Uli Behringer Teases $400 ‘Behringer D’ Eurorack Minimoog Clone

Behringer today followed up their announcement last week that they are building a Minimoog clone with a preview of their planned Behringer D Eurorack synth module.

The module would be a Minimoog-inspired analog synthesizer in Eurorck format, featuring 3 VCOs, a 24 dB Ladder Filter and LFO, plus some updates, like USB and MIDI connectivity. Also planned as part of the Euro Minimoog Model D clone is a Poly Chain feature that allows combining up to 16 synths through MIDI.

The renderings of the proposed Behringer D show very limited CV support, primarily offering CV/Gate control and audio input.

Behringer’s target price for the Minimoog Eurorack clone is $400. The company is testing the waters with mockups at this point, to “decide if we move further and build a first prototype.”

The design concept looks interest, but also raises a lot of questions. Does MIDI Polychain make sense on a synth with no patch memory? Does this mean that the controls are all digital encoders or will users be expected to configure the same patch on each synth in the chain? And, even at $400/voice, how many people will want to build an expensive polyphonic synth when cheaper polyphonic analogs are already available?

Check out the renderings and the specs below – and let us know what you think in the comments!

Behringer D Minimoog Clone Features (Preliminary):

  • Analog synthesizer with triple VCO design
  • Reproduction of original “D Type” with matched transistors and JFET
  • 0.1% Thin Film resistors and Polyphenyline Sulphide capacitors for frequency stability
  • Analog signal path based on authentic VCO, VCF and VCA designs
  • 5 variable oscillator shapes with pulse width variation
  • Classic 24 dB ladder filter with resonance
  • Fully analog triangle/square wave LFO
  • Switchable low/high pass filter mode
  • 16-voice Midi Poly Chain allows combining multiple synthesizers for up to 16-voice polyphony
  • Overdrive circuit
  • Noise generator
  • Complete Eurorack solution – main module can be transferred to a standard Eurorack case
  • 46 controls for real-time access of all important parameters
  • External audio input for processing external sound sources
  • Low and high level outputs
  • Comprehensive MIDI implementation with MIDI channel and Voice Priority selection
  • 3-Year Warranty Program

Pricing and Availability

The Behringer D is just a design concept at this stage, so availability details are to come. Behringer is targeting US $400 for the price.

via Uli Behringer

137 thoughts on “Uli Behringer Teases $400 ‘Behringer D’ Eurorack Minimoog Clone”

    1. Uhh. It’s an almost exact copy of the *new* Moog Model D reissue, right down to the couple of tweaks Moog made.

      So, yes, it’s beautiful. But that’s because it’s a Moog design from the employee-owned company Bob Moog started.

      1. Maybe I’m late to the party here–Bob Moog started Behringer?? That is glaringly missing from his Wikipedia page. I thought Uli Behringer started Behringer.

  4. Uli’s questionable business practices aside, a man and company that stood on the shoulder of giants by fleecing their designs until he built an empire capable or buying the companies he competed against outright, is this development any surprise?

    And how is this a tease? The man’s marketing acumen is actually transparent and laughable. He basically telegraphs everything is intends to do with these “teasers”. Just days ago he argued the legal precedence that he believed allows him to create this synth and now this.

    I for one am not interested in this. Not out of some purist notion or any loyalty for Moog (I do not own any Moog synths) yet this regurgitative period in the industry is not helpful in my opinion.

        1. Why do you expect synths to be doing brand new things every time? Guitars dont. Drums dont. Classical instruments dont. Why is a synth bad if its based on existing technology? That makes no sense. Synths are relatively new, and for a while there were new things being discovered, which put an expectation on them that they would always do that. Yes, there are still new things you can do with synths, and there will be companies that explore them in that way. But just like any other instrument there are things that just work and continuing to build synths in this manner is no more regressive than continuing to build guitars out of wood and strings. Maybe you’re confusing synthesisers with space travel? Theyre just instruments dude.

          1. First of all, I am not your ‘dude’. Secondly, to me synths and other instruments are classified differently. That is my own sense. And if you collect synths as basis of investment rather than a tool to create music, then we differ greatly. These are just tools. I wouldn’t purchase two violins that were similar in tonality any more than I would want a synth maker to regurgitate the same design theme over and over again.

            2. You’re not my ‘dude’, but Bob is an “insecure little man”? I’m surprised the moderators didnt delete that comment, its quite nasty. Its also quite ironic, considering you’ve taken such offence at ‘dude’. Superiority complex maybe? Sounds like you don’t like to be argued with, because, I assume, you’re always right? Who said I collect synths as a basis of investment? What made you say that? Are you creating an argument so you can win? And I do have quite an impressive collection that could be considered an investment, though I bought them out of love, which is always the best reason. I happen to agree about not purchasing two instruments that are similar in tonality, and I’ve avoided that in my collection, which consists of a Jupiter 8, Jupiter 4, System 100, Sequential Pro One, Moog Multimoog, Model D reissue, Korg Monopoly, Apr Odyssey reissue and Oberheim OBX. Theres a good mix in there, and even the 3 Roland have their own distinct tones, so no crossover. Do they use the same design concept? Well, yes, they have oscillators and filters and modulation. But my car has four wheels, a steering wheel, an engine and a bunch of seats, just like the Model T from 1908. But thats ok, I dont get annoyed about this design concept being used for over 100 years, or accuse car designers of regurgitation. Weren’t cars new technology at one point, with a form factor and basic design principle that became standard because, it was the best one? Why are synths any different? Its the music you make that matters, surely?

              Peace out, dude.

              1. Well Brian,

                Since you were so bloody polite, I shall reply to you. No, I have no superiority complex, I certainly hope not. And I have always had an aversion to the American colloquialism of ‘dude’ yet I said that more in gist than the tone it was taken by some. “Bob” made the assertion that I was some Moog aficionado protecting my investment, hence he was incorrect, and I simply did not appreciate the suggestion. To date, I only possess two analogue synths in my humble arsenal, the Modal 001 and the 002R. Everything else in my possession is actually digital.

                That said, there are parts of your argument with which I agree with and other parts with which we differ. I was merely stating my opinion and more critically objecting to Uli’s odd marketing scheme and equivocation.

                Yes, indeed we all “borrow” design concepts as the foundations are rather similar. To that end, enjoy your evening “dude”.

                Cheers

                1. I use the terms dude, probably on an hourly basis. Its both a term of endearment, and a way to suggest people calm down, or don’t take themselves so seriously. I’m surprised, given your argument that you would never buy two instruments with the same tonality, that you own two of the new Modal synths. I never paid much attention to them as I didnt find them particularly interesting, so I’m not sure what the difference is. I’m sure they’re very good, but aren’t they different versions of the same thing? That is a little confusing and weakens your unnecessary argument.

                  1. I simply desired more polyphony, therefore the 002R which is the rack version basically provides the additional polyphony.

                2. And Brian….one last point and then I am done with this particular thread, there is a very deep flaw within your argument. Yes, the principles of automobiles may remain the same, propulsion + cabin…..yet what is happening now in the synth industry is akin to building the Model T all over again. Whilst most have taken the principles to built and refined it, I would rather not revisit the Model T.

                  1. And your argument that you would never buy two instruments with the same tonality is not only flawed, but factually completely untrue. You DO own two instruments with exactly the same tonality. Very strange, considering it was you who brought this up as an argument in the first place.

                    And by the way, if it wasn’t for safety restrictions, someone would build the Model T again. Its not for everyone, but there are people who would like that experience. And there are people who really want a Minimoog, and you should respect that. Others want the latest Korg Kronos because its more modern, I suppose. Same difference. They can co-exist you know?

                    1. Again, you misunderstood what I meant by that and this is becoming fatiguing. I would never purchase two instruments that were virtually the same in tonality. I would however purchase the same instrument if it was a question of greater polyphony that I desired. Hence the 001 and 002R. I also own 3 Virus synths, again for polyphony.

                      And if you believe that that the Model T would have an audience in this day and age and that the only reasons it is not made are simply regulatory restrictions, we have no argument at all.

                    3. Modern3: “I would never purchase two instruments that were virtually the same in tonality.” “(I own a Modal) 01 and 002R. I also own 3 Virus synths”

                      I rest my case.

                      And by the way, heres a link to buy everything you need to build a brand new Model T. You better contact the company and tell them no one is going to buy their kits:

                      https://shop.spiritcars.com/model-t-kits.html

              2. Brian – we have deleted the offensive comment, but understand that we do not screen every comment prior to it being posted..

                When we do see personal attacks, we delete them. We provide a Feedback link at the top of every page of the site to make it easy to contact us.

