Warning: mysql_get_server_info(): Access denied for user 'indiamee'@'localhost' (using password: NO) in /home/indiamee/public_html/e-music/wp-content/plugins/gigs-calendar/gigs-calendar.php on line 872

Warning: mysql_get_server_info(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/indiamee/public_html/e-music/wp-content/plugins/gigs-calendar/gigs-calendar.php on line 872
Indian E-music – The right mix of Indian Vibes… » 2018 » January » 10


Behringer teases Oberheim, Roland remakes; hints at production delays

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Wed 10 Jan 2018 9:05 pm

Behringer are busy teasing still more analog synth remakes. But messages from the company suggest they may be struggling to produce their Minimoog clone.

Right now, Behringer are shipping the synth that represented their first major foray into the synth business. That would be analog polysynth DeepMind 12 – a 12-voice keyboard loaded up with extras, including built-in Wi-Fi and a bunch of effects from TC ELECTRONIC and KLARK TEKNIK. And it represents a significant acquisition of engineering talent, as Behringer has brought the MIDAS team into the fold.

The DeepMind is unquestionably inexpensive for a polysynth and, from people I know who’ve had it for longer tests, at least reasonably good. If you don’t need 12 voices, you can get a number of great instruments, some of them for less than the DeepMind. And if you’re willing to spend a bit more, Novation, Moog, Dave Smith and others have offerings, as well. But it is fair to say the DeepMind 12 has found a sizable market for itself, at least for now.

Irrespective of the price, the DeepMind seems to face the challenge all synths do at the moment: potential customers are far more familiar with classic instruments of the past. And remakes of a classic Moog, Roland, KORG, Yamaha, or even Oberheim or Sequential instrument seem to earn more immediate attention and recognition than anything new. (Make of that what you will.)

And so it is that Behringer have managed to upstage… themselves.

The DeepMind was itself accompanied by a whirlwind of teasers and spec-by-spec leaks from Behringer across social media and forums, and … then all hell broke loose. There was an unexplained “spy” shot of someone holding an SH-101 (with different lettering) on a day Roland planned a press briefing. There were threads asking users what remakes they wanted to see. There were random photos of gear and prototypes that might or might not represent something they would make. And then there was the weirdest moment of them all – various clones of drum machines and synthesizers suddenly appeared on the official Behringer website, only to be immediately followed by the suggestion that maybe that was all just a dream.

The Behringer synth story over the past twelve months has had as many unexplained appearances as a season of LOST. (Sorry, dated reference. Hey, you know – retro, like synths.)

In the midst of this, there was one synth we know to be real, and we know to be in production – a rack-mount model D based on the original Minimoog circuit design (minus the keyboard, of course). And Behringer got as far as bringing a prototype around for people to test and hear – with reasonably good results.

But while Behringer was busy teasing the Minimoog recreation – and many other synths – Roland went ahead and actually shipped their own compact Minimoog-style instrument, partnering with independent US maker Studio Electronics. Unlike the other Boutique Series from Roland, the SE-02 is analog – should you care about such things. The SE-02 has some extras, too, like a step sequencer, cross modulation, and filter feedback loop, and sound characteristics that come from SE’s Boomstar line.

And you can buy it now.

So what about the Behringer model D? Well, you should be able to buy it soon. I’ve seen preorders at Germany’s Music Store, though haven’t talked to anyone who’s got one in-hand.

Let me turn it over to Uli Behringer, then, who this week wrote:

Please allow me to clarify that the first batch of Model D’s had arrived at our German retailer Music Store right before yearend, which you can easily verify with them.

The next batch will hopefully leave the factory by end of coming week with some units being air-shipped to the US. The production is still relatively slow due to the fact that each unit takes over 30 minutes to warm up followed by a meticulous one-hour calibration and quality assurance procedure.”

Wait… back up. Couple things here.

First, this suggests that in the midst of teasing literally dozens of remakes, Behringer are stumbling on shipping just this first one. The Model D was shown publicly at Superbooth in Berlin in the first half of last year, with preorders taken early in the summer and shipping promised soon. This represents a significant delay – acceptable maybe for a small builder, but less so a massive instrument manufacturer.

