InMusic buying Moog?

[Mark Schmieder]

3 hours ago, analogika said:

 

At least they're using 4-star chips?

[Jim Alfredson]

 

[Joe Muscara]

16 hours ago, Jim Alfredson said:

 

He really nails it all with that video. I didn't know about the deal with Sweetwater though, nor did I know/realize that those "0% financing" deals were subsidized by the manufacturers. And I hope Sweetwater stays a decent company…

[Jim Alfredson]

5 hours ago, Joe Muscara said:

He really nails it all with that video. I didn't know about the deal with Sweetwater though, nor did I know/realize that those "0% financing" deals were subsidized by the manufacturers. And I hope Sweetwater stays a decent company…

Yep. His categorization of the B**hringer stuff as counterfeits rather than clones is perfect. And his explanation of these being 'luxury items' and 'novelties' is spot-on as well. You don't NEED a Minimoog to make good music. If you want the Minimoog sound, there are numerous ways of getting it, both hardware and software, that are inexpensive and don't support a shit company like B***inger.

[Jim Alfredson]

Now B***inger is threatening legal action against Jordan for his video. There was some back and forth between the two in posts that both have deleted. One of the posts deleted by B***inger made this insanely stupid argument:

"Blaming us for Moog’s struggles is as reasonable as blaming Yamaha for the bankruptcy of Sequential, Oberheim, ARP and Moog in the 1980s when the DX7 and other digital synths were introduced to the market."

Okay. Except the development of the DX7 by Yamaha is the exact antithesis to what B***inger does. Yamaha licensed the underlying concept of FM synthesis from Stanford / John Chowning, invested millions in research and development to determine how to successfully use the technology in a consumer product, created their own custom chips to do the signal processing required, implemented that tech at first in extremely expensive instruments in order to introduce the technology (the GX series), and then slowly trickled that tech down into the DX line (the DX1, DX5, and eventually the DX7). In other words, they took a huge risk by innovating and creating a brand new type of digital synthesis, went all in on their own custom manufacturing down to the chips, and were rewarded thanks to producing a must-have instrument that broke new ground and offered customers something that traditional analog synthesis could not.

B***inger: "tHaT's wHat wERe dOinG!"

It's almost as dumb as their recent claim that they are a 'non-profit' company. LOL!

[RABid]

I've used zero financing for years through AmericanMusical. They were the first that I remember and it took a while to spread to other companies. Don't know if manufacturers helped to support the zero financing. I remember Roland used to be excluded from many deals: zero financing, coupons from Guitar Center, etc... Not any more. Bought my Jupiter X on 12 payment plans, no down payment and no interest. Sweetwater and Amazon offer 3, 5 and 6 month plans on a lot of products. On those, you don't have to apply for a card like you do with the 48 month plans.

[RABid]

While I am mad that they closed production in Asheville, I would like to see InMusic undercut, or at least closely match Behringer in price. No one would buy Behringer clones if they can get Moog branded for just a little more. I also expect to see the Moog software become available on the Akai MPC machines. The MoogerFoogers and a branded Mini clone would sell well. 

 

Wonder how long it will take for use to see the Mother 32 become an import, and what the price will be.

[CyberGene]

In the video, Ben makes it clear that it’s not Behringer recent copies of current Moog products that are selling well (DFAM/Edge and Mother-32/Crave) but the Model D and Poly D. They are clones (or whatever word suits you) of the Minimoog. First of all, it’s an old design and all possible patents have expired long ago. And then, there had not been Minimoog reissues by Moog for all these years and the latest $5000 one was released only very recently. You can’t blame Behringer for finding a niche that Moog themselves missed. 
 

But we’ve already discussed it to death.

 

What I’m wondering though, are we blaming capitalism now? 

[timwat]

34 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

What I’m wondering though, are we blaming capitalism now? 

 

I don't think anyone has yet ventured that far conceptually.

 

I think we have variously described objections / hesitancies / <insert your noun of choice> that some have with Behringer's practices, responses, choices. Others here have noted their responses, opinions, retorts to them.

 

Cynical me suspects very few people are going to be persuaded to reconsider their opinions / conclusions / positions on this, which is at one point understandable, but from another perspective one would hope for lively, intelligent, and profoundly respectful dialogue on, well, any matter around here. This being the internet and all, perhaps that's naive.

 

However, with regard to your specific question, what I personally might suggest is that free market systems can evolve into all sorts of different animals, which you might observe in different geographical centers, cultural groups, individual market domains, etc. In other words, it's difficult to paint "capitalism" with a single broad brush - and attempts to do so seem to intentionally ignore clear, obvious, and complex distinctions. The same would also be true of attempts to paint "socialism" with a single broad brush, but that isn't the topic at hand.

 

All to say business ethics is, at root, the calculus of individual choices, behaviors, and decisions by individuals on behalf of organizations, which then commit the resources (and, eventually, the reputation) of the organization down a specific path. Decision makers choose, and the market gets to decide whether we support the behavior or not.  Off the present topic for a moment, many of us remember when the previous trademark owner of the Rhodes brand attempted to lay the litigious smackdown upon, well, seemingly anyone he felt threatened by, including an innocuous Rhodes forum. A lot of us here looked at that and said, "Even if I could afford it, I'm not going to buy a piano from a guy who would conduct his business that way."  And, not everyone responded the same way. And that's a normal function of business ethical decision making in a market system.

 

Whether we're talking about American Big Tobacco, where we purchase our smartphone from, what food we buy, to what discretionary luxury items we choose to make music with, a business decision maker (or makers) makes choices, some of which have ethical implications. The buyers who make up the market get to choose whether to support those choices with our voting dollars, considering the economic value balance and perceived want/need.

 

My 0.02, for whatever that's worth.

 

Tim

 

[RABid]

Where were all the Behringer haters when they were copying popular speakers and mixers. It seems like they have copied every popular guitar pedal ever sold. Oh, wait. A lot of pedal companies are doing that, either physically or as software in their digital pedalboards. Sure, there were people objecting, but it was mostly due to poor quality rather than blatant copying.

[CyberGene]

@timwat generally I agree with everything you said. Let's clarify something though. There have been three topics in this thread that are both interrelated, and at the same time have no connection whatsoever:

 

1. Moog's troubles

2. Behringer's ethics

3. Capitalism and its varieties

 

Let's assume Behringer are everything they have been accused of, and even worse. (Frankly, I don't care, I don't like them either.) People stop buying their products at all. Behringer are gone. Would that save Moog? Would people start purchasing $5000 Model D reissues in millions? Nope. Not at all. Simple and clear. I understand why people love Moog, I love Moog too. I understand why people hate Behringer. But let's not be silly and accuse Behringer of why Moog failed.

 

As to capitalism, it's an interesting new angle to the discussion, although IMO it's an entirely different topic again, and hardly related to Moog either. As a Bulgarian, born and raised during the communist era, from a family that was repressed by the state (my grandfather was declared enemy of the state and thrown in one of the deadliest detention camps, luckily he was released a few years later), etc., etc., so with all that history I've been taught to hate socialism/communism in my blood. And I did, but I've started recently just slightly opening my mind towards why it all happened and whether capitalism is inherently good, and without any shame I can admit that I like some small parts of the left ideology. But anyway, I think it also has nothing to do with Moog's troubles. Can't we just accept they weren't good in doing business? Why should we blame it on this or that?

[analogika]

48 minutes ago, RABid said:

Where were all the Behringer haters when they were copying popular speakers and mixers.

 

Oh, we were here, all along! Maybe you missed it, because you're more at home in the world of synthesisers than in mixers, but believe me, there wasn't exactly "hate", but rather, scorn — and a lot of it. 

Because while they were ripping of Mackie, their knockoff mixers at the time were shit. 

Noisy, flimsy, underspecced power supplies, nearly irrepairable (but a surprisingly cheap three-day-turnaround would get you the mixer repaired to exactly the same spec that had already failed because you dared to keep a phantom-powered mic connected for two days straight!)… 

The problem they're seeing with the synth world is largely due to the fact that it's the 2020's, and their stuff is good. If it were flimsy, shitty stuff with a -35 dB noise floor where the faders fell off if you looked at them funny, there wouldn't be a problem. 

 

It used to be understood that you bought Behringer when you were starting out, and once you got serious, you'd get real gear — and the B would mostly be relegated to rehearsal rooms or sold off to kids.

 

On the other hand, I do think that the overlap between those who buy Behringer synths and those who would otherwise actually shell out the dough for the Real Thing™ is vastly overblown by some people — the Behringer stuff for the most part isn't really competing with multi-thousand-dollar originals: it's competing with $129 plug-ins. 

