Behringer Announces JT-16 Polysynth, Their Take On The Classic Roland Jupiter-8 Synthesizer

Behringer today shared the first official look at their planned JT-16 synthesizer, a polyphonic analog instrument that’s based on the Roland Jupiter-8.

Details are to be announced, but based on what they’ve said, it appears that the Behringer JT-16 is deisgned to copy the look and sound of the original Jupiter-8, but double the polyphony, MIDI and other basic enhancements. The company says that it will have “exact same analog circuitry” as the original.

Pricing and Availability:

The photos are of the company’s first JT-16 prototype. Behringer says that “the synth is in its very early stages, and we are now focusing on debugging and implementing the necessary software.”

The Behringer JT-16 synthesizer is currently in development, so it will probably be a year or two before the instrument is officially released and pricing is announced.

51 thoughts on “Behringer Announces JT-16 Polysynth, Their Take On The Classic Roland Jupiter-8 Synthesizer”

    2. I’m gonna be that knob 🙂 … it’s not an arpeggio, it’s a sequencer – the first four notes ascend and the last four notes alternate. There’s an old Keyboard mag interview where Nick specifically says it’s a Roland CSQ-100 sequencer, and my brain can’t remember right now, but I’m almost positive he said the synth was an SH-3 or SH-09 elsewhere. The lead is JP-8.

    1. Behringer tends to stretch the truth about this, but people looking for a knockoff don’t care.

      There are tons of examples.

      They marketed their 808 knockoff as an exact copy, then they said they’d figured out a way to match the original circuits and released the mkII. mk1s instantly lost half their value.

      They marketed the MS-1 as an exact SH-101 copy, and now they’re blowing them out because they’re going to match the original’s chips.

      They market the 2600 as sounding just like the ARP 2600, then a few months later they introduce two new models that are supposed to be way more accurate. But….the spring reverb still sounds completely different.

      I see no problem with Behringer knocking off old vintage gear, and have a few of Behringer’s synths. But it’s kind of crazy how many people drink the Koolaid and take Behringer’s marketing BS as the gospel truth.

      2. I’m on the waiting list for this one and the the UB-Xa… and their CS-80 knock off when that one’s ready… and… hopefully more to come.

  4. Jupiter 8 is one of the greates synths .

    This might sound close enough to make it desireable. Double the voices is nice.

    The look of it is hideous, the proportions of the sections on the panel and the orange prints are grotesque.

    … now for the waiting …

  5. Their OB-Xa remake is apparently very well done so I have high hopes for this sonically and functionally. I do agree with the post above regarding its looks, but if it can really sound like JP-8 – or even CLOSE to it, for a decent price, I wonder how much people will care.

  6. I keep asking this question, yet no one will answer: Why doesn’t Behringer ever clone synths from their own country/region? Where are the dirt cheap Serge, Doepfer, Sherman, PPG, Waldorf, Vermona, Access, MFB, Quasimidi, Nord, or Elektron knock-offs? Plenty of overpriced, hard-to-find, vintage gear from those manufactures. Seems like they only target companies from other parts of the world: Japan, US, UK, etc. I wouldn’t mind a $200 Sherman Filterbank, Sidstation, or PPG Wave.

    1. Behringer is based in the Philippines, so there’s nothing for them to copy there. They make everything in China, and there’s not really a lot of classic synths to copy from there, either.

      What they clone doesn’t have anything to do with where it’s from, though. Behringer mainly copies old analog designs that they can sell in large quantities.

      They can only make these copies cheaply if they don’t have to worry about patents or copyright, and if they can sell the copies in large volume.

      If synths use samples or software, those will be under copyright until 70 years after the creator died. So Behringer can’t accurately or easily clone anything from Nord, Access, Waldorf or Elektron.

      Old vintage gear is the ‘low-hanging fruit’ for knockoff makers. It would be a lot more expensive for Behringer to compete against companies making modern, original gear, so they focus on copying old stuff.

      1. Um no…It says right on their website, “Behringer is our Germany based Value Brand.” Perhaps a distribution hub is in the Philippines, but all the product development, marketing, and major decisions come out of Germany. You should do some more research. They have a long list of newer gear they’ve knocked-off and had numerous lawsuits, but it’s never companies around them. Doepfer, Elektron, Sherman, Vermona, MFB, etc. all make analog hardware that go back decades.

        1. They have offices in Germany. They’re based out of the Philippines to avoid taxes. They claim to be based in Dubai on Facebook:

          https://www.facebook.com/Behringer

          You seem to be intentionally avoiding logic, saying “no one will answer” why they don’t knockoff the gear that you want them to copy, when it’s obvious that half of the gear you listed would be covered by IP, and it’s been pointed out to you.

          Behringer has literally stated that their business model is copy stuff that isn’t going to cause them legal headaches. Most musicians have heard of sampling lawsuits and are smart enough to understand that you can’t copy audio samples without getting sued. So no ‘Bord Stage’. The same thing applies to software. So no ‘Birus’!

