SOUND ON SOUND

[The Elf]

It's a straight lift from the TC June 60 pedal.

Which was disastrously bad IMO. You have to wonder what on earth they did to produce a supposed 'clone' that was so utterly unlike the original?! I'm not a purist about these things, but the June 60 sounds poor by any standard.

Let's hope they've fixed it on the Poly D (though I doubt it will ever be switched on on mine, if I do end up with one of these...).

On the (2?) YT demos I heard, I thought the PolyD chorus sounded decent in mode 1 and 2 but wobbly in mode 1+2. Whereas the June 60 sounded awful in all modes, and even more awful in mode 1+2. So maybe they have tweaked it - goodness knows it needed it. Or maybe the June 60 sounds better with a synth going through it - most of the YT demos were with guitar and were a guaranteed turn off. Shame, it was a great idea in principle, so badly executed.

1+2 always sound garbage on the original Juno 60 - I've no idea why anyone would want that option.

But yes, on the couple of demos of the Poly D I've heard the chorus sounds pretty good, though I'd never use it myself, TBH, largely because I'd never use it as a poly.

[DGL.]

And for Behringer's 30th birthday they are looking for worthwhile youth projects for which they have 1,000 synthesizers up for grabs because Uli want to help more people get into synthesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrMgwd-cnak

[ramthelinefeed]

1+2 always sound garbage on the original Juno 60 - I've no idea why anyone would want that option.

Oh now! I remember we had a song where the signature sound was lovely little pad sound with chorus 1 & 2 pressed at the same time. It was like a lilac sticklebrick, only more shimmery. :angel:

[johnny h]

Let’s not get too cosy with Behringer. At its heart they are an awful, parasitic company who use their huge financial and manufacturing clout to flagrantly rip off other companies, large and small, as seen with their endless legal fights with Mackie, Lexicon, Roland etc. They’ve done this throughout their entire time in the music tech history and have made an absolute fortune doing so.

However good their little ripoffs sound, you’re essentially giving your money to the Donald Trump of music technology.

[blinddrew]

And enabled a whole host of people to get into music creation and production who otherwise would have been unable to afford to.
Shades of grey are available.

[Sam Spoons]

:thumbup:

(how many? ;) )

[Wonks]

42, obviously.

[Folderol]

42, obviously.

Hmmm. Dunno about that.
There are only 40 shades of green :tongue:

[Sam Spoons]

42, obviously.

So what happened to the other 8?

[Wonks]

You'll need to build a huge multi-dimensional computer to find out.

[Sam Spoons]

:bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy:

[Hugh Robjohns]

Deflation!

[Arpangel]

OK, let's pretend for a moment that Behringer doesn't exist.
We might have a number of manufacturers who would have little competition and charge inflated prices, because they'd have a monopoly.
Behringer has proved that it is possible to make things that are good quality at a fair and reasonable price, so why can't the others?
I have no moral objections to Behringer, if we're going to go down that road then we'd never buy anything, we're talking about business and capitalism here, Roland, Yamaha, Behringer, no difference, basic principles are the same. And just like music, nothing is original, and people have always copied.
My first Behringer product was a compressor, it was better than the competition at the time and at the price, so I bought one. It sounded fine, the gates were very good, way better than Alesis and DBX equivalents. I now have a mixer and monitors too, both absolutely fine.
I refuse to believe that there is still something worth paying the extra for in regards to the longer established manufacturers products, it's just not true.
I'm not waving a flag for Behringer, I don't really care, it's just a company that makes stuff that performs at the right price, why would anyone not want to consider them? and some people simply cannot afford to ignore them.

[ramthelinefeed]

We might have a number of manufacturers who would have ... a monopoly.

That's not how monopolies work. :P

[BillB]

Did you know Behringer has just brought out a synth inspired by a monopoly?
Or was it a mono-poly...? :bouncy:

Works both ways... :crazy:

[Folderol]

Basically the big boys were sleeping on the job, pushing out warmed up leftovers, while Behringer saw what people really wanted.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I refuse to believe that there is still something worth paying the extra for in regards to the longer established manufacturers products, it's just not true.

You can refuse to believe anything you want: that's entirely down to you...

But I have to take issue with the last part of your statement because it doesn't require belief or faith.... It's very easy to prove through common scientific methods, without any doubt at all, that some -- not all -- Behringer products do not perform technically as well as some of the (more expensive) alternatives.

These specific Behringer products may offer good value for money, and perform entirely adequately for some customers' requirements. I have no argument with any of that. Competition is always a good thing...

But for many customers there is most certainly still something worth paying the extra for, and some manufacturers are delivering higher quality products that perform better. It's measurable, it's audible (in the appropriate environments), and it's still valued by some.

Equally, though, I would agree that there are some companies who are charging higher prices but not delivering higher quality... but that was always the case, and that's why independent reviews from reliable, knowledgable 'experts' are still valuable! :-)

H

[Arpangel]

I refuse to believe that there is still something worth paying the extra for in regards to the longer established manufacturers products, it's just not true.

You can refuse to believe anything you want: that's entirely down to you...

But I have to take issue with the last part of your statement because it doesn't require belief or faith.... It's very easy to prove through common scientific methods, without any doubt at all, that some -- not all -- Behringer products do not perform technically as well as some of the (more expensive) alternatives.

These specific Behringer products may offer good value for money, and perform entirely adequately for some customers' requirements. I have no argument with any of that. Competition is always a good thing...

But for many customers there is most certainly still something worth paying the extra for, and some manufacturers are delivering higher quality products that perform better. It's measurable, it's audible (in the appropriate environments), and it's still valued by some.

Equally, though, I would agree that there are some companies who are charging higher prices but not delivering higher quality... but that was always the case, and that's why independent reviews from reliable, knowledgable 'experts' are still valuable! :-)

H

Hugh, I agree completely that there are some things worth paying the extra for, but you have to pay "substantially" more. The run of the mill competition may charge more than someone like Behringer and not deliver any significant improvement.
Reviews are valuable, I'll read them to get a basic idea, but unless it's a complete humdinger, it can be one mans meat etc.
Do you remember some of the reviews in Studio Sound? (silly question!) things like efffects units or synths used to get a two part review, a "technical" review by Hugh Ford, and an operational "user" review by whoever had experience of that particular bit of kit.
But the market is flooded with more stuff than ever now, and standards and expectations have changed. If I were a reviewer I'd get really confused as to what to review.
Given the choice between six different makes of mixer all of a similar price/spec what do you say? and how do you choose? I guess price wins at the end of the day, Behringer seem to win on price, and they push you over the edge by giving you just a bit more than the competition in terms of facilities etc.
But we all know full well it's not going to be an SSL or a Sonosax etc!

[baward]

In that video, you can see a rack unit, ‘Studio Exciter’, presumably built by Mr. Behringer at some point, maybe from a kit the likes of which used to appear in the back of music tech magazines in the 1980’s and clearly inspired by the Aphex Aural Exciter. Perhaps that informs his ‘World View’ in terms of creating looky-likey tech products in this own name?

I’m on the side of supporting Behringer, even though I don’t own any products of theirs. If it hadn’t been Behringer, somebody would have done what he has. I look forward to seeing what else he has up his sleeve.

[DGL.]

In that video, you can see a rack unit, ‘Studio Exciter’, presumably built by Mr. Behringer at some point, maybe from a kit the likes of which used to appear in the back of music tech magazines in the 1980’s and clearly inspired by the Aphex Aural Exciter. Perhaps that informs his ‘World View’ in terms of creating looky-likey tech products in this own name?

I’m on the side of supporting Behringer, even though I don’t own any products of theirs. If it hadn’t been Behringer, somebody would have done what he has. I look forward to seeing what else he has up his sleeve.

The first Behringer products were all designed (although I don't know how much was borrowed from other manufacturers products) and built by Uli himself.