Behringer KICK: Is Open-Source Firmware the Future of Music Hardware?

Something interesting has been happening with music hardware lately. We’ve seen unofficial firmware projects transform instruments like the SP404 MK2 and Elektron Digitakt, introducing features and entirely new workflows that their manufacturers never originally intended.

Now Behringer is taking a different approach. Instead of waiting for the community to reverse engineer its hardware, the company has revealed the KICK, a new sampling workstation designed around open-source software from the beginning.

And with a reported target price of around $150, it raises some interesting questions about how music hardware could be developed and supported in the future.

What Is the Behringer KICK?

The KICK is an upcoming sampling workstation that looks remarkably similar to the Akai MPC One. It features a touchscreen, sixteen RGB pads, four assignable knobs, a jog wheel, and a collection of tools for sampling, sequencing, looping, and processing audio.

According to the specifications published by Music Tribe, the KICK also includes over 300 effects, MIDI and USB connectivity, four CV/Gate connections, and even a camera intended for gesture control.

Behringer has reportedly identified a target retail price of approximately $150, which would make it a surprisingly affordable workstation if that pricing holds. However, the KICK is currently a prototype, and there’s no confirmed release date or final retail price.

But the hardware specifications aren’t really what caught my attention.

Behringer is Embracing Custom Firmware

Over the past few months, I’ve been following the growing community of developers creating unofficial firmware for existing music hardware.

DOOM OS for the SP404 MK2 is one of the most interesting examples. It introduces an alternative sequencing environment and other functionality without requiring users to abandon the sampler’s original workflow.

What’s different about the Behringer KICK is that the manufacturer is actively encouraging this kind of experimentation.

Music Tribe has already published source code for the KICK’s application, audio engine, and hardware communication protocol on GitHub. Rather than requiring developers to reverse engineer the entire system, the company is providing a starting point for people to create their own modifications and alternative software.

That’s a pretty substantial change from the way most commercial music hardware is developed.

Does the Stock Operating System Even Matter Anymore?

This is probably the most interesting question the KICK raises for me.

Traditionally, when buying a sampler or groovebox, we’re choosing both the hardware and the manufacturer’s interpretation of how that hardware should work. The pads, screen, and controls are important, but the operating system ultimately determines how we interact with everything.

I’ve always considered the workflow one of the most important factors when choosing music gear. Two samplers can have nearly identical specifications and still feel completely different because of their sequencing, effects routing, or sample-editing tools.

But what happens when the operating system is no longer the defining characteristic of the instrument?

With an open-source platform, the same piece of hardware could theoretically support different sequencing approaches, effects systems, or entirely different ways of making music.

That doesn’t mean the stock operating system becomes irrelevant. Most musicians aren’t going to develop their own firmware, and a stable, intuitive factory experience will still matter enormously. But it does mean the software a device ships with might no longer represent everything that device can become.

Instead of choosing a sampler solely for what it does today, we could increasingly be choosing a platform for what it might do tomorrow.

Will More Manufacturers Follow This Approach?

I think that’s where the KICK could become particularly interesting. Community developed firmware isn’t new. Projects involving the Synthstrom Deluge, M-VAVE FM-1, SP404 MK2, and various Elektron devices have already demonstrated how much interest there is in extending the capabilities of existing hardware.

But those projects also highlight a problem. When a manufacturer doesn’t officially support custom firmware, developers may need to spend considerable time reverse engineering the device, and users take on additional risks when installing unofficial software.

An open platform could reduce some of those barriers while giving manufacturers a way to benefit from community innovation.

Of course, there’s another side to this. If manufacturers begin relying too heavily on community development, could that become an excuse to release unfinished software or reduce their own commitment to updates and support?

And what happens if a device never attracts a large enough developer community to keep it moving forward?

I don’t think open-source firmware should replace manufacturers taking responsibility for their products. Ideally, it should complement a stable, well-supported operating system while giving users the freedom to experiment beyond it.

A Different Future for Music Hardware?

I’m not sure whether the Behringer KICK will turn out to be a great sampler. We haven’t seen enough of the finished product to know how well it performs, how intuitive its software will be, or whether the community will actually embrace developing for it.

And the resemblance to the MPC One makes the hardware design itself considerably less interesting to me than the approach Behringer is taking with its software. But I do think the idea is worth paying attention to.

For years, we’ve largely depended on manufacturers to decide what our music hardware can do. Once official updates stop arriving, the instrument’s capabilities are often effectively frozen unless someone finds a way around those limitations.

Open-source firmware offers a different possibility, where the lifespan and creative potential of an instrument aren’t necessarily determined by the manufacturer’s development schedule.

Whether that becomes a common approach or remains a niche experiment is still an open question. But between the rise of unofficial firmware and now manufacturers beginning to embrace it themselves, I’m increasingly curious about where this movement goes.

Maybe the next big change in music hardware won’t be a new processor, screen, or collection of effects. Maybe it’ll be having more freedom to decide what the hardware we already own actually does.