Please change this entire forum to Behringernauts

we could change the name when we’ll get the new Beringer - RytmOctaTone 16 track all in one machine for only 699€ :thought_balloon:

Just imagined now how the „my setup“ thread of a Behringernaut would look like :smile:

…joke aside, I fully agree with @djadonis206, most competent/informative/friendly music & gear loving forum I know so far. Will be hard to copy.


Agree 100%

But I’m an American (in a Southwest rural area in the Desert too), we don’t have or say buggers only lots of Burgers…Buurrrggerrrnauuts :stuck_out_tongue:



How is that Nuetron treating you…

I was thinking about it…for XMAS…Analog 4 MK2 or a whole bunch of Behringer synths…

Well…I must put Audiobus Forum as another leader for my forums…being that these are the only 2 I use…but this place is pretty rocking.

Yeah, its like behri brings all these monos etc out but no word are they going to all just sound like a variation of a theme instead of the diff synths?

(Still want an RD-9 tho)


Yep. Those are all pretty simple synths.

1 Like

I agree, and I also agree with your earlier point about the tonality (to a variable degree, depending on which target synth) which I think is the only other tangible reason aside from the direct and simple wysiwyg UI of the clones.

For example a good programmer can easily make Roland-ish or Moog-ish sounds on the A4, the MS-20 or Odyssey might prove a bit more challenging due to their wilder filter and so on, but perhaps a passable emulation of most of their sounds can be done, like a MS-20 sound isn’t always going to be using the filter in a characteristic way, and so on.

Now if we try to create some of the sounds the A4 can make on any of the aforementioned synths, it gets much trickier and in many cases impossible, because they simply don’t have many of the functions.

  • 2 × analog oscillators
  • Variable waveshape on all waveforms
  • Oscillator AM and Sync modes
  • 2 × sub-oscillators
  • 1 × noise generator
  • 1 × 4-pole analog lowpass ladder filter
  • 1 × 2-pole analog multi-mode filter
  • 1 × analog overdrive circuit
  • Filter feedback
  • 2 × assignable LFOs
  • 1 × dedicated vibrato LFO
  • 2 × dedicated waveshape LFOs
  • 1 × amp envelope
  • 2 × assignable envelopes
  • 2 × dedicated LFO fade envelopes
  • 1 × dedicated noise fade envelope
  • 1 × dedicated vibrato envelope
  • 1 × dedicated autobend envelope
  • 3 × individual effect sends

Not forgetting that all x4, and polyphony, digital reverb and delay, and of course a really great sequencer allowing intricate control of every step, and if you want, a completely different sound on every step.


Unfortunately you can’t really make A4 sound like a Moog Model D. A4 just doesn’t sound as good as a true VCO based analog synth. I have owned both and the sweetspot in A4 is pretty limited whereas classic analog monosynths are pretty much all sweetspot soundwise.

That’s why classic VCO based monosynths are way more capable to me. It’s all about the sound.

the crave has completely the same synth structure, same sequencer features, pretty much compeletely identical patchbay, the same assignable output with the same features. The only differences I can see is a slightly different sequencer, a different VCO and a slightly different ladder filter and a different color and size (and probably build quality). In demos, they sound extremely similar.
This is much more copycat than just being another semimodular synth.

Features =/ sound. The Pro1 is one of the best sounding synths that I know. It is much simpler on paper but specs and features don´t get you the fantastic sound with a simple 1 OSC 1 Filter patch like the Pro 1 does. Of course you can rebuild a sh101 sound with the A4 but it is much more complicated and you need a lot of modulation and tweaks to achieve the same result that you get with a basic 101 patch.

this flood let me concentrate on the things I love…Neutron x2 as Poly.

Definitely true, no one is saying it would be a direct replacement, the use of “ish” and the mention of UI considerations were the caveats preceding my comments.

The point still stands though when talking capabilities, which was the issue being mentioned, and no doubt it does take a lot of work to make convincing emulations - with variable degrees of success too.

Finally lets not forget also that we are talking specifically about Behringers clones in this scope, not the originals on which they are based, now as to how close they themselves get to the target synth is itself debatable, and some seem to get closer than others. This point being that precisely because they are so cheap and ubiquitous, they don’t have the “value” of the expensive originals on which they are based, so people are more likely to flip them with the knowledge that if they miss them they can easily buy one again at a later date for less money.

1 Like

I have the M32 (and DFAM), but the crave cost a fraction of what I paid for the M32 and seems to have a better sequencer, a different flavour VCO land filter and more useful patch points. I have no issue with it and I think they are pitching to different markets (SKODA and BMW are both cars have the same basic functionality!)

Thats quite different, but the price point is very different, so its a different synth for different people than drop £600 on a simple 1 osc MOOG synth- I think that is amazing progress and it puts this tech in the hands of more musical people (not just wealthy musical propel!), surely thats a good thing?

That‘s a different topic.
I‘m just saying they copied the features and structure almost completely from a synth, that‘s pretty new itself and still in production.
Saying it‘s not a clone… ok. Still a brazen copy.
They could come up with their own ideas and sell it to the less wealthy musicians (like they did with the neutron)

They don‘t just share basic functionality

I don’t think it is a good idea to talk about economics when mentioning non essential luxury items, at least not in a vacuum, else the wider considerations about true cost, workforce, where the money goes, and many other factors need to come under scrutiny too, it is a can of worms not worth opening here.

The only thing I’d say here if things like this concern you, is to look into it and do your research, you mention Moog in comparison, but it is a bit like comparing your local farmers market to Walmart, on paper both entities are doing the same thing, but both for very different reasons, and with very different motivations and impacts on wider issues.

1 Like

And no need to worry, they’ll be cloning us all soon enough. No need to worry about the transition.

Hopefully the irony that every topic referencing Behringer will eventually (if un-moderated) become a clone of the others isn’t lost on you all.

If we are to look at the topic, it’s a throwaway rhetorical idea. Let’s spare you all the suffering of churning through the same old points in the same combative way. There’s no chance of a middle ground on this one. There’s a dedicated topic to the ethics and so on and much chatter about cloning and the clones. It’s really not a topic with legs, there must be better ways to clock up internet minutes.

Let’s leave it on this ^ on topic thought then.

Closed. You’re welcome :thup: