Wow, that took me way back. It’s like one of those “Spot 12 Differences” puzzles you’d see in a workbook as a kid. And the kid next to you would always say, “That’s too easy.”
Notice the differences are largely additions in the second image. Even blind-folded the differences would be pretty easy to tell.
Not that law is the only measure, but you’d be told, “Ya’ got no case”, if you went for this on the basis of a trademark trade dress issue.
But even though there are significant differences, you’re right the two are unmistakenly similar.
But on the other hand, if you had experience playing the original you’d pretty quickly adapt. That certainly could be a goal in this sort of design.
Like in a car, you know immediately where to find the accelerator, where to find the brake, and where to find the clutch – in any car after 1920 or so. I wish that side of the street had been standardized too.
It’s that, even tho there are “differences”, they don’t even try to make their own design. Not that they can’t. I’m POSITIVE they have great designers. The problem I have is that it’s intentional almost CERTAINLY to attract sales. When someone is listening to your music. They can’t tell which one you used. I’ve used the VST 101 and it was perceived as an actual 101.
And what’s worse is…they don’t even tip their hat to the original manufacturer. “A tribute to the loved SH-101”…for example. That would go a LONG way.
All kinds of people make similar stuff. That’s just the nature of the biz. It’s just the entire package and presentation I take issue with with B.
No problem with sound a-likes. Take issue with clones and no mention of source.
That’s all I’m driving at.
If you open the hood are Behringer products that different from the originals? Im not a micro electronic mechanic but im going to say not much. As they say Beauty is only skin deep. In the future there will be cloned women for men who struggle to have relationships. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah, phaelam, we’re 100% in agreement, as we’ve both posted about earlier in this thread. We both wish Behringer would take their engineering prowess, and direct it towards completely original design. There has been progress in the new designs with more innovation, but the progress has been too slow.
The points in my post are still valid, and i feel like i followed what you wrote with your very well done post. Just looking at things from another angle.
Perversely sometimes they are not. And despite it being more expensive to do it the way they did, it makes for a better design.
Two examples. The Solina, which used an unusual electronic design approach to get its polyphony. To me that is intrinsic to that product, and should be part of a recreation. It makes the version from Behringer far more interesting to me than a software, sampled, or digital version, all of which would sound very similar, but to me is just a wrong way to do it !
The other is the recreation of the early, early Roland CR-78. They duplicated the series of unusual inductor based resonators that makes that design rather unique. Again they could have duplicated the sound, as others have, in other less expensive ways, but they chose not to. BTW the outside of the Behringrr CR-78, is completely different from the clunky interface ( imo ) on the Roland original.
If it was briefly shown to you in a flash, and you were asked, what product is this or does this resemble….it is blatantly obvious. No, these look extremely similar. Even the same font and font colour. Simple change right there
[I’m being broad with the font colour. Both ARE orange, but different shades. There are other colours tho]
Here’s one of the most fun clones I own. A 1970s Japanese clone of the Crybaby Wah. Sounds great by the way, very Shaft. In my experience loads of clones from the 70s (most?) were made to look as close to the original as (legally) possible, so Behringer isn’t breaking any new ground.
One thing is that if Behringer can bring synths that cheap with ok quality, in some cases really good, it’s clear that the monsters: Korg, Yamaha, Roland and others, inflate a lot their prices!
It’s clear that they can bring it cheaper, just don’t want to.
Another thing is that Behringer brings what the people wanted for so long… why didn’t Roland bring out the analog TB303, SH-101… and others?
Plus Behringer synths sound good(even if not exactly as the ones they cloned).
So I really don’t see a problem with Behringer, but a surely see it with the big names which rip us off and bring us mostly plasticky toys… and also they don’t listen to what we want, need.
You get to the end of this production full of second hand reused video, and the producer explains why he is making the video --“it’s just me trying to cash in on the controversy.” To me that’s one definition of trolling.
Ya it’s a shame he put that. I think it’s tongue and cheek. But in the end, a super fail at sarcasm.
I think some points are made tho.
Not the definition of trolling. The definition of todays YouTube culture.
NOTE: he does say he doesn’t hates B, he likes some of their gear. He just sees an issue with the business model. A troll would be a little more bias, and say some extreme stuff to get a response. There’s a difference between trolling and having a point of view. It’s easy to dismiss what someone’s say by calling ‘troll’ when it’s something you don’t like.
Theres a bit of irony with Dave Rossum. He said he set out to put cheaper equipment in the hands of musicians. Now his Reissue SP1200 costs £4k dollars. I feel hes gone full circle. I think It has become about money which is a shame but inevitable. The cloning seems to upset a lot of folk. But if you want to be part of that sound and havent the money then whats the alternative. There isnt one.
I think one important question is also why the alternatives are so expensive. I think some are overpriced. Economies of scale can’t be the only reason.
