Please don’t speak poorly of our Lard and Savior, Uli.
This is an interesting one morally. There’s no problem with using the code that MI have shared for just this purpose, and Behringer do acknowledge the source on the product page. Adding features like the USB port and display is positive. But the whole package is still something that seems designed to cut into MI’s sales rather than offer an interesting alternative take - it has all the I/O and control of a Plaits, which is no different to assorted existing clones, but it also has Behringer’s buying and selling power behind it. Tragedy of the commons in effect, I suppose, though I expect (and hope) MI are respected enough in the Eurorack community for this not to be a major problem for them.
2 Likes
Behringer makes another clone of gear that everyone else has cloned.
So boring I’m struggling to summon up the committment to finish th
24 Likes
Yet I’m sure it will out sell all of the aforementioned due to the rampant B-fanboism.
Actually, like ratio not looking so good on this one.
Oh look… the 125743th variation on Plaits…
–> next please.
3 Likes
No mention of Mutable Instrument, it’s so mean
1 Like
Please…
// Copyright 2016 Emilie Gillet.
//
// Author: Emilie Gillet (emilie.o.gillet@gmail.com)
//
// Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
// of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal
// in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
// to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
// copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
// furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
//
// The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
// all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
//
// THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
// IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
// FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
// AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
// LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
// OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
// THE SOFTWARE.
//
// See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/MIT/ for more information.
//
dull af 
To get even a hint of the code you have to click the “see more” on the product page and then scroll alllllllllllllll the way down to get a small asterisk to the github page.
Absolutely pathetic.
Arturia had the decency to slap the name Mutable on the product itself and front-and-center of their marketing, going so far as to go overboard with it.
(Mutable forum on “read-only” today)
Edited for corrected info: there is a small mention of it by clicking to open more description. Still sad.
3 Likes
Is it just me or has there been a general feeling of new appreciation/good will towards Behringer because of their approach to reissuing vintage synths… and we’re kind of hoping they can take that knowledge and move forward and develop their own thing… and doing this Plaits thing takes them 3 or 4 steps back in those rep stakes??
Is it me?
2 Likes
Arturia had no decency at all. they first claimed they had a collab with MI which was promptly dismissed as MI was not so pleased to have its name on a project which was in fact Arturia-only, except the oscillators code of course.
3 Likes
As I’d said, they went overboard, that’s true, and quickly rectified the situation. My point is in going overboard they wanted to at least associate themselves with Mutable as opposed to passing it off as their own original product.
1 Like
Which you were very critical of at the time, no?
1 Like
This is how I read it: they wanted to get a bit of MI’s credibility.
1 Like
I very much was. But Arturia acknowledged their wrong and made amends.
Arturia reached out, Emilie was happy, I am happy and would totally pick up a Microfreak is that’s where I was musically.
@acidhouseforall That’s my point: they wanted that Mutable name, whether out of respect or, cynically, the association. Either way, they showed respect to the original writer.
And there I was, thinking that Behringer maybe would bring out something original, eg a Broovebox of some kind but alas…
I don’t have a modular system, but if I had one, I sure as hell wouldn’t want a Behringer logo anywhere near that. It’s a bit like hanging up a yellow tree air freshener on the rearview mirror of a Porsche 911…
6 Likes
I’d be well up for some kind of Broovebox.
alas, as you say 
They’re just very late to the MI clones party… there are lots of variations of MI stuff already… bigger, smaller, etc. Just check Reverb.com. They just… follow.
Either way, they showed respect to the original writer.
I don’t call that respect… even doing a poor rip-off of the modules graphic design… If that’s respect I can’t wait to see what you call disrespect.
2 Likes
But if Behringer had put MI’s name anywhere near it, you’d all be on here livid that they’d tried to associate themselves with MI.
6 Likes
exactly…