HaHa! Oh Dear, Roland and Korg!

The Lounge General Discussion
#62

Fair argument, but I still think the manufacturer should have the right to set their minimum price and trading terms.

Small retailers who may not have the turnover of larger chains will need a higher profit margin than “box shifters” so by Roland saying for example you buy it from us at £250 per unit, you can sell it for £399 but no less than £349 does two things:

Ensures all retailers have a viable profit margin
Prevents big chain retailers from dominating the market by undercutting everyone else.

Why this might be a concern for Roland:
The big retailer buys more and more stock from Roland, the small retailers buy less and less. The big retailer now has less competition and can renegotiate its terms with Roland such as the buying price.

Why this might be a concern for synth buyers:
Shopping around to save a few pounds/dollars/euros etc might seem great, but eventually it becomes a chore, also the small retailers with the knowledgeable staff get hammered by the big retailers. Often the customer service at box shifters is crap (going from personal experience, but there are exceptions as always)

Why it might be a concern for workers:
A business fighting for margins will have to look at other ways to reduce costs to remain viable, often the cutting of staff is a way to reduce overheads.

It can affect the used gear market:
If you buy a product and pay the MSRP, then within 6 months the price of the item has dropped, second hand prices will follow suit. Of course this will always happen to an extent, but in the past few years it seems much more common. This affects the sales of new goods, as well as meaning the item that you bought now has less value should you decide to sell it.

I guess this all depends on how you look at things, but personally I think a race to the bottom on prices isn’t very good in the longterm for anyone.

It cuts costs such that innovation is a bigger risk, it definitely affects the job market, it encourages outsourcing to the cheapest manufacturer, it means that quality of materials used is likely to be reduced, and so on.

But that is just how I see it, I don’t expect everyone to agree, as we are all different, and have different views.

4 Likes
#63

Reading through this thread reminds me of the character Steve Robinson from the TV version of What We Do in the Shadows!

3 Likes
#64

[Album] Imgur
2 Likes
#65

Sorry but to me your arguments don’t stack up.

You pick a single missing feature (on what are/can be modular items, so in that context is it really a missing feature?) and call it a budget decision.

Pretty much every piece of gear out there has one or more missing features (e.g. the Digis don’t have song mode), which could be considered budget decisions.

With regard to how close the clones sound compared to the originals, I suggest you watch some of Starsky Carr’s videos. And even in cases where the clone does not sound exactly like the original, does that automatically imply the clone sounds bad?

I am interested in the attributes you consider an item must have before it can be classed as premium.

#66

But I doubt that price is the main or only reason people buy Behringer products. I am sure there are many who choose to buy say a Deepmind or a Neutron and yet could have afforded to buy something more expensive (i.e. they do not think that the rest is just good enough).

#67

Im talking about Behringer in general, their product range is vast. So why buy an audio interface from Behringer if you’r not price sensitive ? (i.e)

My brothers church has millions invested in PA and use state of the art equipment, including several huge SSL consoles for TV and live productions etc. Still they do have some Behringer products for situations where the quality isn’t critical, the incentive to buy Behringer for them was price, the quality is good enough for the intended purposes.

So in the context of choosing between two equivalent products, with different price tags most people choosing the cheaper does so based on that fact.

For mer personal (as i stated earlier) staying clear from Behringer is a matter of principle.

#68

No I was referring exactly to the products which Behringer make which have equivalent products from other manufacturers, the Behringer versions have very basic midi spec and from what I have seen reported crap sync, the Roland and Cyclone products have full midi spec and good sync.

But if you believe you are getting premium quality and pro features and good support and whatever from Behringer then that’s up to you.

Good components cost more money, proper design and R&D costs more money, if you truly believe that Behringer out of the goodness of their hearts are like some knight in shining armour rescuing struggling musicians from years of being ripped off by other manufacturers then by all means support them and buy their products.

It would be inaccurate of me to say all Behringer products sound crap and look crap, and I have never ever said that.

However some of their designs are pure cringe (to me) and some of their analog stuff sounds crap (to me) not all of it though.

But, whatever floats your boat, if you like their stuff and don’t have a problem with their products and business practices then buy their stuff.

I watched the Starsky Carr MS-20 comparison, I thought the Behringer sounded ok but nothing like my MS-20, so it begs the question if you can’t get it exact why bother? Why not create your own design? Well because then you can’t ride the coat tails of a classic design to get people to buy it.

3 Likes
#69

But surely when choosing between two equivalent products with different price tags (and assuming you can afford to buy either) why would you pay more if you cannot identify any advantages of the more expensive product.

Rather than comparing Behringer products with an SSL console, the more likely scenario is comparing say a Behringer audio interface with an equivalent, but more expensive, other brand audio interface. Can you be certain that there is a quality difference between the two.

