different.”

        With their knockoff products, Behringer does exactly this. They copy the original products as closely as legally possible, even noting that they “employ expert intellectual property firms to ensure our products stay within the boundaries of the law”.

        ‘Knockoff’ is simply a concise and easily-understandable term for categorizing products that are designed to be inexpensive copies of other company’s products, and many of Behringer’s products fall into this category. We’d be curious as to why using accurate terminology upsets you.

        1. Hi Synthhead, can you explain the difference between a knockoff and a clone? I seemed to remember seeing a differentiation explained in some thread but I can’t remember it anymore. I’m not mad about the term “knockoff”, I’m legitimately interested in the sites stance. I kind of expected to see Four Play defined as a clone but it wasn’t. Thanks for all you do. Being a moderator is largely a thankless job.

          1. Jakelin – thanks for the question.

            We use the term ‘copy’ as a broad category, and terms like ‘clone’, ‘software emulation’, ‘reissue’, ‘inspired by’ and ‘knockoff’ as more specific sub-categories.

            A ‘clone’ is a copy that is essentially identical to the original.

            In biology, clones are genetically the same – like twins. With synths, a ‘clone’ should look and perform essentially the same as the original.

            We’ll use the term ‘clone’ to refer to copies of classic circuits – like ‘a Moog filter clone’ – because if you compared the circuit designs, they’d look and perform essentially the same.

            Another example is Dinsync’s clones of classic x0x circuit boards – you can actually take out a 303 circuit board and replace it with RE-303 motherboard.

            We’ll also use the term ‘clone’ to refer to modules and synths that are essentially identical to the original. An example would be the Synthesizers.com Q960 Sequencer, which looks and works nearly identical to the Moog 960 sequencer that it’s based on, or the Club of the Knobs Model 15, which looks and works almost identically to a Moog Model 15.

            A ‘knockoff’ is an inexpensive copy of another company’s product, and will generally have design changes that make it cheaper to manufacturer – cheaper materials, cheaper production techniques, design compromises, etc.

            The expectation for a knockoff is that it will be ‘sameish’, not an exact clone.

        2. did you notice most behringer defenders comments here are first time commenters with one word trivial name?

          makes you wonder…

        3. “‘Knockoff’ is simply a concise and easily-understandable term for categorizing products that are designed to be inexpensive copies of other company’s products, and many of Behringer’s products fall into this category. We’d be curious as to why using accurate terminology upsets you.”

          Ah, so you know the price already? I’m quite curious why you’re pushing your terminology of choice again, even if in this case you simply don’t have enough information for it to be accurate. Because you have a hunch? If that’s it, then please get off your high ‘accurate terminology’ horse.

          1. Mike Mos

            Thanks for the feedback.

            If you review the information that Behringer has shared about their Wave, you can easily see changes to the form factor, components and build, designed to make it possible to manufacturer an inexpensive copy of the original.

            Providing inexpensive gear to musicians is Behringer’s publicly stated mission: “It is our Purpose and Mission to empower Customers who don’t have deep pockets and provide them with the best possible equipment at fair prices.”

            People want a inexpensive Minimoog, so Behringer makes one.

            If you agree that a ‘knockoff’ is an inexpensive copy of another company’s product, and you agree that one of the main selling points of synths like the Behringer D, the TD-3 or the Monopoly is that they’re inexpensive copies of the originals – then why do you take offense at the use of the term?

    4. Dear Mike, Behringer promoted their 2600 vco with a photoshopped image of Colin Benders…. Are you still gonna defend them?

  8. I find Behringer’s beta tester concept a big strange:
    “You can only be beta tester, if you have an original unit”

    Just be cause you own the original devices does not mean that you have any clue about how it works or how it could be improved, that is a misconception.

  9. “they are looking for people with PPGs to help them test their copy.”

    lol, why? hermann seib works for them. besides wolfgang palm nobody knows more about waves and waveterms.

  10. Every new synth release these days follows the same social media template. A few teases on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, followed by a half dozen YouTube synth reviews by the guys who run professional or semi-professional “review” channels. The reviews tend to be overwhelmingly positive and rarely combine the instrument into a larger production environment. Sync issues? Signal path problems? Crashes? We won’t hear about them.

    I miss the days when Jim Aiken or Dominic Milano would eviscerate a half-baked instrument in print.