Second, the Minimoog authenticity here may have gone a bit far. Recall that there are reasons other than cost that synthesizer engineers largely moved away from pure analog oscillators, opting for digital oscillators or digital-controlled analog oscilllators.

Thirty minutes to warm up? An hour to calibrate?

Some manual tuning is evidently involved in this instrument, just like on the original. And that’s consistent with the specs, which mention an A-440 tuning reference. Note that one feature of the Roland/Studio Electronics SE-02 is temperature-stabilized oscillators with automatic tuning. That plus the extra features on the Studio Electronics piece (and a better stock outlook) make the Roland look like a better compact Minimoog alternative than the Behringer.

Reading through Uli’s convoluted messages, it generally seems Behringer for all this hype are now lowering expectations for their analog clones.

And that should mean reevaluating their impact on the industry. Low price is one thing, but availability matters, too.

Of course, the model D delays are conveniently here buried by Behringer teasing still more instruments – based on the Oberheim OB-X and the Roland VP-330 vocoder / string machine.

But again, availability is an issue. There’s no pricing, and no ship date. There’s no information on the vocoder at all. And the OB-Xa is described as being fairly far off, if in the hands of the same Midas team who did the DeepMind:

Since this is more a labor of love than a commercially viable project, our engineers can’t work full time on this synth and will use some of their free time, hence the project will likely take more than 12 months.

So, here’s the current status:

DeepMind 12: shipping now. ($999 with 49-key keyboard, 12D without $899)
DeepMind 6: shipping now. ($699 with 37-key keyboard, six voices)
Model D: limited quantities, still a preorder. ($299)
Vocoder Plus: unconfirmed; status unknown.
OB-Xa clone: confirmed, 12+ months out, pricing unknown.

(Prices/availability confirmed for US retailers, starting with Sweetwater. Model D appears to be backordered both in Europe and stateside – though you’re welcome to “call and confirm” as Uli suggests.)

Everything else is just vaporware until proven otherwise.

And here’s the weird thing: Behringer have managed to steal the show from themselves and the fact that the full DeepMind range is shipping.

The post Behringer teases Oberheim, Roland remakes; hints at production delays appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

Behringer teases Oberheim, Roland remakes; hints at production delays

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Wed 10 Jan 2018 9:05 pm

Behringer are busy teasing still more analog synth remakes. But messages from the company suggest they may be struggling to produce their Minimoog clone.

Right now, Behringer are shipping the synth that represented their first major foray into the synth business. That would be analog polysynth DeepMind 12 – a 12-voice keyboard loaded up with extras, including built-in Wi-Fi and a bunch of effects from TC ELECTRONIC and KLARK TEKNIK. And it represents a significant acquisition of engineering talent, as Behringer has brought the MIDAS team into the fold.

The DeepMind is unquestionably inexpensive for a polysynth and, from people I know who’ve had it for longer tests, at least reasonably good. If you don’t need 12 voices, you can get a number of great instruments, some of them for less than the DeepMind. And if you’re willing to spend a bit more, Novation, Moog, Dave Smith and others have offerings, as well. But it is fair to say the DeepMind 12 has found a sizable market for itself, at least for now.

Irrespective of the price, the DeepMind seems to face the challenge all synths do at the moment: potential customers are far more familiar with classic instruments of the past. And remakes of a classic Moog, Roland, KORG, Yamaha, or even Oberheim or Sequential instrument seem to earn more immediate attention and recognition than anything new. (Make of that what you will.)

And so it is that Behringer have managed to upstage… themselves.

The DeepMind was itself accompanied by a whirlwind of teasers and spec-by-spec leaks from Behringer across social media and forums, and … then all hell broke loose. There was an unexplained “spy” shot of someone holding an SH-101 (with different lettering) on a day Roland planned a press briefing. There were threads asking users what remakes they wanted to see. There were random photos of gear and prototypes that might or might not represent something they would make. And then there was the weirdest moment of them all – various clones of drum machines and synthesizers suddenly appeared on the official Behringer website, only to be immediately followed by the suggestion that maybe that was all just a dream.

The Behringer synth story over the past twelve months has had as many unexplained appearances as a season of LOST. (Sorry, dated reference. Hey, you know – retro, like synths.)

In the midst of this, there was one synth we know to be real, and we know to be in production – a rack-mount model D based on the original Minimoog circuit design (minus the keyboard, of course). And Behringer got as far as bringing a prototype around for people to test and hear – with reasonably good results.

But while Behringer was busy teasing the Minimoog recreation – and many other synths – Roland went ahead and actually shipped their own compact Minimoog-style instrument, partnering with independent US maker Studio Electronics. Unlike the other Boutique Series from Roland, the SE-02 is analog – should you care about such things. The SE-02 has some extras, too, like a step sequencer, cross modulation, and filter feedback loop, and sound characteristics that come from SE’s Boomstar line.

And you can buy it now.

So what about the Behringer model D? Well, you should be able to buy it soon. I’ve seen preorders at Germany’s Music Store, though haven’t talked to anyone who’s got one in-hand.

Let me turn it over to Uli Behringer, then, who this week wrote:

Please allow me to clarify that the first batch of Model D’s had arrived at our German retailer Music Store right before yearend, which you can easily verify with them.

The next batch will hopefully leave the factory by end of coming week with some units being air-shipped to the US. The production is still relatively slow due to the fact that each unit takes over 30 minutes to warm up followed by a meticulous one-hour calibration and quality assurance procedure.”

Wait… back up. Couple things here.

First, this suggests that in the midst of teasing literally dozens of remakes, Behringer are stumbling on shipping just this first one. The Model D was shown publicly at Superbooth in Berlin in the first half of last year, with preorders taken early in the summer and shipping promised soon. This represents a significant delay – acceptable maybe for a small builder, but less so a massive instrument manufacturer.

Second, the Minimoog authenticity here may have gone a bit far. Recall that there are reasons other than cost that synthesizer engineers largely moved away from pure analog oscillators, opting for digital oscillators or digital-controlled analog oscilllators.

Thirty minutes to warm up? An hour to calibrate?

Some manual tuning is evidently involved in this instrument, just like on the original. And that’s consistent with the specs, which mention an A-440 tuning reference. Note that one feature of the Roland/Studio Electronics SE-02 is temperature-stabilized oscillators with automatic tuning. That plus the extra features on the Studio Electronics piece (and a better stock outlook) make the Roland look like a better compact Minimoog alternative than the Behringer.

Reading through Uli’s convoluted messages, it generally seems Behringer for all this hype are now lowering expectations for their analog clones.

And that should mean reevaluating their impact on the industry. Low price is one thing, but availability matters, too.

Of course, the model D delays are conveniently here buried by Behringer teasing still more instruments – based on the Oberheim OB-X and the Roland VP-330 vocoder / string machine.

But again, availability is an issue. There’s no pricing, and no ship date. There’s no information on the vocoder at all. And the OB-Xa is described as being fairly far off, if in the hands of the same Midas team who did the DeepMind:

Since this is more a labor of love than a commercially viable project, our engineers can’t work full time on this synth and will use some of their free time, hence the project will likely take more than 12 months.

So, here’s the current status:

DeepMind 12: shipping now. ($999 with 49-key keyboard, 12D without $899)
DeepMind 6: shipping now. ($699 with 37-key keyboard, six voices)
Model D: limited quantities, still a preorder. ($299)
Vocoder Plus: unconfirmed; status unknown.
OB-Xa clone: confirmed, 12+ months out, pricing unknown.

(Prices/availability confirmed for US retailers, starting with Sweetwater. Model D appears to be backordered both in Europe and stateside – though you’re welcome to “call and confirm” as Uli suggests.)

Everything else is just vaporware until proven otherwise.

And here’s the weird thing: Behringer have managed to steal the show from themselves and the fact that the full DeepMind range is shipping.

The post Behringer teases Oberheim, Roland remakes; hints at production delays appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

Next Media Modernization Proposals – Eliminate FCC Filing Requirement for Certain Broadcast Licensee Contracts and Expunge Analog TV Rules

Delivered... David Oxenford | Scene | Wed 10 Jan 2018 5:46 pm

At its next open meeting to be held on January 30, the FCC will consider two more proposals in its Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative.  As with many of the other proposals that have been advanced by the FCC as part of this initiative thus far, these proposals address relatively minor matters concerning paperwork obligations rather than substantive FCC rules.  Draft proposals were released yesterday by the FCC dealing with two matters.  The first is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggesting the elimination of requirements that broadcast licensees file paper copies of certain contracts with the FCC.  The second is an Order deleting certain rule sections that explicitly deal with the operations of full-power analog television stations – stations which no longer exist.

