Quadruple Low Frequency Oscillator
https://www.behringer.com/product.html?modelCode=P0EM8
So - looks like Behringer duplicated the Xaoc Batuni and added the functions switches from the Xaoc Poti expander.
Scumbag stuff.
Support XAOC. Ignore Behringer.
If you can't, buy used.
Also note: the original Batumi takes +45mA from +12V and only 15mA from -12V. This ripoff takes more than twice of that.
Combined the two into one module, total HP from 13 up to 14 but reduced the depth from 45mm to 33mm, I'm guessing that's where/why the additional power draw manifested. I'm a little annoyed at my Batumi+Poti combo because the 3HP expander could easily be 2hp and so you end up with an odd-HP module to find a place for, but they aren't leaving my rack anytime soon. This looks like a skiff-friendlier alternative if you really love Batumi, but I'd probably reach for an Ochd (4HP, 32mm) for skiff duties at twice the price for twice the outputs in a third of the space.
Efficiency on the wallet is compelling but I got mine, I'm down the hole, I don't need cheap modules to tempt or help me to get up and running. However the suite of cheap euro clones that don't fit into one of the big 3 systems is starting to look like a great gateway drug to the big boy modular companies where innovation happens. Brains, Abacus, 4LFO, 4Play, Mix, and Space FX total a little over $600. Add a filter like their 121 Dual VCF and you have substantial power under your fingers for USD$724. That level of buy-in could inspire a lot more artists to give modular a shot, anecdotally I sure wouldn't have plopped down $2000 for a Moog if not for the B2600, and here I am balls-deep in even more expensive synths because of that Gray Meanie.
I don't think this counts as IP theft either unless Behringer decompiled XAOC's code which wouldn't be necessary for something of this complexity. This is a quad LFO module, pretty far removed from some unique and magical DSP-based products, and just knowing the basic functionality of Batumi you could replicate it with some textbooks and time. What is the element of Batumi that makes this an infringement - what is their intellectual property at risk here? How many VCOs or EGs are functionally identical with a different coat of paint? It's sad how quickly I see people run to "the law" in an effort to enforce their personal moral or ethical perspective when it's one German in particular. This is no counterfeit product wrt trademark theft: different looks, name, decorative symbols, logo. No one is confusing this for the XAOC original by mistake; the Four LFO is derivative but not counterfeit, or is it time to re-litigate the "your guitar body shape looks like my guitar body shape" issue? It seems like Behringer is operating within the bounds of "the law" that you want to use as a cudgel to beat them with, shucks, maybe grievances at this company are misdirected. If you find it morally repugnant then please lobby for the law to change rather than bleat onto the internet, it's a very sad "man shakes fist at cloud" situation to observe. Just FYI - anyone can report IP theft to the appropriate agencies and you don't need to be the owner of said IP to do so, just seeing it occur is enough. Go for it and post the results please, I'm not being facetious, we wanna know the outcome!
I'd much rather get some unique modules out of them and at this point I wonder if they're aping "tried and true" products to test the waters to see whether modular development is worth the full-time investment after the Roland100/Model 55/ARP2500 stuff. Behringer seems to have started slow and built up steam once the sales rolled in with their desktop/keyboard synth offerings, makes me wonder, but then again we're seeing more clones rather than releases in the same vein as DeepMind in that arena (and to be fair, originals will take longer than eyeing a template). This current batch could also be products that largely function for the company as advertisements for open positions, I think they've been seeking devs and designers for awhile now. It's not like euro fever is slowing down (though a depression may force it) so imo it's time to shit or get off the pot. Rehashes bore the fuck out of me from any company. Behringer's unique weapon as a company is extreme efficiency of margins, I'm seriously waiting for the "look at everything we could afford to slap together" Frankenstein's Monster that's too ugly, strange, and crazy to resist. Popular Module #69 doesn't tingle the peepee much to someone already entrenched.
Don't support a company that does shit like this:
"A further 20 anonymous forum users were added as defendants in the $250,000 suit for making “false, defamatory, and libelous” statements, ranging from general complaints about Behringer ‘copying’ other products or using business practices described by one poster as 'underhanded.'"
https://www.factmag.com/2018/06/20/behringer-dave-smith-libel-case/
https://cdm.link/2018/06/behringer-have-sued-dave-smith-instruments-forum-posters-for-defamation/
If you have to use your corporate lawyers to shut up random forum users about your intellectual property theft... there's a good chance you're doing something wrong.
Although their claims obviously haven't been verified in a court of law, I'd imagine most of these "intellectual property" snobs have downloaded music or samples and have not paid the artist who made them, but apparently that's different. Typical hypocrites. If they want to overpay for items to seem "cool", bless their hearts. I'll keep the extra money in MY pocket where it belongs :)
If you do away with the concept of intellectual property, you remove the incentive to innovate. Quite simple.
If you do away with the concept of intellectual property, you remove the incentive to innovate. Quite simple.
-- bopodoq
I'm pretty sure nobody wants to do away with intellectual property... but false, unproven (in a court of law) accusations, especially those so boldly made from behind a screen and keyboard, should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.
disclaimer: i got one used; i also think it sucks that what they did was without the blessing of Xaoc even if it's not illegal (in spite of the conjecture above, the Batumi firmware IS open source - peep the github - and maybe a different type of CC license would have served the developers better), and at best I'm on the fence about buying new B products since they've starting behaving sketchily.
THAT SAID
does anyone know anything about the viability of alt Batumi firmware on the Four LFO?
Although their claims obviously haven't been verified in a court of law, I'd imagine most of these "intellectual property" snobs have downloaded music or samples and have not paid the artist who made them, but apparently that's different. Typical hypocrites. If they want to overpay for items to seem "cool", bless their hearts. I'll keep the extra money in MY pocket where it belongs :)
-- AlphaGrayWolf
Not overpaying, simply investing in small passionate companies who don't have Behringer's resources but who have actual vision and HQ products, instead of a corporate behemoth that's openly ripping them off. The history of Behringer being a generally amoral and all around sucky company is well documented if you look into them, I wouldn't pay them a dime. Be a corporate simp and buy up their cheap-o knock-offs if that's all you can afford, but Xaoc has my support 100%. Good company, good customer service, quality innovative products. (And yeah btw, downloading music and not paying the artist IS different and a lousy analogy, but that's a whole other tangent/discussion).
Is the build for Batumi really open source? I'm inclined to say false.
Support Xaoc.
Support working class electronics.
-- dohmaBatumi is absolutely NOT open source. This is intellectual property theft.
-- SedalusThat’s what I thought. Can't believe these clowns.
-- DMSound
Batumi firmware is under an MIT license, which allows you to copy or modify it.
I just hate misinformation.