    1. there is no reason not to be positive about new synths, most of the important parameters/demands are well establish and known to the manufactures before they get to the drowning board.
      synth are not comparable so it’s not like you need to choose one and if you didn’t choose the right one you made a mistake. most of the synths offered today are amazing (with some cons) but they are the fruit of love and dedication (well maybe there is one brand that don’t really follow)

      seconds, many reviewer point out bugs and other problems like sonic state, loopop, they are talking about crushes, sync problem, and some times don’t agree to review something until it’s all iron out so you don’t even know about it.
      and there are the opposite examples of some who think that the more they trash something the more “honest” they are even if they don’t always know what they talking about like stimming (and he actually get applause for this). also keep in mind many of the problem you read about in forums are “operator fault” or lack of knowledge.

      things have changed, now that we have rapid os updates and almost every batch is a new revision.
      nobody say you need to order something on day one, i been waiting for a kick starter synth for a year now and it released on last may. since it’s a very small manufacture (one guy) and relatively complex machine i decided to wait for the second/third batch just to be on the safe side and get maybe a slightly refined revision.

    2. its the era of “content” …

      if you follow gaming you might recognize the same thing recently at work with Cyberpunk 2077, which is the most glaring example, but generally just highlights the fact that everyone is doing this kind of thing – which is to say, fake reviews with generic reporting AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE to get hits, likes, subscribes, etc. etc.

      in other words, it still generates ad revenue when lots of people click on it… even if its the worst review of all time…. and of course, the early bird gets the worm

  11. man id love to get a few hundred bucks together and just fill an entire wall with some of these behringer keyboards

    in fact, i want to make some behringer-only music

    that will be one of my new quests

  12. Uli,
    Here is what I don’t understand. Why don’t you just make an affordable, modern wavetable synth? Like your very own design? Why bite the look, and UI of someone else’s design? Why try and profit from someone else’s hard work?

    I wonder if you enjoy playing the villain? It just feels like these knock offs are an insult to your own intelligence.

    1. I wondered that too. But you can see that the Quantum comes in pretty expensive, and outside Behringer’s usual price range. So I guess they’d rather avoid the software r&d issues and design decisions and instead keep the digital part rather basic.

    2. I think the reason is simple. If you bring out a modern synth it will have to stand up to comparison on many levels with other modern synths in similar price brackets. That’s risky. At the same time it has to stand out from the others in some significant way Also difficult. Making a modern reproduction of a previously popular item in a time where there is strong demand using modern manufacturing methods results in a superior product which can be sold at a much lower price than the original, This makes it appear like a real bargain. Furniture makers in the 60’s and 70’s had a field day with this simple marketing strategy. Add in nostalgia, a wider range of potential buyers from the lower entry price point, less resistance because of a perceived product approval from past success and its hard to see why other manufacturers aren’t in there as well.

  13. I don’t really care at all about the Behringer flame wars. I own several Behringers myself. And all I care about is the music that I am making. Anyways…I’ve always wanted a PPG Wave. I’ve played with one back in the 80s, and it was god awesome lovely. Everyone here should fondle a PPG Wave hardware. I just hope Behringer’s would be lovelier to play with than than Waldorf’s software version. Dishy erection!

  14. “1.) You must own an original “WAVE” in order to do extensive comparisons.

    2.) You have deep technical understanding and knowledge related to professional testing procedures and sound analysis

    3.) You own a video channel and you’re willing to create several comparison videos.”

    – Behringer

  15. If they hypothetically pair up two of their wavetable oscillators alongside two more traditional, Moog-esque analog oscillators and filters, this circuit could have a huge potential for a brand new hybrid synth design!

    Personally, I’ve got my wavetable needs covered with Waldorf’s PPG Collection 2, so I will likely pass up on this particular Behringer offering. I verymuch appreciate it though that they’re finally opening up to digital oscillators!

  16. New office pool idea: pick the date for the first time someone appears with an all-B rig and claims it as a specific point of pride. Kind of a Keburhinger thing. I put 20 pounds on a German rave, October 31, 2022.

  17. So they want „several“ videos in exchange for a synth that doesn’t even cover half of the production costs of a single video? Who in their right mind would agree to do that?

    1. That’s why that can’t find any takers. They originally put out this offer a year ago.

      Realistically, they’re only going to offer you the deal if you’ve got a lot of Youtube followers and if you haven’t said anything negative about Behringer synths.

  18. I had a Wave 2.2 back in the eighties. As for the form factor the original could easily contain the electronics five times more. I.e. the interior was mostly – air. I did fun stuff with my Wave 2.2, and if the knockoff is good enough I’ll get one. Just for the nostalgia. For music production I stick to my PPG vst thingy from Waldorf. On the knockoff I”d like some comments from Wolfgang Palm.

