Behringer Showcases Plans To Co-Opt Yamaha, Roland, Sequential Legacies At 2025 NAMM Show

At the 2025 NAMM Show, held Jan 21–25 in Anaheim, CA, Behringer is back, after a 10 year absence, and showcasing their plans to co-opt the legacies of Yamaha, Roland, Sequential and other synth makers.

Behringer is exhibiting as part of the Music Tribe booth, along with TC Electronic and other companies under the same corporate umbrella. The NAMM Show is designed to provide an annual event for music retailers to connect with manufacturers. Music Tribe is participating as part of a new strategy to expand their distribution in the US beyond a few ‘super partners’, like Amazon and Sweetwater.

Uli Behringer at NAMM 2025

For many years, Behringer rejected the idea that their products ‘knock off’ or otherwise copy competitors products, going so far as using lawsuits to stifle discussion of their business practices.

In recent years, though, Behringer has openly discussed their focus on ‘copycat’ products, describing this as a ‘Market Follower’ strategy:

Market Follower: A market follower seeks to gain market share but is less interested in differentiating its brand from the market leader.

Instead, 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. A great example is any young adult novel that’s marketed as “the next Harry Potter.”

At NAMM, Behringer highlighting this strategy, featuring recently introduced copies of classic gear from other companies, and previewing three new synths that copy some of the most iconic synths ever made.

In their booth, Behringer is featuring several recent introductions, including:

  • The LmDrum drum machine, based on the LinnDrum;
  • The Behringer Wave synthesizer, based on the PPG Wave; and
  • A Behringer Eurorack system, based on the early Moog modular systems.

The highlight of Behringer’s NAMM display, though, is a preview of three upcoming synths:

These synths include:

Each of these synths could be described as a ‘flagship knockoff’, because they have the key characteristics of knockoffs (products designed and marketed as inexpensive copies of a competitor’s product), but they also expand on the original’s capabilities and are likely to be priced in the $1,200-1,500 price range, which many would consider ‘flagship’ territory.

In addition to these synths, Behringer has previously announced several synths that fall into this ‘flagship knockoff’ category:

  • The Behringer UB-Xa, which copies the Oberheim OB-X;
  • The Behringer BS-80, which copies the Yamaha CS-80; and
  • The Behringer VCS3, which copies the EMS VCS3.

Once these instruments are available, musicians will be able to buy a complete collection of classic synth copies for less than the cost of a single vintage original.

The new synths are still in development. We’ll share official details as they are available.

40 thoughts on “Behringer Showcases Plans To Co-Opt Yamaha, Roland, Sequential Legacies At 2025 NAMM Show

  1. “Instead, 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.”

    Behringer isn’t far enough away to be different, in my book. Pretty much any changes they have made were ones they HAD to make or nobody would be interested in their product.

    1. Focusing on copying other company’s products is Behringer’s stated business strategy.

      So it’s surprising that some readers are offended by the fact that we categorize some of Behringer’s products as ‘knockoffs’. It’s a statement of fact, not editorializing.

      That said, we’ve noted previously that some of their copycat products, like these new flagship keyboards, have enhancements that can transform how the instrument is used.

      An example would be the 16-voice polyphony of their Pro-16 synth. It may be a fairly straight copy of the Prophet-5, but having 16 voices, instead of 5, means that you can use the synth very differently. You can layer sounds, you can use sounds with long decays, you can play rapid arpeggios and sequences without voice stealing, etc.

      It’s also transformational for there to be inexpensive copies of vintage synths available that are fairly faithful to the originals.

      So, whether or not you like Behringer’s business strategy, it’s a fact that this is their strategy, and it would not be an effective one if there weren’t lots of synthesists that want inexpensive copies.

        1. “Synthhead You’ve become quite the B apologist.”

          When people are saying we’re biased against Behringer, that we’re ‘promoting’ Behringer, and now we’re ‘B apologists’, we’ve got all the bases covered.

          1. That’s a good dodge. My comment was based on the question of why is it necessary to write an entire page comment defending why B is so good?
            I’m quite aware of the thousands of B posts you’ve landed on each and every side of the argument – debate is like that! Both things can be true.
            Can you stop holding my comments for review? Maybe you are spamming your own site with 7 b posts yesterday and are projecting that I am the troll spammer? But it’s actually You? Just a thought.

        1. Admin: You’ve got a history of spamming the site using multiple user names AND leaving personal attacks, which means your comments are more likely to be flagged for moderation.

          Build a history of leaving constructive comments, & your comments will be less likely to be flagged for moderation.

          Also – don’t waste the admin’s time!

    2. dx-1 with cs80 analog filters? added effects? lfo/vcas? sd cart support? um… behringer is literally the most innovative company at NAMM right now. The only other company that has anything worth showing is Melbourne Instruments with their unique Roto-Control.

      1. Korg’s OpSix, Yamaha’s Montage/MODX, Nonlinear Labs C15, Elektron Digitone 2, PreenFM are all hardware FM synths currently available that are significantly more innovative and flexible than Behringer’s BX-1.

        1. OpSix? Raspberry pi vst in a box In fact, there is no difference between Opsix mk1 and Opsix mk2 except they upgraded from cm3 to cm4 giving it more polyphony and midi 2.0. Yawn… if they made it multitrimbral, it would have been interested but there is no innovation here compared to opsix mk1. Had a mk1 myself and the build quality is nowhere near the asking price. No wonder price of mk1 dropped like a rock – the margins are insane!

          Nonlinear Labs C15 is interesting, but not new as it came out like at least 2 years ago. If they had done something physically new like poly aftertouch keybed instead of channel aftertouch, I would have been impressed, but no. And this is on a $5,000+ synth. Firmware update is nice though.

          Elektron Digitone 2. Had it, sold it. I loved the sequencer. Nothing new on it except the new drum machine. Still the old FM engine and two copied engines from the dying Syntakt. The UX got worse though… there are multiple pages of params now for each button. It needs a hardware overhaul. And note entry is terrible unless you have an external midi controller.

          PreenFM. Didn’t care for it, but I will say I am impressed about the open source part. Wish more companies would do that.

          Yamaha’s Montage/MODX. I have never used one, but I have always found them interesting. Just ticks me off they put poly aftertouch only for M8x. I will have to try it one day for sure.

  2. Behringers biggest mistake is cloning already existing hardware. Out of production classics are available as plugin emulations, noone fusses over those. A 303 remake done cheaply does no harm to Roland, who insist upon emulating their classics on dsp/cpu instead of ever rebuilding a classic as it was originally.

    1. Doesn’t matter. There are lots of customers who see the demonstration videos and purchase it. And behringer has been making quality products for a long time. Go to any random church, and you will find behringer gear especially mixers being used there every single week for years on end. They giving what people want: a clone for a cheap price with a few added features. Roland claims that they don’t chase ghosts but will happily slather the Juno and Jupiter name on another empty zencore/acb box. But hey, people buy up those Roland boxes anyway, so not like Roland has any incentive to change, the same way Behringer has no reason to change because they know their market.

    2. I don’t see what the problem is. There are many many softsynth copies from the like of Aturia, Model, Gforce, NI and so on the list just goes on. The only difference is Behringer is making physical versions.

  3. Berhringer’s Pro-800 is a good example of this, even though it’s a module and not a keyboard. Ostensibly a copy of the Profit 600, it has extended features and more patch storage than the original

    It will be interesting to see what they come with for the Pro-16.

  4. I thought Roger Linn’s response to Behringer’s bizarre LinnDrum-“inspired” machine was pretty spot on. Why would any contemporary producer choose such an instrument? You can get those LinnDrum samples anywhere, and in any other sampler, you can actually tune them (unlike on Behringer’s copy, or the original), and you likely have access to a far more capable sequencer.

    I would say the same thing applies to the DX7. There are far more innovative FM synths out there that will play DX7 patches, and have more LFOs, envelopes, filter types, effects, sequencers, modifiers, and better form factors.

    Fully analog synths is another story. I personally don’t have a use for a synth as limited as the Prophet 6, but I recognize that they sound good. If Behringer’s Prophet sounds as good as Sequential’s, I get the appeal, though I despise the strategy. I’ve put my hands on the Sequential Prophets – they feel fantastic. I’ve put my hands on Behringer’s synths, and they feel cheap.

