Behringer Spice, A Moog Subharmonicon Knockoff In Desktop Format, Now Shipping From Factory

Behringer announced today that the Spice synthesizer is now shipping from their factory.

The Behringer Spice is a knockoff of the Moog Subharmonicon in desktop format. Like the Subharmonicon, the Spice is an analog synthesizer with a polyrhythmic sequencer and subharmonic capabilities.

The Spice completes the Behringer Moog knockoff trilogy:

Here’s the official Behringer Spice intro video:

Features:

  • Analog semi-modular polyrhythmic synthesizer with subharmonic capabilities
  • Analog signal path with VCO, VCF, and VCA
  • Dual VCOs offering square and sawtooth waves, plus 4 sub-oscillators
  • Stackable oscillators create 6 sound sources for pseudo-polyphonic capabilities
  • 24 dB resonant ladder filter with adjustable Cutoff, Resonance, and envelope controls
  • Dual 4-step analog sequencer and polyrhythm generator
  • Variable quantizers for tuning intervals
  • VCA with Attack, Decay, and Volume controls
  • VCF envelope generator with Attack, Decay, and Envelope adjustments
  • Clock-syncable tempo controls
  • Semi-modular with default routings, no patching required for immediate use
  • 16 x 16 I/O matrix
  • 57 onboard controls for direct, real-time access to all key parameters
  • MIDI/USB clocking & MIDI support

Behringer Spice Demo Video:

Pricing and Availability:

The Behringer Spice is now shipping from the factory, priced at $249 USD. It typically takes a month or two from when Behringer start shipping for new introductions to be available at retailers.

38 thoughts on “Behringer Spice, A Moog Subharmonicon Knockoff In Desktop Format, Now Shipping From Factory”

  2. not a fan of the ‘jacks on top’ desktop form factor. already bought all five of the Moog Semi’s anyway. only waiting on Wave/Kobol products now…

  5. fwiw, the main page image for this article does not feature the Behringer SPICE. although it is some kinda spice thingy from Plankton. thx UKifi.

    3. Moog had more than a decade to innovate and all they did was move production to Taiwan (aka China, since that’s where they get their parts).

      1. Moog has released a string of synths over the last decade that are unique and successful enough that Behringer has slavishly copied each of them.

        It also seems pretty ignorant to criticize Moog for doing what Behringer has done for 30 years. Between competition and US tariffs, small manufacturers in the US are screwed if they don’t move production overseas, because they’re paying more for labor and more for parts.

        1. Moog is also paying more for manually populating the PCBs. A model D is $5000 exactly because some dude is putting a resister in one by one manually. I’m glad Behringer saw this poor mans plight and took him out of his misery by redesigning the PCB from the ground up so it can be mass produced. We, as customers, get nothing but crazy costs if some dude is manually soldering everything like it’s 1950. Get with the times. Hopefully, inMusic will transform Moog as a company. I am already enjoying their new Mariana bass synth app! 🙂

          1. That’s a false comparison.

            Moog offers the Model D as a hardcore, anal-retentive reissue of the original ’70’s Minimoog. If you want to, you could take a board out of the reissues and pop it into an original Minimoog. It’s for people that want the real thing.

            They also offer the Grandmother, which is essentially a Minimoog style design, but with a sound closer to the the original Moog modular, and the added flexibility of full modular patchability. It’s about $1k, which is more expensive than the Poly D ($600), which is Behringer’s take on a Minimoog-style keyboard. But the Grandmother is also a very cool, original design and, like the Behringer, a relatively affordable one.

    1. Lorenazo – Thanks for your feedback.

      We’ve never had any advertising from Behringer. Coverage of their products, though, is essential for understanding what’s happening in the world of synths. Behringer makes more synths than anybody now, and have quickly disrupted the industry. We can’t pretend that this dramatic change is not happening.

      Behringer is extremely aggressive in terms of copying other company’s products, which makes them controversial. It’s their chosen business model, and it’s proven to be very successful.

      So synth buyers and manufacturers alike need to understand what Behringer is doing, and be able to make up their own minds about the pros and cons of the company’s strategy.