#70

To be fair, lacking cc implementation is a big deal for some. I wasn’t aware of that till today.

1 Like
#71

Yes and the Behringer products are significantly cheaper than the Roland and Cyclone products (I have to assume you are comparing to the TD-3 here).

Pro features depend entirely on the end user’s requirements. What you may consider to be a pro feature I may not and vice versa. Why do you assume that Behringer support is going to be any less than any other manufacturer?

Yes good components etc. does cost money (and over engineered products are a waste of money), but does Behringer consistently use poor components?

Why would I consider Behringer to be a knight in shining armour, they are a business just like every other manufacturer so I assumetheir prime goal is to make money (non of which has come from me as I don’t own any of their products).

Oh, check out the Pro-1 comparison, Starsky Carr explains why he would buy the Behringer even though he owns the original.

#73
off topic

Yes I think that Behringer are in a position (and it is probably their business practice) to market products that are generally of equal quality (and possibly better featured) but lower priced than an equivalent product from another manufacturer.

One possible example could be the Behringer UMC202HD (£59) versus the Focusrite Scarlett Solo 3rd Gen (£99).

#74
off topic

Exactly my point, nothing wrong with gear being cheaper, hence use of the word budget, and the missing features are not important for everyone, or Behringer would not have a market.

A good parallel is sports shoes, you have premium brands that atheletes use, and unbranded copies which are good enough for most people. You don’t see too many serious athletes wearing unbranded shoes, and you don’t see much Behringer gear in pro studios. Yes there will always be exceptions, but generally speaking not. I don’t consider most self proclaimed “pro youtubers” pro in this context BTW.

A brand is more than the products it sells, it is also about their credibility, business practices, professionalism, trust and many other things. I take things like this into account when spending my money, and if I could avoid buying anything with CoolAudio/MusicTribe chips or parts inside then I’d avoid those too. But that’s just me.

If you consider Behringer a premium brand that is entirely up to you, although I don’t even think they would say that they are.

I definitely would not say that they only use cheap parts either, but they definitely cut corners where they can, as to be expected.

Anyway this is getting a bit off topic and turning into yet another Behringer thread, I have flogged this horse to death elsewhere on the forum, I don’t expect anyone else to have the same opinions about it as me, and I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, thanks for keeping it civil though.

4 Likes
#75
off topic

But do serious athletes have to buy the branded shoes or are they given them by the manufacturers?

#76
off topic

It takes quite a bit of practise to reach this level, where you get sponsorship.

If serious about a sport, though, most people will shift to pro gear very soon.

At least that’s my experience, my family is heavy into cycling. Eight year olds have pro cycling stuff…

Btw, I think price is actually the driving force behind most behringer products, certainly for synths, audio interfaces, mixers…
I mean, it doesn’t matter if you buy a TD-303 because you’re curious how the built quality and sound is and spending 150 bucks doesn’t really hurt you - or if you can’t afford to spent more on a mixer. The majority of sales is driven by price.
Anyway, just my perception…

1 Like
#79

Wait, what…puuh! Thought I was at gearslutz for a moment there! :open_mouth:

#80

I think the issue here is more that the antitrust regulators seek to ensure that market mechanisms work and no dominant player uses their market power to unduly constrain other actors’ pricing and purchasing decisions. So it is actually more about governments keeping markets functioning than the other way round.

2 Likes
#81

People are pro-monopoly and monopolistic collusion because they are more interested in supporting power and fully deregulated anarchocapitalism over healthy, functioning markets.

It’s particularly culty.

2 Likes
#82

I don’t see how, it seems to skew the favour to larger companies to me. A small business more often needs a larger profit margin because it does not have economies of scale, so a minimum price in theory should allow them to compete with a larger company on equal footing.

Lets say a synth sells to a retailer for 200, the manufacturer decides selling price is 300, potentially this allows every retailer to make 100 profit.

Now if the bigger company can sell it for 250 and is happy with a 50 profit, they can buy in bulk and until all the small companies who were not able to match their price are gone, then they can jack the price back up, maybe to say 350. In theory.

I don’t know for sure but I suspect also that synth manufacturers give discounts based on quantity, so from the get go the larger “box shifters” are already at an advantageous position, so to me this kind of regulation helps monopolies and not the smaller companies.

@thermionic we are on the same page about monopolies - I think we are just looking at it from a different angle. I’d much rather buy from a small company like Signal Sound than a box shifter like Thomann or Andertons, and I’d hate for the likes of the latter to have an advantage over the likes of the former because of government rules.

Personally I’d rather see governments protect small business, and I feel that this type of meddling does the opposite.

1 Like
#83

Amazon used exactly this to dictate the publishers prices for books. Same with big Pharma. Look at the prices for insulin. They dictate.

1 Like