          3. Spot on! Theres a ton of young kids that cant afford a moog but are enjoying this time of hardware resurgence. Theres a lot of people that dont have the $ for vintage gear but have a desire to make music with actual instruments. Bring it on! ????

    2. You do know that everyone uses the moog filter right? Every time you see transistor ladder, that means moog. The design patent has expired and everyone uses it. The Oscillators are quite standard oscillators. Sounds like you don’t know much about the history and use of certain designs.

      1. Utilising a design concept, rather than using the actual design differs greatly. Everyone uses mathematics and physics when designing a synth, those are the tools we use to design synths. And whilst Moog’s filter designs are revered, they are NOT ubiquitously used in every synth. I would argue that you have some vague understanding of synths design, technology and usage.

        1. All you people are just ripping off Ernest Hemingway. Why don’t you come up with your OWN design for the word “dude?”

          I, for one, have always been original and trail-blazing, offering new technologies and features in the realm of deuding. I can build a functioning dood about 40 different ways, each of them only remotely resembling past designs of dewd while adding exciting new capabilities that I believe will soon be a part of even the most discerning doooder’s repetoire.

          You’re all just derivative drones, mindlessly copying the words you’ve seen before without asking yourself, “How can I make dewed better and more practical?”

          Charlatans. All of you. For shame.

    4. Yeah Behringer is allowed to sell this, everyone and their gran has always cloned the Minimoog, there’s even already a eurorack mini out there by macbeth, plus a million and one modules based around it’s sub circuits.

      No one owns the design and saying no one can’t recreate it is just simply not based on any consideration of the market. Bob wanted electronic instruments to be available for all musicians. They arn’t competing with Moog it’s fine.

      I think we’ll see Behringer start to really innovate with in the next few years they are just getting their feet wet.

      Hopefully they’ll help stir up the market for the best.

    1. I think that’s audio mute rather than power, but good point. Also, is there any purpose in keeping the A440 tuning tone in these days of better pitch stability and ubiquitous tuners?

    2. +1k Please give us more CV control! If you could control the separate osc volumes, cutoff, resonance, filter mode, envelope sections, etc. this would be great in Euro! Perhaps they can make a low hp expander module to control those parameters? The price is nice already, so I wouldn’t mind dropping another $200 for an expander. Would still be less $$ than an Atlantis.

  7. Good eye. Thats like having a important button only work if you press shift and power button. That has to be a first pass design. Power buttons are on the back of things for a reason, dont reinvent the wheel.
    And Behringer are hardcore. They are like those Chinese shops that sell exact replicas of popular products, down to the branded logo on the instruction manual inside the box.

  8. As I throw money as the screen I wonder what’s taking so freakin’ long. Release it already!!! Don’t know that I’d chain it, but I’d probably buy more than one.

  9. GJ Uli, but you forgot to implement patch memory, so it won’t be a buy from me… sorry.. I look forward for the version 2 with patch memory…

    1. Yeah memory slots and 1/4″ inputs would be GREAT..
      If we are going for Volca specs let’s leave it at Volca prices I’d say.

      1. No seriously. This isn’t even v1. It’s a mock-up with preliminary features. The whole point of this thread is to make suggestions like yours… which is great. But to say “I’ll wait for v2” when they clearly haven’t even built v0.1 yet is kinda a head-scratcher

  10. Looking at the price and the tech specs, this thing is going to sound boring and thin. Maybe they should add a DSP engine to mask that, like with the Deepmind.

    1. One man’s “boring and thin” is another man’s distinctive and characterful. I still use my old EDP Wasp more than any other monosynth, and that only cost £175 when I bought it new in 1979. I sold my Minimoog about ten years ago – I was bored with the sound. This might persuade me that there’s a place for a Minimoog-style synth in my studio again for the odd occasions when I really need that particular flavour.

    2. 3 oscillators, pwm, noise, filter overdrive… sure… “thin”.

      If you think the dsp engine on the deepmind is there to mask the sound, then I don’t think you’ve really sat down and listened to presets on other synths. They’re ALL fx wankery, the deepmind12 too. It’s a matter of rushed, lazy, or sloppy preset building, not of a weak sounding synth.

      The specs make the sound. Not some manufacturer pixie-dust, pulled up from the cottage industry shop floors. Features == sound, to an extremely high degree.

      One exception is “that moog filter”. Guess what? Everyone and their mother has already copied this design. There’s probably 50 or more clones available in eurorack alone. 100 perhaps?

      1. What?
        Presets are rushed,lazy, or sloppy done because they use fx?
        Fx are part of the sound. It’s not the 60s anymore.
        There is nothing more unnatural than a dry sound. 😉
        Smell the coffee.

  11. P.S. I love Moog and would happily buy the “real” thing if I could afford it. That said, the intellectual property part of Moog’s design which would make designing/owning/buying this thing illegal or unethical expired ages ago. Moog has a genuine place in the market for handmade gear of high quality just as Behringer has a place in the market for entry level musicians who want to get their feet wet. I’m happy both exist.

  12. it’s Not Eurorack if it not CV controlled, its just a desktop synth (all be it a sexy good vale analogue moog clone!) It looks like there may be 4-5 CV points, but the Moog Mother 32 has 32 (Doh!) and that what makes it a realy flexible reconfigurable eurorack module, rather than just a synth with a few CV points.

      1. Other companies put themselves out of business by not acknowledging what the success of a cheaply-built (read easily replaced when damaged/broken), standard-quality FOH mixer meant to their industry. Much like the music industry itself not recognizing that people didn’t value physical mediums like they did when it WAS THEIR ONLY OPTION.

        I blame Behringer for nothing. The market did this. And the market is you and me.

  15. I would consider this if it hits the 95% mark sonically although DeepMind is still on my radar. I guess it’s just the long wait until we get Nick’s review, lol.

  18. I’ve been lucky enough to have owned a vast array of analogue vintage monos (and unfortunate enough to having to sell them too). This said, there’s only one synth I miss and it’s the Mini. If this sounds like a proper Mini I’m having one for sure! Go Uli, go! 🙂

  20. It has good looks and pretty low target price, but I think it should have either preset memory to compete on beginners’ (or busy musicians’) market or more cv ports to compete on pro market. For me the only synths with excuse to not have memories are either very simple monosynths or modulars – this one is neither. If it had both it could be a winner even if it would cost more. I wish also they would make sure that overdrive would sound very good. For my taste for example Little Phatty has pretty unusable distortion. Good distortion? That would be alike MXR distortion+.

  23. Just a basic (great) mono 3x osc synth design which had it’s patent expired decades ago. It is at the heart of our free market system to emulate and commoditize. People will make their own decision on whether they want to pay a premium should there be differences in build quality between both. I know Moog is through hole not sure if the other will be. This will also put pressure on Moog to start innovating and going beyond rehashing their formula perhaps into poly synths..why not?

  24. 1) For the people crying about patch memory, Mini isn’t for you. Part of the appeal of a Mini is that the pots are directly linked to the analog parameters they control. In any synth with patch memory, the pots are essentially glorified digital encoder up/down buttons that go to a computer which then converts digital control signals to analog voltages to control parameters. There’s a difference in feel.

    Besides, if you know what you’re doing, creating/changing sounds on something as simple as a Mini is a pretty rapid affair (granted that may not apply for live gig circumstances where you have 1/2 second to change sounds, but there are a gazillion other solutions).

    2) I’m the first to admit that Behringer’s made some ethically questionable moves in the past, but I don’t think this is one of them. You know what’s ethically questionable? Selling an instrument that, by today’s standards, is ridiculously simple and cheap to build for $3500. Of course Moog doesn’t have the manufacturing might or cheap labor to crank out $400 Minimoogs, but $3500 is a cash grab (as were the ridiculous $35k modular reissues – I’ll stick with my $2K dot com, thanks).

    Besides, the only thing modern-day Moog has to do with the original company is a name and a logo. Not that their products are necessarily “bad” per se, but It’s not as if there’s any remaining family lineage or unique IP there.

    BTW, I love the guy who bafflingly concluded that this would sound “boring and thin” from looking at “tech specs” and a computer rendering. Time will tell, but the specs read pretty much the same as the ’74 Minimoog I have in my studio and it ain’t “boring and thin.”

    1. If what you say is correct then anyone that needs to play live and instantly change sounds (lets say different sounds in the same song or really fast changes between songs) cannot use a minimoog.

      The Minimoog, then, is for recording studios and for playing live in relatively slowly changing music, or for playing just some sounds here and there…

      Am I right? I want to know because I like the sound of a Minimoog but I need a synth for the first situation, not the second.

    2. Bull s***, I use my instrumets for live and dont have time to stand with a patch sheet for every set when playing live and have to change patch

      1. Use your Macbook on stage with a controller keyboard and VSTs. There’s no need to have a massive stack of keyboards for performance. Keep them in your studio as unique creative tools to spark new musical directions.

  26. I think this is boring. If i want a Moog, i get a Moog. If a get a copy, it’s because I dont really want a Moog. Otherwise I’d save for it. Copies are lame. Where are the synths with real sound innovation ? On hardware : zilch. Actually most of innovative synthesis techniques are coming from…. iPad apps and VST’s. This is a crazy market which feeds itself on the reputation of yesteryear techniques, and commands huge prices (or copies), and the real innovation comes at a fraction of the cost, with new distribution models.

  27. if everyone is doing it meant its okay the world would be a better place. that being said when building modules: osc, env, and so on they choose to only copyright the filter so i don’t think moog cairs or well bob anyways. he did get his start with the cloning business.

  29. I wonder if they make a computer based or app based control program for it.
    They have for other gear they made though the years

  31. its a shame Moog can’t protect the design of a classic synth. I don’t know maybe its cool and will make Moogs even more desirable and authentic… still though its so close to the original design it grates somewhat. cool for kids though, affordable synths, and i like the CV input.

  32. There seems to be a lot of comments that clearly doesn’t know the whole history of the moog brand. For instance – did you know that a european company once owned the name and made minimoogs? Do you know about the US-Norlin era? I am glad Robert A. Moog managed to aquire the rights to his old brand name before he passed. He ensured that Moog and the quality philosophy was secured also for the future. But – the old patents, the designs and so on expired decades ago. Look at other instrument designs. A Fender Stratocaster for instance, or a Les Paul for that matter. The minomoog layout is good. And it has been copied a lot over the years. Some more obvious than others.

    Now get on with it. As an ex-owner of an early 70’s Model D I want it back. The new line of model-d’s are a tad over what I want to spend on a simple monophonic synth – although I’m still considering it. I have also though about the line of modules made by AJH synth (minimod). I’m not a big fan of additional so called improvements on new clones – I want the functionality and limitations of the real thing at hand. Limitations can be a tool for musical creativity. I think that applies to synthesizers as much as it applies to any other kind of instrument.

    The sound and simplicity of a minimoog should be a part of any synthesist arsenal. I applaude both Moog reissueing the model-d and every other small or big company that honours the old design and sound philosophy. It’s that grand total of dedication that is Bob Moogs most important legacy.

  37. given how divided the reactions are in many forums, a lot of the arguments read like an online political debate. Further, some of Uli’s media manipulation tactics and goods of questionable quality that he offers remind me of the orange 45. Ultimately, I think that releasing this design was short sighted. It will no doubt make money, but it is also going to turn some customers away. There was a lot of excitement and hopefulness surrounding the DM12 announcement. Sure, there were some dessenters, but the reaction was largely uniform. I own a DM12. Personally speaking, this announcement has unfortunately tainted my view of it, and I would venture for some others as well. I jokingly alluded to 45, but a lot of the same mechanics are present. Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it. I don’t think flooding the market with cheap and uninspired clones will be good in the long run for any of us. Fortunately, the DM12 was more than that. It’s deeply disappointing that Behringer isn’t choosing to continue along that path, but instead is making the easy choice and manipulating us along the way.

    1. This is one of the better observations on here. I love how Uli wishes to be ‘generous’ with another creators design by making it available to the masses. Granted neither the Model D nor this interest me.

  39. So again we are discussing a Behringer synth at least two years before it’s actually being built? Why? As with the DM12, they will eventually end up producing something very different from the Minimoog simply to avoid being sued to pieces by Moog.

    1. they didn’t release mock ups that far in advance, though, did they? Honest question. I do not remember seeing them until a year from production. I think the difference is that one can buy a model d at the moment. If they announced an xpander clone, given that they are trying to acquire the rights to Oberheim, I think the reaction would be quite different and largely positive.

      1. Super-dumb question:

        How will Moog sue Behringer with patents expired 20 years ago, with utility models expired 20 years ago, and with a front panel that mimics all the controls, but doesn’t mimic a) Moog’s typographies, and b) Moog’s trademarks?

        1. There is a trademark concept known as trade dress. Infringing on the look and style of an iconic design *is* grounds for legal action (you can’t copy the grill of a Jeep or the curves of a Coca-Cola bottle). Roland sued them a decade ago for copying Boss guitar pedals, and more recently Peavey and Mackie have challenged them in court.