      1. Oh please synthead that is such a load. You can write about / cover what’s happening in synthworld without basically advertising for behringer, what’s the big deal about them? They make shit cheap crap that breaks easily. Nobody takes them seriously that actually knows about synths. You said it yourself they are the aldi of the synth world. Why not just admit that you make more money with looks and clicks by reporting each time they fart or post a photo of a palette of empty boxes in their warehouse? I get that you run a business that is based on traffic so I completely get why you cover them so much but come off it with this nonsense about them disrupting the industry you sound like one of their comment trolls with that. Sorry to be harsh here i must qualify that other than your over reporting of them, this site and your work, and anybody behind the scenes work is absolutely amazing and brings me a ton of joy. I mean that from the bottom of my heart

        1. We’ll have to respectfully disagree on Behringer.

          It’s a statement of fact to say that Behringer has disrupted the synth industry.

          If you look at the top synth modules sold at a major retailer like Thomann, half are now Behringer instruments. Behringer has gone from selling no synths 8 years ago to dominating the market.

          This is making more entry level synth options available to you than ever before, and also putting a huge amount of pressure on other synth manufacturers.

          Behringer’s innovation is not in creating visionary new synths, but in bringing ruthless business strategy and global manufacturing efficiencies to the world of synths, to a greater degree than other companies have done.

      2. @Synthhead: I’d like to respond to your statement above, because I think you’re describing things as it if were a given fact, outside of your influence. Behringer chose a business model based on agressive copying. This is controversial, and not without harm (and yes: with short term benefit too!). It is exactly this controversy that stirrs emotion, and therefor draws attention on media, …. IF you allow it to. As content manager of Synthtopia, you decide what is allowed to draw this attention. Thereby, you decided if you (along with other media) decide if you allow this to be a viable business model for Behringer. So by allowing this kind of content, you’re facilitating the (lack of) moral behind Behringer’s business. In the end making you and active participant in the process towards killing synth innovation. I’m sure it generates advertisement income for Synthtopia, but is your heart no longer with synth technology?

        You mention that you want to allow people to make up their own mind, but it is you who has to make up a mind about this! Don’t delegate your moral responsibility to others.

        1. R – Thanks for your feedback.

          Your comment suggests that you want Synthtopia to play a role as a sort of ‘moral compass’ for the synth community, and even to play a role in deciding which synths or synth companies succeed.

          I’m not sure if either of those things is really possible. But we don’t see those things as the role of news, which is Synthtopia’s primary focus. We don’t try to do a lot of editorializing. Our goal is provide a comprehensive window into news that’s relevant to synthesists.

          While we don’t think it’s our role to judge the morality of product and companies, we do think it’s our responsibility to provide you and other readers with the information you need to make your own judgement. So we have covered actions that companies like Behringer, Roland, Moog and others have taken that are controversial.

          And we do categorize products that clearly copy others, with terms like ‘clone’, ‘reissue’ and ‘knockoff’. This is something that we have not seen other sites doing, because some readers are offended by categorizing instruments in this way, and some publishers may just not want to piss off advertisers. But it is factual information, and information that we think is useful to readers when making purchase decisions.

          When it comes to promoting synth innovation, our approach is to make sure that we cover the news of companies that are creating innovative new instruments, vs hiding the news of companies that may be doing more derivative work.

          We think we do this as well or better as any of the main news sites for electronic musicians. If you know about the Haken Continuum, the Expressive E Osmose, mobile music making applications, or crowd-funded synth projects, it’s likely that you read about them first here.

          While we don’t try to ‘put the finger on the scale’ with our coverage, we always encourage readers to share their perspective and constructive criticism about new products. Moderating comments is hard to get right, because some readers just want to leave comments like “uli sux!!!!’ or making fun of ‘gatekeepers’ and ‘dentists’ that buy high end gear. Our approach of encouraging constructive discussion, but not personal attacks, has proven over the years to be as effective as what any synth news site has done. It’s not uncommon for stories to get dozens of comments here, which is rare elsewhere.

          As ever, we encourage feedback from you and other readers, because this helps inform our coverage decisions, and also gives readers a way to help influence how new products are viewed.

        2. I completely disagree with your statement.
          You came here specifically and commented on this article.
          By doing so you are equally complicit. It is you who therefore has “draw(n) this attention”. It is you by commenting that has “in the end making you and(sic) active participant in the process towards killing synth innovation”.
          You have driven engagement and baited others to respond which will then drive further engagement. All the while racking up the publicity that B wants.
          They played you and you fell for it.

    1. You ROCK!

      I have the Complete Moog Studio, cool stuff – Moog are royalty. I also bought the Crave, Edge and have ordered the Spice and the Grind (unique, though a multi-(rip-off) it is – I love how B is changing it up). The Moog set won’t leave my studio. But the others are great for borrowing out or playing live with less worry.

      Kind of like owning a $2k Trek but letting your visiting brother and his teenage son use your Huffy/Schwin (vintage cheap American bicycles for the youngsters and foreigners) for the trails. Should Huffy have been destroyed for offering the bicycle trail experience for the un-initiated or, let’s face it, less accomplished? Should those who want to explore the unexplored be forced to go without?

      I bought a Kentucky KM150 mandolin a few years back for about $400 for a throw-around – made in China cheaply (???) as one would assume. But that KM150 sounds AMAZING!!! Can’t deny that THAT instrument is a quality piece of craftsmanship and produces a very high quality sound. Should Kentucky be sued out of existence because they reproduced a mandolin for the masses at a price available to many who can’t afford a Gibson $5000-$20000 mando?

      You can argue that it does not have copyright protection.

      BUT, if the actual circuits that Behringer is using are NOT the exact circuits that Moog used, does that really make it a copy? What if they reverse engineered the circuits to produce the ‘non-vintage’ copies to reproduce the output? Should that be disallowed? This happens in every tech industry from medical devices (though they have clinical trial bottlenecks) to automobile innovations. Reverse engineering has been behind major progress in all realms of technology. That cannot be denied.

      So, who’s protecting whom, and what, in this dilemma of Behringer synths? Because, as an actual scientist (though not an electrical engineer or circuit designer who can directly state with authority the compare/contrast features of the two circuits), it strikes me that the reproduction of the legally protected (patented) circuit would be legally challengeable. If the original designer (Moog, in this case) did not have protection against competitors’ reverse engineered reproductions, then there is NO CASE!!!

      Please read those last sentences again, if your still anti-Behringer.

      Every technological scientific achievement has been reverse engineered by others to achieve the same output with alternative designs historically, and will be forever. It’s called PROGRESS. Many of those (copied) reverse engineered designs end up proving to be superior. Sorry that chaps so many rich family heirs’ butts as much as it does, but so be it. The rest of us don’t really care. In fact, we are glad for it.

      Bob Moog wouldn’t care, I’m sorry that his heirs, fanboys and hanger-ons have stuck themselves to this canard.

  16. Imagine how different the music world would be if Behringer had of revolutionised and democratised the synth market 20 years earlier. They have changed the synth market forever, not just a middle-class pursuit now.

    1. How do you think the music world would be any different?

      Serious musicians have always had access to the originals and have been using them for four decades.

      What I see happening with Behringer’s synths is that hobbyists can now afford to build a collection of hardware synths. You see lots of people sharing pictures of their collections on Behringer’s Facebook page, but not a lot of music.

      The biggest impact is probably to Native Instruments and Arturia, because there are probably a lot of people that have stopped buying the plugin versions of these instruments and are getting a hardware knockoff instead.

  17. The symphony of synth-keyboard warriors continues their eternal performance in the comments section – a masterpiece of recycled arguments that’s been playing on repeat longer than a stuck MIDI note. Here we have synth enthusiasts spending their precious time explaining why they don’t want to read about Behringer, by… reading and commenting on articles about Behringer. It’s like going to a restaurant just to announce to every table that you don’t like the menu. Meanwhile, some of us are actually interested in watching how a company managed to democratize the synth market faster than you can say “clone controversy.” If your delicate sensibilities are offended by coverage of affordable synthesizers, might I suggest the revolutionary concept of scrolling past? There are plenty of $10,000 boutique synth reviews out there waiting for your thoughtful “this is what real musicians use” commentary.

    It’s always the same; someone announces their dramatic disapproval, others jump in to debate, and suddenly there are 20 comments on an article they supposedly didn’t want to read. Funniest part is, all this passionate commenting and debating actually helps boost the visibility of the gear you’re protesting. Talk about a self-defeating strategy. Life. You got one? Doesn’t seem so.

  19. ha ha ha ..love the comments.
    Synth-related web site SHOULD inform users on EVERY new product. No room for snobbery, just news, facts etc…
    READERS can then decide wether to read and interact with given post.
    Yes, there are people online posting pics with piles of Behringer gear…but what I noticed is that most of them are older and actually CAN play the instrument.
    What is more worrying is equal amount of people online with piles of cool and expensive modular rack equipment not knowing how to use it and posting absolute crap online…
    Again, one can choose what to listen and watch…
    Bottom line – there is room for everyone out there. EVERYONE is now into collecting music equipment…very few are actually making music.

  20. Maybe one day ….just maybe ….someone will demo a synth WITHOUT the obligatory sequencer? Imagine , just musical notes and sounds ?
    No….”dum dum dum dum ? “
    A logical example of what each module can do ?

Leave a Reply

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