Behringer 12 voice synth


#81

Given that the LFOs, envelopes, other mod sources and the mod matrix are presumably all digital, that seems like a curious limitation. Or, put another way, they will need the same number of DAC channels to interface between the digital and analogue sections of the synth, regardless of whether it is monotimbral or polytimbral.

Maybe they plan to release a firmware upgrade that enables multi-timbrality, although I bet they have written the firmware with that in mind from the outset - but perhaps holding that feature back is a marketing ploy to create the perception of a bonus extras and getting something else for nothing? Given all the teasers etc, the marketing department isn’t taking a back seat on this one, despite its “skunkworks” or personal-project-of-Herr-Dr.-Ing.Behringer status (or maybe the personal project angle/boyhood dream angle is a marketing construct as well…or maybe I’m just too cynical but I like Behringer gear, BTW, especially my FCA1616, despite it’s lack of HF filtering in front of the ADC).


#82

BennelongBicyclist> Now, if they’d just make a version without a keyboard and with 12 rows of patch-point jacks (mainly outputs with a few general-purpose CV and gate inputs added to the matrix)…

Oh, they are planning that, sort of…


#83

Uli Behringer sure is a clever marketing guy.


#84

@TheSlowGrowth not sure about that… it’s a terrible name…

a|x


#85

The name is horrible. The CamelCaseBrandName is vastly outdated and the typography is pretty bad, even for synth standards. Uli might be a tiny bit too involved with this one… :wink:

80’s Roland is still the gold standard for nice visual synth and drum machine design imho.


#86

I had a JD-800 for a short time. That was really nicely designed, I think. Shame they weren’t very robustly-built (the reason I didn’t have mine for long-it was broken when I bought it, it turned out).

a|x


#87

The name puts me in mind of a dozen Tolkien dwarves: DeepMin’d 12. Or of a Welsh person issuing a warning: “It’s deep, mind.”


#88

Yea, the name is crap.

I think he is a clever marketing guy because of how he/they feed/s the buzz. For a company like Behringer, who desperately try to get rid of their bad rep, it’s a very clever thing to show up on gearslutz and chat with the synth freaks. “Hey, I’m a synth freak just like you”. There might be some truth in this, but of course they know that this is going to have a positive effect on the sales and reputation. The same goes for the statement that building synths is Uli’s youth dream. Sure it is, but they say it so often and so prominently, I just can’t help but think that this is a planned marketing strategy.


#89

Anyway if this baby is rackable, i will definitely be in !
Afaik this baby was a plan of Mr. Behringer for a very long time, and about some years ago (far before Music Group) he said in a conversation he did not know how to get enough resources for this, without making it a financial disaster like other companies had before. We all have plans which are more or less out of our reach.


#90

Who cares what it looks like so long as it functions well. A CS80 looks ugly like some sort of home organ and the PPG wave looks like some lab equipment.

If being a bit tacky looking keeps the price down then I’m all for it :slight_smile:


#91

I do care. I really don’t like playing with ugly instruments. :slight_smile:


#92

The design of this thing looks really dusty and uninspired I must say (totally agree with t2k on this one!). They certainly did try to appeal to vintage synth lovers here, but they didn’t take any risk in going a little bit further. I mean, apart from the synth logo (which is really a bit hard on the eyes) the rest is kind of ok, but I would expect something more from a synth made in 2016.
I can understand some synth from the 80s looking like they do. That’s ok… but we’re not in the 80s anymore. This said, I totally agree that in the end, what counts is how it sounds and “performs”, but I can’t help but feeling that there is a bit of a missed opportunity here, design-wise.


#93

It’s stating the obvious that they have styled it to look like a Juno-6/60/106, right down to the panel layout and labelling, and the fonts - even the “DeepMind 12” (or earlier “PHAT12”) monikers use the same (NASA-inspired?) rounded-square fonts as the “JUNO-106” logo did on the Roland:


#94

It’s the same kind of typeface, but on the Juno it works well because of the shape of the letters in its name.


#95

“…but we’re not in the 80s anymore”

We are in 70s again: Oddysey, Minimoog, P6, OB6 :slight_smile:


#96

… MS-20…

a|x


#97

It’s totally obvious that it’s inspired by the Junos and the Rolands in general. But it’s still nice to see them side-by-side! Still Roland used colour on the Junos, which made it look cool (and still looks cool). Making the DM 12 more monochrome was a good choice (and makes it look more Moog-ish somehow), but then they would have had to work a bit more on the graphics to not make it look too dull. I think changing the name and the horrendous type they used, it would have been totally ok looking though.


#98

I actually prefer the simple monochrome in this case. The Juno is just too randomly colorful for my liking. Then again, I didn’t grow up seeing them everywhere…

I love the ice-blue buttons as well, as a sort of nice little highlight, instead of just a random black or grey button.


#99

IMHO the early-to-mid Roland design (TR/TB/Juno/Jupiter/JX-3P) is absolutely brilliant and gives each of the various machines its own distinct personality. I will admit that I like the use of color more than the average synth nerd. :slight_smile:

I agree with @rumpelfilter that the DM12 looks fine, except from the horrible wordmark. Also, why on earth did they center it?


#100

Well we can only hope they money they saved on graphic design was used for hardware engineering :slight_smile: