R&D costs money. With stuff like the Swing they can leverage existing sequencer code.
For a digital synth they would have to write the software from nothing.
1 Like
Word processors are a class of software, not a “clone” in the same way that Behringer works.
1 Like
I didn’t write “word processors”, i wrote “work-alikes for Microsoft Office”, meaning software like Apache OpenOffice.
Very good explanation Moonwax. The third method for protecting software is trade secret.
Many years ago there was a very gnarly bit of code that ran printers, called Adobe Postscript. Its operation was kept as secret. Many software companies spent a great deal of time to create print engines that would create image identical output, some more successful than others. DSP code can be and is recreated as well. Perhaps it’s not always worth the effort.
What about a wavetable synth, like an older model from Waldorf. Could that be done ?
2 Likes
I’d guess there’s a fair bit of software going on in the DeepMind so yeah, they’ve dipped their toe I’d say. And when you look at the X32 and Wing they’ve clearly got the resources. I can see more innovative stuff further down the line but maybe just pieces here and there rather than a full ‘line’ of original design digital synths. No issues with what they’re putting out for reference.
1 Like
I’m sure the PPG has been teased hasn’t it? Shouldn’t be hard to do from what I’ve read but I’m deffo no software engineer.
1 Like
What about a wavetable synth, like an older model from Waldorf. Could that be done ?
Considering the popularity of WT synths today and this synthesis type in general, I would say it is a medium difficulty task.
Wavetable scanning is just reading the pcm data from the 2D array defined by some algorithm or external variables. The most complex parts would be tuning it to sound musically, like choosing the right parameters for interpolation, constants for scanning, behavior on fast modulation of the wt-position, etc (i.e. Brilliance or Noisy parameters in Waldorfs, probably existing in other synths but named differently).
And it’s only the oscillator part. I easily can imagine 2 years of R&D on such a thing even for a big company
2 Likes
I guess it’s safe to assume that a company with the resources and determination Behringer has, will have had several of these sorts of projects pipelined for a year or more already.
Or alternatively they could acquire or license these technologies from other developers with technology near completion. Think of some of the companies and individuals with plugin code who might take the buyout, and help move that software onto hardware.
I’m not saying anything here that isn’t obvious really. Only to expect large growth in the short term in digital synthesis from Behringer. And hopefully that includes some competitive and inspired new creation.
1 Like
Again, not their operation. For example, they used Émilie Gillet’s code that was open sourced so they wouldn’t have to develop a digital synth themselves.
1 Like
Not true.
Plaits is Brains is Plaits, facts are not controversial? They will choose the options that require minimal reimplementation.
When I was commenting here, I totally missed that B* are actually cloning the PPG Wave. Omg. Lol.
Did they get the original schematics or contact with the original developers? Or do they actually reverse-engineer the engine?
update: yes, but differently
https://www.facebook.com/behringer/posts/10158723449008914
I’m starting to feel like Behringer is closing an era and isn’t aware their part of it. After most hardware got emulated in software more people grabbing back to hardware . If they continue like this and every machine that meant something and influenced electronic music from it’s early birth is available to the masses in a affordable and .
mint condition …
the circle is closed
There’s only one chapter after Behringer’s
clonewars. Renewal, innovation and instruments we can’t imagine yet. I think i like it.
8 Likes
RE: New Behringer Pro-16.
I really agree with this. Elsewhere i called it encroachment, by which i mean out of bounds in a business and ethical sense, but probably in a general sense legal.
That the Pro-16 has the differences it does, i mean the multi-timbrality, really helps distinguish these two though. That’s something anyone can easily hear.
To be complete on this though, it’s now Focusrite Sequential. Whether or not this consolidation came from Behringer’s entry and expectation of products like the Pro-16, one can speculate.
[By “in a general sense”, i mean, without some specific patent violation or such like.]
EDIT: Fixed typo.
1 Like
I don’t understand, Dave Smith runs Sequential and is going to be influencing Focusrite [to inspire in Chris Huggett’s absence], not the other way around.
Focusrite would have larger power when it comes to suing a company I guess.
But I just hope they use their energy to come up with the future-oriented synth B seems not willing to create.
1 Like
when will Behringer make Behringer versions of Behringer stuff?
1 Like
Just saying…
8 Likes
Incredible.
Feasting on the legacy of a dead man, what a bunch of disgraceful vampires.
I hereby solemnly declare (again) I’ll never give Music Tribe a cent. And expose their misdeeds to anyone I know.
10 Likes
Same here. No Behringer in my house.
6 Likes