  19. Hmmm……….Now let’s see……….If someone would like to own a hardware version of the PPG Wave, they could…..well, they could wait until a decades old used PPG Wave goes up for sale online for $10,000+ dollars with no warranty and potentially mega-expensive repair bills if something should go wrong with it (if it can be repaired at all), or…..they could purchase the Behringer “knock-off” when it is available for a fraction of the price, with a warranty and more features. Hmmm……….I wonder which option is more feasible for the average Middle Class synth enthusiast.

    Ohhhh……But what about ethics and morality? Well…..if you feel that all Behringer employees are immoral scumbags and your take on morality precludes you from buying any Behringer products, then the only options for you if you want a PPG Wave are to wait for a used one to appear for sale, make do with a software version, or do without. For those who have a different moral perspective when it comes to Behringer synths (and the thousands of other companies in the world that do the same thing) and do not have $10,000+ dollars for a used PPG Wave, then the forthcoming Behringer hardware version Wave is a viable and welcomed alternative.

    As I have mentioned a few times on this site, I own two Behringer synths, a Neutron and a Model D. I have had them for years and use them frequently. They sound great and have given me zero problems. Like Behringer or not, the Neutron is a fantastic piece of gear. Based on my past experiences with these two Behringer products, I wouldn’t mind owning the forthcoming Wave and UB-Xa (which, by the way, sounds phenomenal in the recent YouTube clip by Synth King). I am not a fanboy, not a Behringer devotee (I only own two of their products), and I didn’t name my dog Behringer. I am just someone who owns two Behringer synths and am tired of anti-Behringer people slamming those who purchase these products. If you can afford and want the synth “Ferraris,” by all means go buy them, but don’t slam those who can only afford or only want the synth “Toyotas.”

    For those who daily stick pins in their Uli Behringer voodoo doll and curse others who purchase Behringer products, you are certainly free to voice your opinion. However, please bear in mind that it is just your opinion. You also need to bear in mind that the Behringer company, like most companies in this world, is out to make money. Judging by the number of back-orders for their synth products, it seems that Behringer is doing what will make money for the company. Like it or not, Behringer is giving many people what they want. If other companies can’t or won’t do this for whatever reason, then they will fizzle and die in the business world. It’s a dog-eat-dog world, and that is certainly the case in the business world.

    1. > if you feel that all Behringer employees are immoral scumbags

      No, most of them (plus their families) are living in a dictatorship under the iron fist of Xi Jinping. Since 2014, the Chinese government, under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the administration of CCP general secretary Xi Jinping, has pursued policies leading to more than one million Muslims (the majority of them Uyghurs) being held in internment camps without any legal process. This has become the largest-scale detention of ethnic and religious minorities since World War II. Guess what: Uli gives a damn for the fate of muslims living in China. Therefore, I boycott every Behringer product.

      1. Where is your phone manufactured? Where is your television manufactured? Where is your DVD player manufactured? Where is your flashlight manufactured? Where is your clock manufactured? Etc etc etc etc etc etc…

        Is there a single car manufactured anywhere in the world that does not have a part on it that was manufactured in China?

        Moog synthesizer parts are made in China:
        https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/moog-tariff-letter/#:~:text=As%20noted%20by%20Moog%2C%2050,competitive%20with%20the%20tariffs%20enacted.

        Arturia synths are made in China:
        https://greatsynthesizers.com/en/review/arturia-matrixbrute-a-french-icon-of-luxury/

        Roland and Korg produce gear in China.

        And the list goes on and on.

        For good or for bad, an innumerable number of items are made in China, including a lot of music gear.

    1. “The common man loves knock offs. We know it ain’t the best but it ain’t bad.”

      And yet loves to bitch about the knock offs being called ‘knock offs’!

  20. Teasing a copy of the PPG Wave in this casing is a complete joke.
    Please do a reality check if you are responsible for this ridiculous appearance!

    1. Why ‘a complete joke’? Because the Behringer version is shrunk down? If they made it full size, it would all be empty space.

  21. I heard Bob Moog frequently saved babies from the bottoms of wells. Mr. Roland himself went to Africa and singlehandedly ended the AIDS crisis. Waldorf made a Salad that ended the greenhouse effect.

    But Ulli Behringer? He caused the corona pandemic, added lead to petrol, and killed a baby seal with his bare hands while dumping oil in the arctic ocean.

    Mind you, I’m not sure about these facts. I’ve just deduced them from the way these people have been described to me over the last few weeks.

Leave a Reply