  40. Never a fan of the USB/MIDI on the front. But I’m one of those guys that likes his desk looking nice, because I’m rarely doing the work on it.

  43. I love my Model D reissue and I love my Deepmind 12. Why would I even start to compare them? There’s a place for both! A Model D for $400? No problem… thank you very much, I’ll take 3… really! Next, a Prophet 5, CS80, OB-Xa, JD 800, PPG Wave, EMS VCS3…in any order….surprise me. But seriously, most people pay more than $400 each and every month for years on a new car. Me, I’ll drive a slightly older car and fill my studio. The way synth prices are dropping (compared to the ’70s), you can get tons of fantastic gear for what I paid for one synth back then. I love the ever increasing variety. Someone is making a new synth with new capabilities unheard of before? Fantastic! Someone is making a reissue or clone of a legendary synth? Wonderful! Save up and buy the one you want. At today’s prices, you don’t have to save for years for one mono synth! There’s a synth at a good price point out there. Or, if you want, save longer and get a Modal 008, or a Voyager XL, or a Buchla….the Macbeth Elements synth is amazing (expensive but amazing). And Uli, thank you for my Deepmind 12….and thanks in advance for the Model D clone! Please make many, many, more synths – clones and originals!

  45. Why would I want a euro format Minimoog with hardly any patchability? Why would I want a Minimoog that’s euro-sized to begin with? Keep the useful inputs, move them to the back, and increase the size for a healthy amount of playing space! I was alright with the Deepmind 12 but this is dumb. Making it euro format is doing nothing but hurting it.

  53. Looks perfect and really nicely put together, the price is low (even for the UK), and I bet it sounds good too – they do make nice gear for a nice price. MIDI channel DIP switch! – Great! – Just how it used to be.

  56. Nice thing Behringer! Big steps and i´m slowly getting interested in your stuff.
    I think i´ll be in and i´m heading for a nice prizing model, without wooden side panels or as kit for some additional DIY stuff.
    Hope we will see some more eurorack stuff!

  59. DamnUvi, how dare he come up with a cheap synth that everyone can afford. Ehhh… remember those times, when a synth cost 40.000$ and 8 people owned one? They will never come back… :(((((((((

  60. I am a big fan of Uli and all things he does but I have to say that it would be better to add to and improve upon the original making this mini moog “his interpretation”. Making a dressed copy is not what I expect from him. Come on Uli give us your charm, CV linking in and out, and a twist to make us go wooo ye.

  61. we need a multi layered multi timbe polophonic DAW controlled version with after touch, tension velocity, patch morph and granular FX with neuro mapping and and and because “we” can never be happy 🙂

  62. actually is it copying when everyone since EMS have been copying each other but only with cosmetic changes. after all there is only so many ways you can manipulate and a voltage. think about it.

  63. These pics look pretty real.
    I’d like to know which 3D modelling program can deliver renderings as good as these?
    The MIDI channels are selected by dip-switches, that’s not something you would include on a 3D model.
    Could it be that production is already in full swing?

    1. Renders are exceptionally good these days. If you can render knobs and a pretty faux wood case, you can model a simple DIP switch. It’s definitely a fair bit of work, but remember that Behringer has a large engineering team in China – it doesn’t cost a lot to get design work done when you’re not paying western wages.

      A case in point – Uli claimed that it cost around $2 million in R&D to develop the DeepMind 12 over 2 years. In North America or Europe, that would only pay for a handful of engineers.

  64. > The renderings of the proposed Behringer D show very limited CV support, primarily offering CV/Gate control and audio input.

    It’s super cool that the original Moog had audio input. Can Synthtopia show more documentation about this feature and the current cost of it on a Minimoog, assuming this feature exists as they are claiming in their article?

  66. I just found out about this ….. cool! Dear Behringer, can you also make a Kieth Emerson edition modular clone, ohh and a Hammond C3 clone and Steinway Model D clone ….. then I can start the ELP clone band I always wanted to do ….. woohoo!!!!!!

  67. Ok seriously, I know Behringer wants some serious feedback here. In the past 40 years I’ve owned 2 original Minimoog D’s (which I sold in 1988 for $150.00 each lol), and last year I bought one of those limited edition tiger oak Moog Voyagers from Reverb. So I’m not really jonesing for another Minimoog, but if you guys actually make these I will for sure buy at least one just for the novelty at that price. Ohh and I hope those DM12 desktops will ship soon. Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *