I don’t think it sounds the same at all. Behringer has always made terrible gear and that’s not going to change just because they decide to rip off classics.
They bought Midas for their well deserved reputation for quality analog engineering, that may have something to do with it
I’m waiting for them to clone something interesting like a Vsynth or Nord G2 or a Prophet 12. Wouldn’t mind a Waldorf Quantum for $300 either 
Well Behringer did say they don’t believe in digital synths… here is the actual quote “We at Behringer do not believe in “virtual analog”, VST’s or other creative names for digital sound emulations as we are of the firm opinion that you cannot replicate true analog sound through digital technology, and there are many technical reasons for this. To be very clear, this doesn’t mean digital synths or VST’s can’t sound great, but it is just something we don’t believe in.” No matter how cheap or good sounding there synths are quotes like this make me never want to give them money… plenty of other ways to get well priced great sounding synths to bother supporting them. My guess is they don’t believe in them because they can’t legally copy paste the code into there synth 
4 Likes
Haha something they don’t believe in.
Such moral highground
They much rather believe in ripping off other companies analogs
They crack me up those guys
2 Likes
I’m not a Behringer fan by any means.
Like most, ANY experience I’ve had with one of their products has been that it was of lowest quality.
I dont really keep up with what the CEO says or anything, but I’m definitely curious since the effort to release analog remakes after purchasing Midas.
I read some of the comments on here and I cant help but wonder why Behringer is getting singled out in the clones dept.
I mean, SO MUCH of eurorack is based on clones.
There are TONS of 303’s and 808’s etc etc.
I mean Studio Electronics is all clones sort of?
Yep exactly. All clones should be outlawed imo.
I guess that’s why patents and copyright exist, but it seams these aren’t always set in stone, or Uli and all the others just do it anyway
I’m not really that familiar with patents.
So is Behringer infringing on patents wrongfully or has it been some sacred amount of time that it’s not supposed to matter?
Who knows mate?
Just not right imo
The patents have expired I believe so its all legal (maybe not copying the graphic design though), I think many other eurorack clones were for the most part not directly copying off of circuitry so more so inspired by and often trying to put there own spin on it. The laws around digital code I think is different though so it makes sense they aren’t interested in that. To me it mostly bothers me because it feels like any money they make is going to go into making more old synths while other companies seem more interested in trying to push synths forwards in one way or another. Even rolands boutiques are building upon code that can potentially be used to make new interesting synths. I dunno I guess VSTs are probably where most advancements will be made from now on but I do like a good piece of hardware doing something new…
2 Likes
Now that Mutable has released the code for all his digital euro modules wouldn’t surprise me if Uli tries cashing in on that somehow.
Sure he would love to cash in on some of Mutables amazing work.
Call it Mutable, I mean Uli Instruments 
Probably yes. It’s much easier to clone an existing analogue synth circuit than to create a good digital model of one.
And at this point, it’s probably also easier to create a new analogue design because of the amount of knowledge and re-usable building blocks out there.
SE started out adding MIDI to the Model D.
Then they started building their own Model D’s with MIDI built in. Those were indeed clones.
Then they started adding things to the basic 3-VCO-and-a-ladder-filter architecture of the Model D, essentially ending up building their own family of synths with their own ideas, way of working, and sound.
Don’t forget that all creative work builds on top of the work of others. Nobody in the history of electronic music has ever created anything entirely original, entirely new that was in no way at least inspired or partly based on something else that came before.
4 Likes
The whole point of patents is to allow inventors to keep control of their invention for a limited time after which others can freely use their inventions without any restrictions.
Patents are not intended to protect inventors, but to foster innovation by encouraging inventors to publish their methods instead of trying to keep them secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent is good reading.
Copyright was originally limited in the same way, but the copyright term has been extended so often to make this kinda meaningless. This is called the “Mickey Mouse” effect; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/?utm_term=.fbf445adcbca
4 Likes
What matters to me is that they managed to give us the Model D sound for cheap. I’m not a fan of Behringer products or the company’s practices but this is way to good to pass up.
The thing looks and sounds pretty damn good. There’s a market for it, it’s satisfying people’s needs / wants. Couldn’t / don’t really give a shit about UB’s personal philosophy, marketing strategies, or dubious ethics (who’s negatively affected by this?) - asserting some type of moral high ground here seems a bit ridiculous, especially if the product delivers.
1 Like
But how can they be so cheap? If they sound the same, what does Moog offer for 3000 more?
a status symbol? “authenticity” ?
1 Like
A furniture with a Moog stamp on it.
3 Likes
The TB 303 says hi, but I guess it is a subtractive analog synth so in a sense isn’t ENTIRELY original.
That is my experience from trying them in a shop. You need tweezers for some of those knobs. 
Behringer stuff is mass produced in China, Moog is made in the US in much smaller quantities ( I think).