> They brought products that, while not top quality, had decent quality for an unbeatable price

In my mind, Behringer didn't revolutionized anything, but rather iterated their way to fame. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price, as your comment allude to.

Not to say that isn't an achievement in itself, to build same quality gear for cheap, but I'm not sure "revolutionized" is a word I'd use to describe them.

▲

glimshe a day ago | parent | next [-]

The word has been historically used to represent a new group of people being empowered. And Behringer has empowered poor and hobbyst musicians like no one else in recent memory. That's a revolution in my book.

▲

CaptainOfCoit a day ago | parent | next [-]

Huh, I guess my history been different, I always understood "innovative" as something like "new and different".

Making something cheaper can be innovative, depending on how you achieved that. But if you launched a product that is the same as a competitor only because it's cheaper, because your company is funded by VCs who can continuously inject cash to bleed your competitor, I wouldn't call that "innovative" at all.

But if you instead had figured out a way to actually create the same hardware but in a cheaper way, so that's why the price is cheaper, then you did innovative in the creation process, but I still wouldn't call the finished product innovative, I'd be more focused on the process itself.

▲

friendzis 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One of you is talking about a technical revolution, that changes what things are or how things are made.

The other is talking about market revolution, where market dynamics change, typically by lowering the price.

	▲	CaptainOfCoit 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I think that's a fair characterization.

▲

benediktwerner a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The word used in the original comment was "revolutionized" and in reference to "the market", not "innovative" and not in reference to product functionality.

▲

steve1977 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

One could make an argument that companies like Behringer, by „selling the dream“ - even if they sell it cheaper than others - are part of what makes musicians poor ;)

Cannot afford a real Jupiter-8? Now you can! And finally you will have success!

(Narrator: They did not succeed)

▲

abuani 20 hours ago | parent [-]

... That makes no sense. The value of an instrument isn't what makes a successful musician successful. The best musicians can make the cheapest sounding instrument sound amazing. What cheaper instruments offers is the opportunity for someone to even have a chance.

▲

bluGill 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

that is the point. It is easy to buy another 'toy'. It is tedious to practice using what you have. Thus many buy instrunents persuing sucess.

you need something to work with and despite great musicians sounding good on junk quality does sometimes sound better in ways you cannot compensate for. Also even if you can make cheap sound good it may be ergonomically harmful, or otherwise be a struggle. Thus it is sometimes justified to spend money on better.

▲

steve1977 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But Behringer is mostly selling clones of famous (and expensive) synths.

You don’t need these expensive synths.

But md point is that you wouldn’t even need the clones of Behringer.

▲

mrob 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture. E.g. if you want to make dance music it's likely you want 808- or 909-style drums. You could use samples or software simulations, but I think the hardware UI makes a difference. It's easier to follow the idioms of a genre when you're working in a similar way to the originators of the genre.

▲

steve1977 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's easier to follow the idioms of a genre when you're working in a similar way to the originators of the genre.

This is essentially what I was after. Behringer (and others) are selling you the dream of reaching the echelons of those genre-defining originators.

But you won't. Having a Jupiter-8 clone or even an original will not make you another Giorgio Moroder or Nick Rhodes and having a Linn clone won't make you another Prince. Those synths and drum machines became famous because they existed at the right time in the right place (and under the fingers of the right people).

Behringer is selling nostalgia. Sure, you don't have to shell out the equivalent of a small car, but looking at what people are producing with these devices, for 99% of the customers, it will not bring them any nearer to their dreams.

▲

CaptainOfCoit 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Those synths are famous and expensive because they're an important part of musical culture

Not only that, many synths are expensive at launch because of R&D and production costs (considering the small amount they produce), and impossible they're already part of "musical culture" as they just launched. TE and Elektron stuff is expensive at launch as just one counter-example.

	▲	steve1977 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But Teenage Engineering or Elektron are putting out original creative stuff. Even if it is built around vintage components like the SidStation (which is still one of the devices I really regret having sold)

▲

motorest a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> In my mind, Behringer didn't revolutionized anything, but rather iterated their way to fame. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price, as your comment allude to.

Your comment reads like "IBM didn't revolutionize anything. None of the stuff they release is really "innovative" except when you consider the price (...)"

	▲	CaptainOfCoit a day ago \| parent [-]
		Well, did IBM actually bring something new to the market? As far as I know, IBM did have impressive technical innovations at first, like the Vacuum Tube Multiplier, but then at one point they stopped innovating and instead focused on basically business optimizations. So yeah, I guess a bit similar to IBM, but that isn't the full story.