    1. There’s an undeniable romance about using/owning these classic synths. That is the selling point. The features or limitations are not hugely important in that context. It’s a similar deal with reissued of the NES or Sega megadrive, the same games can be played for free on your laptop, but people dig that nostalgia.

    2. Because they are cheap. That’s the point. If you want to spend 4 times as much, great go ahead. This is for those that can’t drop $5k on a synth. But hey, if it sounds just as good, that’s a win. And they do. Far better than any soft synth Gforce, Arturia digital kak you can buy.

    3. The point isn’t the samples. It’s the analog filters, analog VCAs, aliasing caused by specific digital circuits. Yeah, a lot of this can be emulated, but then again if you tell that to the analog synth people they will hang you.

      And which behringer synths have you put a hand on? And what synths were you comparing them against for build quality? Let me know their prices too.

  5. As with most companies, the goal of Behringer is to make money.
    Not to be too obvious, but the way to make money is to make products that customers want to buy and can afford. Behringer is doing what they do because they make money doing it.
    I work for a large Fortune 500 company. I can assure you that as soon as a company’s product goes off patent, other companies jump in and make knockoffs of those products. This happens every day. The business world is dog eat dog and cutthroat. If you want to speak against Behringer’s ethics, you are certainly free to do do, but bear in mind, they are just one in a vast sea of companies that do the same thing, with many of their products that you may use yourself on a regular basis.
    .

    1. but you just cant do that dude, the music world is all about good feels and rock and roll dude, fuck the man, man!!!!!!!!! *shreds a solo on my cloned stratocaster*

    2. Will someone please think of the children and then will someone please notice how virtuous i am

      I am more holy than you because I am more good

    3. I do not think Behringer really is that good at making money. They must be subsidised by the chinese state! As their products even in China costs just a little less to make than what they sell them for! I understand that they need to sell a hell of a lot of instruments just to cover their costs!

  6. “A great example is any young adult novel that’s marketed as “the next Harry Potter.”
    I don’t know who wrote this example, but it certainly does not describe the way B is interpreting market-following behavior. In their case it’s more like printing again the Potter books, but with a different cover, other character names and a different font.

    Again, I don’t mind anyone making clones of products the original manufacturer stopped to make and is free from patents. And I certainly encourage going a step beyond what was originally offered.

    But steer clear from copying current products, whether that is legally possible or not.

      1. You’re confusing actual clones with knockoffs, Tim. Nobody wants to buy knockoff drugs!

        If you want to be a Behringer apologist, you need to have arguments that actually makes sense.

        1. LOL. I work in the pharmaceutical industry. What do you think a generic drug is?
          Generic drugs are typically not exactly the same as the branded drugs that have come off patent. Generic drug makers only have to demonstrate efficacy equivalency of the active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) API to FDA, and they rarely have to go through any type of clincial trial. Other ingredients in the generics are not subject to this requirement and often vary greatly using cheaper ingredients to keep the costs of the generics down. This is why some people who take a branded drug and then switch to a generic version which is “the same” have reactions with the generics not experienced with the original, branded drug. They react to the non-API, lower quality cheaper ingredients.

          The branded drug manufacturer is the one that spent huge dollars to develop a drug, and while it’s on patent are the only ones who can sell it (unless they license it to another manufacturer). But when the branded drug’s patent is over, it falls off the “patent cliff” and generic drug manufacturers jump in and produce a version of that drug. This is why companies that make branded drugs are ALWAYS trying to develop new drugs (and sometimes invent new conditions to treat with new drugs; that is known in the industry as disease mongering). They are seeking to replace the revenue stream lost to generic manufacturers.

          When you use a generic instead of a branded drug, you and your insurance company are sticking it to the branded drug manufacturer that spent the time and money to develop that drug. It’s wrong to do it with synths but okay for you to do it with drugs and thousands of other products?.

  7. Boooorrrriiiing!!!

    …can’t they do something original for a change?
    It’s not like they didn’t have the man-power or the knowledge…

    1. Do something all original? Pfft. Behringer is doing what sells. People like nostalgia. Back in the day, most people couldn’t afford the analog poly synths on which these Behringer versions are based. Back then, the original synths cost as much as a car. Now they can afford it and want one or more of these.
      Why do you think Sequential released the Prophet 5 Rev. 4 after Focusrite bought Sequential, even though Dave Smith repeatedly said that he wouldn’t go backwards and reissue the Prophet 5 (and instead released the more feature-packed Prophet 08 and Prophet 6 synths). Adjusted for inflation, new analog poly synths are not only less expensive than back in the day, but they have more features and are more reliable. Focusrite knew that the Prophet 5 and Prophet 10 would sell because of the “I always wanted a Prophet 5” nostalgia. Is the Prophet 5 boooooring?

      1. People mad cause they overpaid for the synths. Did I get ripped off? No, it’s these peasants that are wrong!

        Can’t wait for Oberheim Two-Voice. Saw one on reverb for $14,000 lol…

  8. I don’t want for B to start making solid instruments because then I’d have to give up being butt hurt all the time. 😛

  9. As someone who really loves “any sounds” I have found it a treat that Behringer has gone and carried a torch carried by many others in the past even Dave Smith himself envied Moog and added the ladder filter too. Roland includes the Sequential FIlter, THe Moog filter and the SH filter on the new Jupiters but no one cares… its music. I watched all of this from two continents as a music and gear nut. Behringer and I are the same age thereabouts and during the time we were growing up, gear was completely out of reach. I can’t afford a $25,000 Jupiter 8. I had to sell my Jupiter-Xm to pay the bills.. Im settling for a used JD-Xi broken on Reverb that I fixed, and picked up a new MS-1 for the same price and together having a blast!. Having some actual ARP 2500 modules??? OMG?? You can’t imagine the significance of it at all. To have a small piece even if its a clone or replicant of the the CLose Encounters of the Third Kind synth…. Oh Yeah…. (YELLO)… You take the notion of having it for granted. I think what Uli did, is what everyone should be doing. I want an electric version 57 Chevy from the original blueprints in aluminum.. why not? Or a 1978 Trans Am… who cares… Being able to plug in a computer and filter it all through an ARP 2500 clone like Pete Townsend did… thats just a dream come true. Especially for a kid who never had a hit album or record deal, but had fun instead. Made sound, so that my music was unique. a 16 voice Jupiter with a bank of effects… and USB… come on.. that filter alone costs $200 used and thats a clone… Be nice… make music… have fun…

  10. IMHO, Behringer is undeniably saturating the market while still producing very interesting, usable and fun synths. Saturating the market means the smaller startup companies, many if them located in Europe, see their potential customer base shrink more and more, whereas Behringer is quickly becoming a household name such as Samsung or Sony. Personally, I don’t see how could any professional – or even amateur – synth user make use of such ancient behemoths like a DX1 or a Sequential Prophet in any form, shape or version, given the fact that a modern synth can replicate WITHOUT A DOUBT AND WITHOUT ANYONE BEING THE WISER all those sounds bar none. Heck, on a single I recorded 20 years ago solely using a Roland MC505 groovebox I was asked multiple times by “connoisseurs” what version of the Minimoog had I used for the lead, LOL…
    But saturating the market means stealing jobs, and that issue had to be addressed sooner or later.

    1. Behringer is already a household name. Walk into any church that does music and you’ll not find Jesus, but Behringer 🙂

  11. Behringer is doing in the 2020s what Korg and Roland did in 80s…. Making affordable versions of expensive synths.
    Exciting times.

  12. I just bought my first behringer knockoff synth yesterday and it’s excellent. I sold my overpriced and awkward Moog DFAM and bought the EDGE – The Boog BFAM
    It’s fantastic. Identical to the DFAM in almost every way, except it has working midi and the sequencer resets on stop.

    Winner! 135 quid!

    As a consumer I am very happy. However I toally get that Behringer is opportunistic and agressive and appear to not ‘respect the past’
    ….but they’ve totally the idea of where the price point for cheap synths should be. It’s a win for the cash strapped consumer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *