Being a customer for years, I have to politely disagree.
Design is obviously a totally personal matter of taste, but as they have made many iconic shapes, apparently they're in the broad opinion not too bad at it.
The main difference is driving. I have driven many cars in my life, from very cheap to very expensive. For me personally, Porsche is in my opinion comparable to using a Mac - they're one of the few who "get it right":
- The entire workmanship is fantastic—nothing wobbles and nothing rattles.
- Everything looks very harmonic, from interior to usability. Every button is where it has to be. Even the built-in entertainment system is highly usable (which in my opinion others like Mercedes never got right).
- And, most importantly, despite being ICE or EV, the whole driving experience is just lightyears away from many competitors. Whether it's a 911 or a 718, they are just a joy to drive. Even a Cayenne just doesn't feel like a bulky SUV. There seems to be a lot of engineering going into all of that, weight distribution, chassis tuning, etc.
Apart from that - again, having owned many cars in my life - they're the most service-unintense cars ever. They just - work. You change the oil, sometimes the tires and that's it. I never had a single bigger problem with them.
Is there a lot of stuff which they didn't get? Agreed. Would it be nice to have better self-driving options? Without a doubt, but that's just a question of time.
But at least you have to give them that they, in strong contrast to many other German car manufacturers, didn't miss the trend and started to produce sexy EVs (hello Taycan) from very early on.
As long as I can, I will stay a loyal customer to them. If you have never driven a Porsche, get a test drive. I can only highly recommend it.
PS: And double points if you can do it on the German Autobahn. Try driving 240+ km/h with any other large-volume-production car, you'll be sweaty. With a Porsche, it just feels joyful.
>Try driving 240+ km/h with any other large-volume-production car, you'll be sweaty.
This is just very much not true, Audi, Mercedes,Toyota, BMW breeze through it, hell my friends audi S4 from 2004 regularly shoots 240+ over the autobahn, and we never break a sweat.
That is not my personal experience. I get very often those cars of those other major German brands at SIXT car rental, and of course this is my personal opinion:
- BMW is indeed very nice, I agree. I also once had a 6 series convertible which was - apart from the very low consumption (Diesel) - really nice to drive. Their cars are indeed a good alternative at a lower price point.
- Audi is the utmost catastrophe. Apart from the abysmal navigation system, the car simply doesn't feel safe at higher speeds (had an A6, your mileage may vary with tuned S models). I didn't want to drive faster than 180km/h
- Same goes for Mercedes (drove C, E and S Classes). The entertainment system is straight from the 90ies and the steering gets super wobbly at higher speeds.
- Toyota - are you kidding me? Very reliable, good value, but nowhere near the driving capabilities of a BMW or Porsche.
Of course they are all nice cars and should do the job, especially in countries with speed limits - until 120 km/h that all doesn't matter. I'm just saying, if you really want (and can) go fast, most of those cars don't deliver in my opinion.
My point is, just from my perspective (YMMV), the Porsche cars are pretty perfect. I have a hard time finding a car which behaves more precisely and reliably on the street, regardless of the speed, than a 911 or 718 - or a Taycan or Panamera.
That refers back to my original answer when the poster said Porsche are "in trouble" because they are "technologically underequipped" and "don't deliver meaningful benefits". There is a lot of stuff China and other carmakers haven't caught up to. Will they in the future? Maybe.
To take that German-centric thing out: Try going on a mountain road and have fun in the corners. I am sure, if you have multiple cars to do the same thing, the Porsche will rank pretty high.
In any case, of course, this is all a pretty niche market for people who love driving sports cars. In 99%, a Toyota can deliver exactly the same value for the base use case (going from A to B) for way less money.
Having driven a Macan EV recently, it was nothing but annoying coming from years of Porsche driving. Too many unnecessary changes from what was there standard controls. Too much screen use.
That is interesting. Thanks for sharing I was interested in trying out a Porsche. Do the oil changes and other maintenance items cost significantly more than other makers?
Totally agreed. It is beyond understanding why you would even pay extra to get these sounds. The heavenly silence is one of the great advantages of an EV in my opinion.
Codex CLI can run as MCP server ootb which you can call directly from Claude code. Together with a prompt to ask codex for a second opinion, that works very well for me, especially in code reviews.
That advice also serves INHO well regarding angel investments and potential secondaries. If you made some x in a short time, take the money and run and leave the risk to institutional VCs who are not investing their own money.
I never understood the Behringer hate of the "Pro Audio" community; apparently there are many riders (requirement documents for live shows) which state "No Behringer".
I got a Behringer WING a couple of years ago, and I couldn't be happier for my home studio: Excellent connection with Midas stage boxes who have (at least for my requirements) great pre-amps, you can basically route everything, it's kind of intuitive, the possibilities are endless, it's at the same time a 32-channel USB Audio Interface which works great with Logic, I can even live-stream multi channel audio to my Mac in the other room to Logic using the DANTE card, it has easy live recording with SD cards, remote control via iPad and even 3rd party apps with APIs, etc. etc. etc. … And they just released a rack and smaller version of it, but didn't cut on the features.
As we say in Germany, maybe it's some kind of "What the farmer doesn't know, he won't eat" syndrome. From what I know and use, I am a big fan of Behringer, and especially the WING.
I use a Behringer X32 rack with a couple digital snakes to route audio between 20 or so radios, software defined receivers, online broadcasts and other audio sources, and it's one of the most powerful pieces of technology in my lab/office.
The quality however of the X32 leaves a little bit to be desired. The power supply died in it due to fault capacitors (I was able to replace them myself) and the rotary switches on the rack unit itself no longer work (I remote control the box anyway) but.. I've been able to look past all this because the sheer power of the tech is unbeatable for my use case. Running a single CAT-5 connection from my detached lab/rack to my office in the house with 32 channels of AES audio is amazing stuff for me.
It's not about the cloning but the quality control. For years Behringer didn't make any synths, just outboard - processing modules like compressors, gates/limiters, feedback managers, effects, small mixers and so on. These were original designs rather than clones of anything. The main attraction was that they were very cheap compared to the competition; sound-wise they were mediocre except for maybe their Composer compressor which was sorta good. The cheap aspect made them quite popular with aspiring musicians, especially electronic ones. Reliability was not too big of an issue because if a Behringer unit in your rack stopped working you could afford to just replace it. But they were absolutely not up to the rigors of commercial use, lacking consistency and reliability.
I like the company in a general way because I'm a big believer in accessibility to technology for entry-level people, and innovating on price is as valid as any other area (and they have innovated in many technical areas since). There are a lot of rent seekers in the pro audio industry and Behringer found a niche in the market where they had no direct competition. After building a solid commercial foundation they rolled the profits back into other areas, from cloning classic synths and guitar pedals to acquiring high quality live sound vendors like Midas. Quality-wise, their products are now really solid.
All the things you listed are irrelevant for a touring musician. All they care about is that equipment is used that sounds good. If it's a pain to set up or manage, that's the roadie and live mix engineer's job. Not saying some behringer gear doesn't sound good, just that bands can be very specific about their sound and a blanket "no behringer" rules out a lot of cheaper bad sounding gear in 2 words.
There's also the idealogical standpoint. That Behringher rips off other designs and mass produces them cheaper off shore. I'm in 2 minds about that. I now have a 2600, which would have been impossibly expensive (even with a TTSH) for me.
1) Behringer had a reputation for poor quality and unreliability dating back to at least I think the 90s. In my experience that’s no longer fair criticism, at least for the products I’ve owned, but the reputation persists.
2) Ethical issues. They mass produce using cheap labour in the far east (I forget exactly where). There was some controversy involving a synth/instrument sponsorship a few years ago that took an excessively long time to materialise. They are perceived to rip off other companies’ IP and undercut on price because they don’t incur the R&D costs. I seem to remember some noise/drama around one or two partnerships as well - maybe the UBxa? Again, I can’t remember.
3) They are a budget brand whereas the synth and pro audio communities are somewhat overpopulated with vocal gatekeepy snobs. I’m sure they’re probably a minority but, at least in the online world, they’re often loud and visible. You will, for example, be pretty reliably downvoted for saying anything positive about Behringer in the Reddit synth communities.
4) Uli is perceived to be a bit of an odd duck, again, by people who tend to make noise online.
For myself, I don’t love everything they’ve done business wise, but they make a good product that won’t break the bank for those on a budget. I have a couple of their TB-303 clones, which are very good (loads of companies make 303 clones, often known as acid boxes, so I don’t really see this as controversial). I also have a Poly D, which is based on the Minimoog, but has an extra oscillator, paraphony, MIDI support, and a sequencer, and I wanted a taste of that without having to drop £5k on an instrument with, by contemporary standards, very limited capabilities.
There are a bunch of synthtubers I enjoy who seem to have a good opinion of their stuff: Wine & Synths springs immediately to mind.
1) Agreed. I’ve used Behringer gear that’s perfectly fine.
2) This is my biggest issue with Behringer. They do seem very questionable in the ethics department. To add on to what you mention, they also like to apply for trademark patents for existing trademarks, not to mention trying to trademark names of their critics in some weird smear campaigns (see the KIRN corksniffer debauchle as an example) and also litigate their critics when they don’t like what they say. On the cloning side, sure, clones of extinct hardware like the TB-303 I feel is fair game, but it is always questionable when the clone is competing with a product still in production. I mean, it doesn’t matter which market it is in, whether music gear or mobile phones or whatever: clones will always be perceived as lower quality imitations and morally questionable.
3) I agree. Budget brands do not always get fair credit.
4) Yeah, that he does. It’s not necessarily fair to equate the brand with it’s director/founder, but seeing as he is quite active and the brand name is his actual last name, it is kind of unavoidable. But I mean, you should be able to be an odd duck and also be a director of a brand, as long as you behaviour isn’t hurting anyone…
Yes! That was it. Your cork sniffer remark reminded me of something else, maybe part of that same situation: didn’t they put out some bizarre and derogatory cartoons/caricatures of one of their critics? Maybe 5 years ago or a bit more?
I don’t know if it was some sort of misguided “guerilla marketing” ploy but, regardless of the intent, it did come off as weird and unsavoury.
As far as rip offs go: their Arturia Keystep clone was, in my view, over the line. Their Mother32 clone, which I cannot remember the name of, isn’t something I’m entirely comfortable with either… although anyone who wants a Mother32 is I think going to spring the extra for the real deal rather than buying the clone.
OTOH I do like their 2600-a-likes and, as you’ve pointed out, I can’t really fault putting out remakes of out of production hardware.
One and the same. The illustration of the critic that the cork sniffer was mocking was at best unflattering, and at worst referenced antisemitic stereotypes.
> But I mean, you should be able to be an odd duck and also be a director of a brand, as long as you behaviour isn’t hurting anyone…
I think the canonical example here is the Kirn Corksniffer[1] which could have been avoided with some foresight and subsequently a quick apology, but ego can sometimes get in the way.
Behringer definitely made bad products for a very long time, and while I appreciate the increase in quality the synth recreations don't really blow my mind. They're low cost, they're hardware, but almost all of them fall short of the originals.
> They're low cost, they're hardware, but almost all of them fall short of the originals.
As with everything Behringer, a lot of this varies from product to product. And it also depends which axes you measure along and which you consider important.
Like, for example, I don’t think anyone who’d done their research could seriously suggest the TD-3 and its variants aren’t as good as an original 303. In some ways they’re better: MIDI support, for example, and the MO - which is the second one I bought - implements the Devilfish mods that were popular on original units. But sound-wise, they’re as similar to a real 303 as the tonal differences between two original 303s. And hardware wise, well they’re cheap plastic boxes just like the originals so Behringer have certainly nailed the feel of using a 303.
On the other hand, something like the Poly D, does have some differences to the Minimoog. Again, it has some stuff that the OG doesn’t: an additional oscillator, paraphony, MIDI, a sequencer and arpeggiator.
Soundwise it’s very close but my sense is the filter doesn’t have quite the same hollow but fat character of the Moog filters I’m most familiar with (Moog One so not directly compatible). But it’s close and I’m not sure in a mix anyone would notice you were using a Poly D rather than a Minimoog.
And then you can find areas where corners have been cut: knobs and switchgear of the Poly D are solid and satisfying to use, but the keyboard is absolutely meh. It’s functional but it feels (and is) cheap. Not a patch on the OG.
Generally, businesses that try to thrive only on "take existing designs, produce them cheaper, try to out-compete on price only while not adding new R&D to the world" are businesses I try to avoid, as I feel like it'll only introduce a race to the bottom, instead of bringing new exciting stuff into the world.
This is regardless of the sector/industry, so I'll continue buying from brands that create new things, rather than from brands that iterate on existing stuff.
But with that said, it's a trite discussion, and I despise the constant "Behringer is the cheapest" or "Behringer just steals" conversations that happen every time Behringer is mentioned, more than I despise Behringer itself.
The mixer space is the only one where behringer doesn’t actually just copy other people’s shit and make it cheaper. Their mixers are cheap compared to the competition but they’re super original and have tons of features and UX patterns not found on mixers that cost 5x as much.
These days they are mostly cloning old, usually discontinued, products. Two examples are the Roland 303 or Klon Centaur. One product that isn't exactly discontinued is Neve is continuing to sell 1073 and 33609 derived products, but they certainly aren't selling the original 1073 anymore, and their 33609 design is over 40 years old. I don't morally they have any room to complain about people cloning their old designs, nor that morally should anyone feel bad about taking decades old historic designs from another company and making a version of it that is improved or more accessible.
I'm aware that in the past they were accused of cloning more current products, but the only example I could remember was FCB1010 supposedly being a clone of the Roland FC-300 (MIDI pedal board with 2 expression pedals). There certainly is a visual similarity between the two that seems very questionable. I don't think that the Roland FC-300 was particularly innovative. I know that Mackie sued about the MX-8000 being a clone, but I'll note they did lose that lawsuit. I don't there was also a lawsuit in the 90s about the Aphex Aural Exciter Type C, but I can't say that I know the details of that. Both of those lawsuits are definitely from a time when Behringer's quality seemed to be a lot lower, so there are definately ways the company has improved in the last 30 years.
From a startup founders perspective, it might be worth mentioning that if you own the business personally in the US, you likely qualify for so-called the small business exemption (QSBS) - that means from the price for which you sell your company the first $10M (yes, million!) of capital gains are tax free, and after the latest reform $15M. If you're married: x2.
As an alternative, you might also want to check out scrypted which offers a lot of cross-integration features and hardware optimized local AI processing (eg on MacMinis M*). Developer is super responsive in the discord.
reply