It is certainly difficult to argue with the FCC’s decision to delete rules that apply to a service that no long exists, so it is obvious that the more substantive of the two proposals advanced yesterday is the one dealing with the filing of contracts with the FCC by broadcast licensees.  But even this proposal was not particularly substantive, proposing only the elimination of the rules requiring the filing of physical copies of the required contracts, not the obligations that these contracts be available for public inspection and review.  The NPRM suggests that instead of filing the required contracts with the FCC, the inclusion in a broadcaster’s online public file of information about these agreements is sufficient to eliminate the need for the filing with the FCC of physical copies of these documents.  The agreements that are now required to be filed are also required to either be included in the public file or the licensee may opt to include in the public file a list of the contracts with a commitment to produce them within 7 days upon request.  The NPRM also proposes to formalize the practice specifically adopted in connection with some but not all of the required documents – allowing broadcasters to redact financially sensitive business information from any document that it provides upon request.  The NPRM as currently drafted does not ask whether the FCC should examine whether the filing of some or all of these contracts, or even their inclusion in a station’s public file, should be required at all.

Just what does the FCC now require that a licensee file?  Organizational documents of a licensee and its parent entities (e.g., articles of incorporation and by-laws) must be filed currently, and, as with all of these documents, also listed on Ownership Reports and in the list in the public file (if not actually reproduced there).  Documents relating to future ownership or control are required (e.g., options, pledge agreements, voting proxy agreements, warrants, etc.).  Security agreements and other documents that place significant restrictions on the operational decisions of a licensee (like stock pledge agreements where a lender significantly restricts the licensee’s actions without lender approval as a condition of the loan) are also required to be submitted.  Time brokerage and joint sales agreements are required documents, as are network affiliation agreements – but only for TV stations, and only when the network provides at least 15 hours of programming each week to at least 25 affiliates located in at least 10 different states.  Licensees are also required to file “citizen agreements” – agreements that were common 30 or 40 years ago as a means for broadcast stations to settle license renewal challenges by promising to devote programming time to issues identified by certain citizens’ groups – but are almost unheard of today.

Obviously, the question arises whether there is a legitimate need for broadcasters to submit these documents to the FCC and to make them available to the public.  A licensee’s organizational documents are rarely reviewed by the FCC (except perhaps if the FCC is seeking to confirm that a noncommercial licensee was really organized for educational purposes).  If the FCC has a legitimate need to review these documents, one would think that they would be requested in FCC applications – not just placed into a public file that in many cases no one ever reviews.  The same goes for agreements regarding future ownership.  Why do they need to be filed or included in the public file when they only become relevant if they trigger a change in control of the licensee – at which point they will usually be filed with an assignment or transfer application?  Security agreements and similar documents relating to future control are already addressed in certifications on FCC application forms where licensee’s pledge to maintain control of their licenses – so why require that the documents be filed after the fact, when in most cases no one ever bothers to look at them?  If affiliation agreements don’t need to be filed for radio, why are they still needed for TV?  And why require the submission of citizen agreements when they essentially don’t exist?

These are questions not currently posed by the draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  Perhaps they will be added to the NPRM in the few weeks before this item is finalized.  If not, perhaps they will be addressed in a future order.  We will obviously know more details on these matters at or after the FCC meeting on January 30 when these items will be discussed and presumably approved by the Commissioners.

Next Media Modernization Proposals – Eliminate FCC Filing Requirement for Certain Broadcast Licensee Contracts and Expunge Analog TV Rules

Delivered... David Oxenford | Scene | Wed 10 Jan 2018 5:46 pm

At its next open meeting to be held on January 30, the FCC will consider two more proposals in its Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative.  As with many of the other proposals that have been advanced by the FCC as part of this initiative thus far, these proposals address relatively minor matters concerning paperwork obligations rather than substantive FCC rules.  Draft proposals were released yesterday by the FCC dealing with two matters.  The first is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggesting the elimination of requirements that broadcast licensees file paper copies of certain contracts with the FCC.  The second is an Order deleting certain rule sections that explicitly deal with the operations of full-power analog television stations – stations which no longer exist.

It is certainly difficult to argue with the FCC’s decision to delete rules that apply to a service that no long exists, so it is obvious that the more substantive of the two proposals advanced yesterday is the one dealing with the filing of contracts with the FCC by broadcast licensees.  But even this proposal was not particularly substantive, proposing only the elimination of the rules requiring the filing of physical copies of the required contracts, not the obligations that these contracts be available for public inspection and review.  The NPRM suggests that instead of filing the required contracts with the FCC, the inclusion in a broadcaster’s online public file of information about these agreements is sufficient to eliminate the need for the filing with the FCC of physical copies of these documents.  The agreements that are now required to be filed are also required to either be included in the public file or the licensee may opt to include in the public file a list of the contracts with a commitment to produce them within 7 days upon request.  The NPRM also proposes to formalize the practice specifically adopted in connection with some but not all of the required documents – allowing broadcasters to redact financially sensitive business information from any document that it provides upon request.  The NPRM as currently drafted does not ask whether the FCC should examine whether the filing of some or all of these contracts, or even their inclusion in a station’s public file, should be required at all.

Just what does the FCC now require that a licensee file?  Organizational documents of a licensee and its parent entities (e.g., articles of incorporation and by-laws) must be filed currently, and, as with all of these documents, also listed on Ownership Reports and in the list in the public file (if not actually reproduced there).  Documents relating to future ownership or control are required (e.g., options, pledge agreements, voting proxy agreements, warrants, etc.).  Security agreements and other documents that place significant restrictions on the operational decisions of a licensee (like stock pledge agreements where a lender significantly restricts the licensee’s actions without lender approval as a condition of the loan) are also required to be submitted.  Time brokerage and joint sales agreements are required documents, as are network affiliation agreements – but only for TV stations, and only when the network provides at least 15 hours of programming each week to at least 25 affiliates located in at least 10 different states.  Licensees are also required to file “citizen agreements” – agreements that were common 30 or 40 years ago as a means for broadcast stations to settle license renewal challenges by promising to devote programming time to issues identified by certain citizens’ groups – but are almost unheard of today.

Obviously, the question arises whether there is a legitimate need for broadcasters to submit these documents to the FCC and to make them available to the public.  A licensee’s organizational documents are rarely reviewed by the FCC (except perhaps if the FCC is seeking to confirm that a noncommercial licensee was really organized for educational purposes).  If the FCC has a legitimate need to review these documents, one would think that they would be requested in FCC applications – not just placed into a public file that in many cases no one ever reviews.  The same goes for agreements regarding future ownership.  Why do they need to be filed or included in the public file when they only become relevant if they trigger a change in control of the licensee – at which point they will usually be filed with an assignment or transfer application?  Security agreements and similar documents relating to future control are already addressed in certifications on FCC application forms where licensee’s pledge to maintain control of their licenses – so why require that the documents be filed after the fact, when in most cases no one ever bothers to look at them?  If affiliation agreements don’t need to be filed for radio, why are they still needed for TV?  And why require the submission of citizen agreements when they essentially don’t exist?

These are questions not currently posed by the draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  Perhaps they will be added to the NPRM in the few weeks before this item is finalized.  If not, perhaps they will be addressed in a future order.  We will obviously know more details on these matters at or after the FCC meeting on January 30 when these items will be discussed and presumably approved by the Commissioners.

SHAKY KNEES TICKETS ARE ON SALE!

Delivered... Spacelab - Independent Music and Media | Scene | Wed 10 Jan 2018 5:00 pm
GA and VIP tickets are available! Jack White, Queens of the Stone Age and The National all headline.

THE SHAKY BEATS LINEUP IS OUT!

Delivered... Spacelab - Independent Music and Media | Scene | Wed 10 Jan 2018 5:00 pm
Kygo, Marshmello and Zedd all headline! Excision, Dillon Francis, Ludacris and Seven Lions also top the lineup!
TunePlus Wordpress Theme