I also get the feeling, supported by the video's explanation of Sweetwater (et al.)'s involvement, that the problem isn't so much the competitor that killed Moog, as framed here, but that Moog didn't have the ability to be competitive.  They tried, but from what I gather (third-hand), they've had parts and QC issues for decades, going back to Voyager years, due to needing to cut costs to stay in business. And that was long before Behringer ever entered the market. 

And then you have a perfect storm of an already very low-volume company sinking substantial cost into what must have been the most expensive product development of their history, developers leaving before it's actually done but having to ship it, then a Covid-induced labour shortage, production stops, parts shortage, EXPLODING costs, AND the competition from the far east… 

YES Behringer is using its market clout in unsavoury ways. Yes they're undercutting existing products by cloning them, same as they always have. 

But I present this thought:
IF Behringer's Poly D and Model D are in any way to blame for the decline of moog, what is the reasoning behind the decision to "compete" with those by AGAIN re-releasing a €6,000 original Minimoog that costs at least $2,000 in overhead a piece to build? 
Four years AFTER Behringer released the Model D? And three years after the Poly D? 

Can anyone enlighten me? 

[RABid]

Yes. I arrived during the Peavy years. It did not sounds that good, but it was loud and dependable. While I was in one of the poorest areas of the nation I had a good paying job. I also had a grandfather, a dad, and 6 uncles who were electricians. They taught me the concept of quality in, quality out. When I was ready to move beyond Peavy it was Ashly, Crown, EV, Tascam, etc... If I had bought a Behringer quality item and let them see the components...

[Anderton]

People vote with their dollars. Companies try to entice people to vote for them.

[David Emm]

Its a generally rare and semi-risky choice to walk the synthesizer tightrope, like taking up weekend flying with a wingsuit. You WILL do a face plant upon landing or hit a tree from time to time. Mac stability has become my best tool, because it dependably contains all of the others. Its a high pleasure to simply click on a pipe organ or Polymoog and play. I much prefer watching these fights from a skybox.

 

Some of us are probably "rich" enough to buy larger pieces at will, but its more often a hit-or-miss process decided by budget, market timing and the weather. If I was new to all of this, I'd commit to a workstation and in part, use it to play a very select few outboard pieces. You can manage it nicely and still dodge the bankrupt debates. If you need a hardware Moog, you need one, but I suspect a lot of that could be satisfied with one of the softsynths or a Moogerfooger pedal. CA's Memorymode got the voice right, so it barks like mad with a proper effects chain.

 

Besides, all of this Moog talk makes me feel a bit dishonest. I had Moog pamphlets pinned to the wall, a fresh copy of "Trilogy" to replace the one I wore out and a Mini as my first synth. I would have bought a Moog One, but I have car & dog payments to make. If only they had offered a streamlined, fully-baked Moog Two for $2300, he daydreamed. 🤩

[Dave Bryce]

18 hours ago, Anderton said:

People vote with their dollars. Companies try to entice people to vote for them.

 

 

I’m a bit curious to know what the general feeling is regarding this $449 Roland/Studio Electronics product. 🤔

 

 

dB

[CyberGene]

31 minutes ago, Dave Bryce said:

I’m a bit curious to know what the general feeling is regarding this $449 Roland/Studio Electronics product. 🤔

This was my first analog synth. It came faulty, with sound disappearing for 10 minutes then coming again. I had a lengthy conversation with Studio Electronics who immediately responded to me in a very condescending manner, accusing me how stupid I am and how I didn’t know how to use it. I kept the civilized tone and managed to demonstrate to them that it was a faulty product. After which they responded that I should have never contacted them in the first place, but seek Roland instead. And no apology for their rudeness. The Thomann support also confirmed it was a faulty product. At that point I didn’t want to purchase a product that had anything to do with Studio Electronics. I know it was not their fault and I think their design is great but I am not supporting a product made by a**holes. Which is when I purchased the Behringer Model D and it’s been absolutely fantastic 👍🏻

 

BTW, the SE-02 had some shortcomings too: the knobs are too crowded and it makes it a bit tricky to tweak. And the filter knob was steppy. The Boog is simply a better and more authentic clone. YMMV. 

[jerrythek]

On 10/10/2023 at 10:09 AM, Jim Alfredson said:

.One of the posts deleted by B***inger made this insanely stupid argument:

"Blaming us for Moog’s struggles is as reasonable as blaming Yamaha for the bankruptcy of Sequential, Oberheim, ARP and Moog in the 1980s when the DX7 and other digital synths were introduced to the market."

Okay. Except the development of the DX7 by Yamaha is the exact antithesis to what B***inger does. Yamaha licensed the underlying concept of FM synthesis from Stanford / John Chowning, invested millions in research and development to determine how to successfully use the technology in a consumer product, created their own custom chips to do the signal processing required, implemented that tech at first in extremely expensive instruments in order to introduce the technology (the GX series), and then slowly trickled that tech down into the DX line (the DX1, DX5, and eventually the DX7). In other words, they took a huge risk by innovating and creating a brand new type of digital synthesis, went all in on their own custom manufacturing down to the chips, and were rewarded thanks to producing a must-have instrument that broke new ground and offered customers something that traditional analog synthesis could not.

Wow, the gaslighting and arrogance of that statement. It's not about the success of a product (DX7), which was a wholly new invention. It's the cloning/ripping off of exact product designs from other companies and selling them for much less. I know you were saying this, but not as directly.

[Doerfler]

2 hours ago, Dave Bryce said:

I’m a bit curious to know what the general feeling is regarding this $449 Roland/Studio Electronics product. 🤔

I really like the way the SE-02 sounds, format is just way too small for me. 

[RABid]

2 hours ago, Dave Bryce said:

I’m a bit curious to know what the general feeling is regarding this $449 Roland/Studio Electronics product. 

I own it. Sounds as good as the two Voyagers that I sold, just does not hold as many program patches. The knobs are a bit crowded and thus it is not as fun to program. I also bought the Behringer D when it was on sale for a really cheap price. Sounds about the same. Takes longer for the oscillators to warm up and stabilize. No patch memory. If you are a teenager mowing yards for money, or a retiree on limited income, it is an option. 

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, Dave Bryce said:

I’m a bit curious to know what the general feeling is regarding this $449 Roland/Studio Electronics product. 🤔

 

Beyond the maligned B company, this product and other mono and poly synths provide stiff competition making it hard for legacy companies to continue thriving without innovation.

 

Moog, Oberheim and DSI were able to catch lightning in a bottle in their 3rd resurrection due to the 1) analog synth resurgence and 2) nostalgic musician market flush with cash/credit.

 

Having access to reissued versions of 1970s/1980s technology is a windfall for a generation of musicians with a desire and  appreciation for it. I'm referring to those of who who read Keyboard magazine from cover to cover and could only afford to look at pictures.

 

Legacy based synths are unsustainable retail items as technology marches onward especially with a younger generation of musicians.  The newer stuff covers those bases and more.

 

Again, Moog had a great run 3rd time around the track.  But, I could see the finish line for them several years ago.😎

[AnotherScott]

To the extent that anyone thinks the Behringer D (or Roland SE-02) was Moog's undoing, remember, that tech is from 1970. There's a reason patents only last 20 years.... because there is a sense that 20 years is enough time for the developer to get plenty of benefit (reward for their effort, foundation for further work), while still allowing for the tech to ultimately be used by others who are then free to make it cheaper, or take it in new directions, whatever, which is ultimately seen as a greater benefit for the world at large, while still having provided adequate reward to the originator. While you may be able to knock Behringer for various things, I think manufacturing a derivative of something from 50 years ago is fair game for anyone.

 

[ChazKeys]

Indeed - very balanced comments.  On the subject of copying did SE electronics get much stick when they released the MidiMoog or was that different for some reason?

 

I tried not to get involved in this thread but I do find the YouTube format of one person just broadcasting their view is just so one sided - it’s not a discussion. 
 

BTW here is the definition of counterfeit: made in exact imitation of something valuable with the intention to deceive or defraud. 

 

As for Moog, well my Sub 37 has had more faults than any other piece i’ve owned. Even the keyboard went  yellow and it’s less than 10 years old! 

 

Is it possible that In Music will bring Moog on or is that naive?

 

 

[timwat]

30 minutes ago, ChazKeys said:

Is it possible that In Music will bring Moog on or is that naive?

 

 

 

 

I presume the company was purchased in order to correct the inherent business problems plaguing Moog and move forward. In other words, they need to identify the specific business problem(s) and apply an appropriate fix to correct each. 

 

With that said, it is interesting that Move #1 is a mass firing.

 

While it is often said in business, "Management would be so much easier if it wasn't for these people", it will be interesting to see what Move #2 will be.

 

 

[DroptopBroham]

On 10/9/2023 at 12:00 AM, Jim Alfredson said:

 

This guy smh. Behringer had nothing to do with Moog being run into the ground after Bob Moog passed. Bob was about innovation and moving forward with the Voyager and affordable Lil Phatty. He didn't want to reissue the D. He dies and then they just repackage the same synth 10 ways, reissue the D as a cash grab and create that oscillating abortion Moog One for 10k. The management after Bob died was just milking every last drop out of the Moog name before selling out to a conglomerate.

 

The Behringer D killed Moog Music puhleaze. Their CEO killed them. Behringer D is stealing sales from the 5k Moog Model D. And this guy's take that hardware synths are a luxury and you should be using VSTs and plugins to make music wouldn't generate sales for Moog either. Then he praises Arturia who have the Mini V which itself is a clone of the D and in the basically the same thing as the Behringer D. His logic is flawed af.

 

This dude just used Moog management cashing out as a premise to do a hit piece on Behringer. The video doesn't get into the real reasons why Moog sold out but spends like 80% of the time bashing Behringer.  And now Sweetwater is supposed to be evil too? C'mon man.

 

If these cheap Behringer synth were that amazing and potent, why hasn't Roland collapsed under the multi-pronged assault of Behringer's 808, 909 and TB303 clones?

 

The management who scuttled the ship was Moog's CEO plain and simple. They tried to position themselves as the Louis Vuitton of the synth universe in a world with runaway inflation, mired wages and gigs paying the same as 20 years ago. Gouging and ripping off your customers is not a sustainable business model. It's a shame they ran it into the ground. Maybe with Inmusic the Moog name will live on in bluetooth speakers and motorcycle sound systems like they did Marshall.

 

The guy in the video is an uninformed, biased, idiot with a hard on for Behringer for some reason. Lots of synth makers and software synths doing the D thing, but this guy gives them a pass and encourages their use. Weak sauce video.

 

[Jim Alfredson]

8 hours ago, CyberGene said:

I am not supporting a product made by a**holes. Which is when I purchased the Behringer Model D...

 

[CHarrell]

The patent controversies and dumb strawman defenses are the tip of the asshole iceberg for Behringer, so I hate to "defend" them, and I hate to criticize Benn Jordan 'cause he's usually got really nice insights and perspective (including his past video(s?) on Behringer), but do people really believe it's a few knockoff products and some biased retailers that killed a legendary synth company? If that's all it took, just how fragile would that company have to be?  

[Tusker]

9 hours ago, Doerfler said:

I really like the way the SE-02 sounds, format is just way too small for me. 

 

Yes, I think it's a great little module in a multi-synth gig rig if you need Moog sound and preset switching. Great sound.

[David Emm]

I once possessed TWO Multimoogs, which has its own odd backstories. The touch strip and pressure sensing finally went belly-up on one, so I traded it out with my tech as a parts resource. The other held up until I sold it for a decent profit. Likewise with my Mini. Moogs were pretty good to me.

[AnotherScott]

4 hours ago, DroptopBroham said:

The Behringer D killed Moog Music puhleaze. Their CEO killed them. Behringer D is stealing sales from the 5k Moog Model D. And this guy's take that hardware synths are a luxury and you should be using VSTs and plugins to make music wouldn't generate sales for Moog either. Then he praises Arturia who have the Mini V which itself is a clone of the D and in the basically the same thing as the Behringer D. His logic is flawed af.

 

Good point, that he's criticizing Behinger for knocking off their 50 year old hardware, but not knocking Arturia and others who are doing software implementations that directly compete with Moog's own app. How many more people would be buying Moog's own software emulation if nobody else was making Moog software emulations? Maybe it's only $30, but I think the potential market for a $30 Minimoog app is absolutely huge compared to the market for a $5000 hardware version, and would be especially huge if there were no other software emulation of a Minimoog available. But there are tons of them, probably diminishing the sales of the Moog app by far more than the Boog diminished sales of the $5000 Minimoog.

 

Some other things I noticed about that video... he doesn't seem to be very good at percents. At 12:20 he talks about dealer markups "as high as 40%", but then at 13:08, he says they are getting 35-40% of what the customer pays. No, a markup of "as high as" 40% means that they would get "as high as" about 28% of what the customer pays (not 35-40), aka the profit margin. (He seems to be among the many people who don't understand that percentages don't work the same going up as they do going down.) Also, I don't know where his Amazon 15% figure came from, but that's not typically what they make on MI gear. They honor MAP, and they charge the same as Sweetwater and everyone else on brands like Yamaha, which they are also a dealer for, and would be making that same 28% or whatever that they do.