It reminds me of Metasonix and their product names…
Part of me wonders if all this actually works out well for everyone in the end. Behringer sell some of their knock-offs, Intellijel get some publicity, sympathy and extra business from people on principle… I think that could possibly work in the modular environment. I doubt many people bought a Mother 32 as a protest against the Crave, but I think Eurorack still has a community aspect to it that will rally around cases like this. I absolutely think this is a scumbag move, to be clear, and presumably it’s deliberately provocative. It wouldn’t surprise me greatly if the Four Play quietly disappeared after a while, having done its job before the first unit was shipped.
What it reminds me of more than anything are the low-budget, made-in-a-week knock-offs of current blockbusters than clog up your Amazon Prime interface, except they usually have amusing titles, at least.
1 Like
As i was saying they don’t bother with teases anymore. A new Eurorack module a day ?
Another knock off, but an interesting choice, a sequencer from the 2500 line. Expect the 2500 bundle soon.
They are no doubt cranking up that side of their development team. They have so many other strengths. They are growing their creative initial design muscle too. To be fair, it can’t be said they are without creativity. And despite what others may express around here they aren’t demonically evil or lazy, it’s more a case that they’re uninhibited. I’m still of the opinion that they will find their way.
2 Likes
I suspect each module is quick to develop, manufacture and cheap to ship …
For each ‘expensive’ single synth they can probably ship 30 typical modules .
Especially cheap if they make replicas or clone open source items.
1 Like
This may be true for them because their design process is so well crafted and maintained. (One of the strengths i mentioned.)
But there is no magic, each module has to be selected, designed (there isn’t an electronic Xerox), prototyped, tested, iterated, and then the hard stuff in the manufacturing, part sourcing, the logistics, the packaging, all the mechanicals, the manufacturing automation setup, on and on and on. Behringer is just really good at all this behind the scenes stuff, and they can do it very economically.
Good point re5et that they can do many modules for the effort involved with a larger complete synthesizer system.
So what’s tomorrows module ?
Stay classy Behringer 
@Jukka that is true there is no xerox for synths, which makes it all the more naff that they copy other peoples designs so closely, yet still somehow manage to make a large number of their clones look worse (although I will admit not always, the Pro One looks quite ok)
I’d rather eat my own arse than give them any of my dough. 
3 Likes
It gets worse and worse.
Waiting for the Maths clone 
Or a Bro Coast
2 Likes
Every couple of months I say to myself “should I get into modular?”
Every couple of months I decide “Nah, fuck it”
But Behringer comes around and I think “Hmm, maybe?”
But then I think “Nah, fuck it”
6 Likes
I don’t know… they made copies right from the start. That’s now 32 years copying everybody else. That’s pretty much in their DNA. Some exceptions come to my mind (Neutron, X32, Deepmind, BCR2000, DDM4000…) but that’s what they are… exceptions. Also, they’ve been pretty successful (understatement of course !) with this strategy, what makes you think they would change ?
I think as long as they don’t innovate and only copy, the small eurorack modules makers are pretty safe
4 Likes
thats a shame, some thing with music or movies, copy of a box office from the past, same actors, same story, get old pretty soon. Innovation is what keeps your sound fresh and unique.
I mean everything comes from everything but innovation is what moves it forward.
yeah. some interesting points.
But lets also remember not to conflate “lack of innovation” with “blatantly ripping off other people’s intellectual property with abandon” here. the former is lazy, the latter is quite revolting.
2 Likes
This is a good idea. Is it a clone ? Not exactly. It’s the VCO 2 or 3 from the 2600 shrunk down again. I guess i’d have to classify it as an almost complex oscillator. If you’ve ever used a 2600 you know what you’re getting here. Like that they held to the styling of the original. Definitely can mix this with their 2500 stuff too, like that sequencer i just posted.
So i suppose they’ll do the filter next, again shrunk down. And then the VCA, etc.
$100 ! Bring on the complaints and whining.
4 Likes
thats the problem, instead of 2600 it was 420, maybe the sound was better.
my 100 uno synth blows this crap out of the water.
6 Likes
I mean… this release should not generate much fuss… a vco of a vintage synth, for which they already have a complete version… but no, they manage to fuck it up anyway. They’re really on another level.
2 Likes
oh, so it’s Adobe’s fault ? ahahah… 
3 Likes
Who’s “fault” it actually is or if the marketing team actually knew who was in the photo will largely depend on one’s view of Behringer. Is it possible they knew? Sure. Is it possible they didn’t? Again, sure. Was it a legal and authorized stock photo to use – apparently, yes.
Seems like a lot of drama from both camps.
6 Likes
Thats the problem, if they put the resources towards making something that sounds nice and new
instead of putting these people making look a likes, maybe the final product could be a cool one,
so many good people and engineers to work to paint copy of Mona Lisa instead of creating something that sounds and looks nice.
1 Like