Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moog sells its business to InMusic

ra.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 206 posts

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#101

Post by eweise »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #60
JodieBenitez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does the market tend to find "inefficient" areas and someone comes in and "maximize efficiency"? I think Behringer is trying to vacuum all revenue in that space... Yes. Behringer, from the start, was always about copying other brands and offer products to a larger audience through low prices. They used to do so with results of questionable quality... but not anymore. Their output in the synthesizers department has…

Soundwise those are quite poor copies. Behringer are hit and miss on this. They killed it with their Minimoog clones - very, very close to the real hardware - but not so much with some of their later efforts. I have their Pro-One and their K2 and both lack the character and warmth of the originals. They sound like clones. The P800, Solina and Kat all seem very good though. People who accuse Behringer of cloning are m…

My 2600 sounds incredible although I have no idea whether its sounds like the original. I also have their Neutron which is a great original design. I hope they focus more on original designs in the future.

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#102

Post by stef25 »

elihu wrote: post #10
JodieBenitez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does the market tend to find "inefficient" areas and someone comes in and "maximize efficiency"? I think Behringer is trying to vacuum all revenue in that space... Yes. Behringer, from the start, was always about copying other brands and offer products to a larger audience through low prices. They used to do so with results of questionable quality... but not anymore. Their output in the synthesizers department has…

At least with Edge and Crave they changed the UI so someone wouldn't necessarily know it's a clone unless they were familiar with both synths. I kind of wonder if this was an intentional decision for Behringer or if Moog trademarked their interface and thus forced Behringer to do something different?

What are the Edge & Crave copies of, also Moog gear? I thought those were original Behringer products, with pretty decent sounding demos.

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#103

Post by eweise »

notmypenguin wrote: post #75
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely have invested in R&D. The clones are not trivial component-for-component copies. A lot of old parts aren't available any more and the circuits have to be rebuilt around what's available today. They've added MIDI and USB features. They built their own chip division to resurrect the chips of the 80s. They built products like the DeepMind which is Juno-ish but not really a clone. What they did do was nuk…

That is a blatant distortion of the truth. They have invested Nothing in New Designs, nothing For The Future, and I find your defense of Behringer utterly disingenuous. Legacy: what legacy of designs, ORIGINAL DESIGNS, has Behringer left us? R&D was not intended to signify honing a rip-off design, but indicates an original design. Name me ONE original Behringer product.

Neutron

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#104

Post by stef25 »

JodieBenitez wrote: post #8
throw_m239339 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Business is war"... there are very little ethical businessmen out there so you're swimming among sharks and think that it becomes a game of ripping off each others. I've seen some pretty nasty stuff done in order to maximize profit... I don't want to be negative but there is a reason why these jobs attract a certain... profile... or if you can't "adapt" quickly, you're done. Of course some small shops still exist wh…

> Does the market tend to find "inefficient" areas and someone comes in and "maximize efficiency"? I think Behringer is trying to vacuum all revenue in that space... Yes. Behringer, from the start, was always about copying other brands and offer products to a larger audience through low prices. They used to do so with results of questionable quality... but not anymore. Their output in the synthesizers department has…

It's incredible how Behringer has gone from making total garbage to making pretty decent stuff. I mean who wouldn't want a Pro-One for 250 bucks? I threw my credit card at the screen soon as I saw it. Then again if I was behind the original Pro-One I'd be outraged.

Peter Van Hoesen has a really good review on YT about one of their Moog clones. He knows his shit and concludes it's overall pretty great.

I wonder who at Behringer was behind this crazy pivot. Can't recall seeing anything like it in any other industry.

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#106

Post by dylan604 »

arethuza wrote: post #52
irjustin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has accused O'Donnell of failing to pay him royalties after acquiring Akai, repeatedly calling him unscrupulous and a "bastard" in interviews. This seems extremely straight forward to sue against? Basically the claim is either never paid for specific sales (very easy to win) or stated number of sales is lower than expected (requires lots of disclosure). OR, maybe he did win in court and they simply ignored the cour…

Perhaps they use the "Hollywood Accounting" trick of promising payments based on profits then arranging things so that no profits are actually made?

I know this is the saying, but why is Hollywood given the dubious honors? Wouldn't it be just as accurate to say Business Accounting?

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#107

Post by dylan604 »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #23
scns wrote: post #2

> inMusic isn't free from controversy. Formed in 2012 by Jack O'Donnell, a former vice-president at DJ equipment brand Stanton > Roger Linn, who made many ground-breaking drum machines in the '80s before creating the MPC 60 for Akai, has accused O'Donnell of failing to pay him royalties after acquiring Akai, repeatedly calling him unscrupulous and a "bastard" in interviews. Is it absolutely necessary to fuck people o…

Whether or not it's necessary, it's common in the music production business. There are several egregious examples, Gibson Guitar being perhaps the best known.

Best known? How about the music industry as a whole. Record labels are notorious for this. Bands rarely saw profit from album sales.

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#108

Post by monatron »

flanbiscuit wrote: post #98
monatron wrote: post #92

For a short time Moog curated Moogfest in Asheville and later Raleigh. It was an amazing blend of music, technology, talks, culture, etc. I think it ran into some trouble towards the end of it's run. I ended up going once (solo) after a friend had to bail out last minute. It was one of the most fun and enriching music festivals I've ever attended. I can't imagine it coming back after this news. If anyone knows of any…

I went to one of those in 2016, the first one they had when they moved it to Raleigh (it was actually in downtown Durham). I loved it and sad that it's no longer happening. I saw some amazing acts, including Gary Numan doing a 3 night performance where each night he performed one of his first 3 albums (I only saw one of them) Here's some more info about the 2016 lineup https://www.brooklynvegan.com/moogfest-announ/ T…

That's right! I confuse Raleigh and Durham. I was at that same year. Highlights for me were floating points, blood orange, karen gwyer, bicep, a jamaican soundsystem soundclash out in the park, denzel curry, and a live performance by sam aaron live coding on his sonicpi software

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#109

Post by nonstopdev »

scns wrote: post #2

> inMusic isn't free from controversy. Formed in 2012 by Jack O'Donnell, a former vice-president at DJ equipment brand Stanton > Roger Linn, who made many ground-breaking drum machines in the '80s before creating the MPC 60 for Akai, has accused O'Donnell of failing to pay him royalties after acquiring Akai, repeatedly calling him unscrupulous and a "bastard" in interviews. Is it absolutely necessary to fuck people o…

I feel like if you are making it to the higher echelons of success, you typically have this type of track record.

A lot of companies start small by people who like what they do. It’s the business leader or visionary who sees the future and how to apply it on the larger scale usually leaving the loyalty and honor behind and doing what’s best for them and their company.

Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic

#110

Post by mortenjorck »

stef25 wrote: post #102
elihu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least with Edge and Crave they changed the UI so someone wouldn't necessarily know it's a clone unless they were familiar with both synths. I kind of wonder if this was an intentional decision for Behringer or if Moog trademarked their interface and thus forced Behringer to do something different?

What are the Edge & Crave copies of, also Moog gear? I thought those were original Behringer products, with pretty decent sounding demos.

Crave, Edge, and now the just-announced Spice are more or less one-to-one replications of the signal paths and controls of the Mother-32, DFAM, and Subharmonicon respectively.

I’m glad Behringer made them look completely different from the originals, though I’m still not quite sure how I feel about them cloning synths that have been on the market less than a decade (as opposed to their typical cloning of 30+ year-old synths). The compact format and addition of MIDI are meaningful changes, at least, and there is something to be said for making the entire trio accessible for about the price of one of the Moogs.

Post reply on HN