          Behringer isn’t going to knockoff the other companies you listed, because their stuff is available fairly cheaply and none it is iconic as anything Behringer has actually copied. (The Filterbank might be close, though!) Think they’re going to knockoff a Doepfer MAQ 3/16? Buyers would be like ‘wtf is that?’

          If you want to pretend it’s a huge mystery or that Behringer doesn’t want to piss of its friends in Europe, then bless your heart, Gary.

      2. Perhaps the “German value Brand” is used as a qualifier. It used to be that German engineering was though of as superior and perhaps they think it is a good advertisment. (Although for German engineering Behringer’s products have probably a discrediting affect.) Or Behringer are really fond of Schoenbergs controversial quotes about music…

    2. Imagine they will steal your ideas and your job until you are poor and have nothing to offer, maybe you already are so you don’t care about the brands you mentioned but some of us do and hope they can continue to innovate instead of having another ugly boring rip off for cheap.

      1. Hey MK2… Go and buy an original JP-8 then and stop your whining… I hope you’ve got a lazy $50K burning a hole in your pocket or don’t mind living in a cardboard box and going hungry for the next several years… I sure don’t have a problem with this version of the JP-8… sure, it’s not as beautiful as the original but I can live with that.

        1. I was referring to the boutique brands with active “overpriced” products “gary” mentioned. I don’t have a problem or interest in this or the original.

          1. @MK2 You’re kinda proving my point. Regardless of how people personally feel about Behringer knock-offs, no one seems to question why there’s a noticeable regional bias in the companies they target. Maybe it’s to skirt trademark law enforcement, maybe import duty/tariffs make some products even more expensive in certain regions, or they just don’t want to piss off their neighbors…but the bias is there. They copy current products from smaller companies all the time, but never from companies around them.

            In my opinion that’s almost as distasteful as the copying and it’s never discussed. If they can make a cheap version of the DFAM, why not do the Analog Rytm or DRM1? If they can take stuff from Make Noise and Mutable, surely they can do a cheap version of a Doepfer system. Vermona’s been making analog synths since the 80’s.

            1. have you tried to think why you are wrong?

              1. like others wrote to you, MusicTribe is based in the Philippines, Behringer is not German any more, so other german brands are not their “neighbors”
              2. Behringer only copied very successful, simple analog products, very simple digital products or open source. None of Doepfer or Vermona products are very successful (DRM1 is not that common as you might think) most of the people don’t even heard of Serge or Sherman, Quasimidi? (really?) I don’t think you know what is a successful/known product is.
              Elektron products are kind of successful but very complex digital/ digital/analog machines, this doesn’t seem like their market. so as Nord, the cost of R&D will be much higher than redesign simple analog circuits (and anyway elektron/nord/Clavia are swedish 🙂 ) They did copy PPG (PPG is german but bankrupt).
              Ask yourself why they never copied the op-1 or MicroKorg, the most selling synthesizers in music history.
              3. They did copy Adam Monitors, A german company, maybe there are more examples, I don’t know, I don’t really follow that closely.

              So it’s not been discussed because there is no logic in what you are suggesting.
              They are not German and they only copy the most successful and simple products. It seems you want your theory to be right, it’s you that doesn’t question yourself.

    3. The companies you listed are from Germany, UK, Sweden and Russia. Behringer is a Philippines-based company founded by a Swiss. I don’t quite understand your thought process there.

  7. Well, it is the right color and it probably won’t run as hot as the original.
    You could cook a hamburger on that thing.

  8. I’m sure it will be priced low enough that I’d be willing to pay double if it were just 16-part multitimbral, with seperate outs.

  9. They probably are using an FPGA to create the circuitry. So yes they can duplicate it, but not using any of the old school discrete logic chips.

    1. Im not sure about that … Id be more inclined to think they were just recreating or reusing the old roland designs in a cheaper way… And a complete FPGA redesign is too expensive for that at the mass scale they are going for… But who knows, id love to hear the details

      1. Read what FPGA is! („Field Programmable Gate Array“)
        It is possible, and common practice, to connect analog components through an FPGA.
        It is way more flexible then a traditonal circuit board.
        (See: UDO Super 6)

        1. FPGA is digital. Some have d/a converters with analog outputs but the process is always digital.
          The super6 uses FPGA to create high speed digital oscillators, The output of the FPGA goes to an d/a and from there to the analog filters/amplifiers, same with novation peak/summit. this is why it’s considered hybrids.
          If an instrument uses an FPGA to create sounds it’s digital or hybrid.

  13. This one makes my blood boil. I don’t care how it sounds (likely bad like most behringer products), if you can’t afford to buy the real thing DON’T USE IT. Between this and overproduced sounding software knockoffs, the music industry is dying. Sickening.

Leave a Reply

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