KVR Audio

2DaT · Post by **2DaT** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:45 pm

DuX wrote:

Notice that the box has exactly 24 dog Bisquits.

nineofkings · Post by **nineofkings** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:07 pm

Are we really arguing for pages about this? 4-pole is standard nomenclature, and faithful to the hardware to boot. Nowhere near as confusing as the bizarre labeling on some old Korgs.

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:24 pm

nineofkings wrote:Are we really arguing for pages about this? 4-pole is standard nomenclature, and faithful to the hardware to boot. Nowhere near as confusing as the bizarre labeling on some old Korgs.

There is no standard....it varies even in the same company

personally i prefer 12/24 to 2/4, but it really doesnt matter, i know what both mean.

Funkybot's Evil Twin · Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:17 pm

How about we just label it "4px6=24db" to remove all confusion?

Seriously, the GUI is fine. In fact, I think it turned out great. Let's just move on and let 2Dat implement it. If you don't like it that much, you don't have to use it. Remember: this is a freebie. Time to say thanks to 2Dat and Layzer and move on.

fluffy_little_something · Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:00 pm

Please don't tell me it will have big cat side panels

Sorry to chime in again, had not followed this thread recently.

I think the spacing is still a bit inconsistent. In the Osc section for instance it is hard to tell right away if Detune is the knob above or below the label because the distance is the same. The labels should be instantly associated with the control above, but still not fused with them the way it was originally with the buttons. Ironically, the buttons look best now, ideal spacing in my view (except for the Control section). In the Modulation section on the other hand the three knob labels are closer to the buttons below, which looks a bit confusing.

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:06 pm

Funkybot's Evil Twin wrote:Seriously, the GUI is fine. In fact, I think it turned out great. Let's just move on and let 2Dat implement it. If you don't like it that much, you don't have to use it. Remember: this is a freebie. Time to say thanks to 2Dat and Layzer and move on.

I agree! Enough about the GUI already! We know what things are and what they do...

I'm more concerned about some performance issues with the synth itself. 2Dat, thanks for the update. Raising the 4-pole volume helps a lot and that was actually one of the points I was going to bring up in this post. And thanks for the 0 Mod off!

Here's a few other observations I have from fiddling with the Obxd:

- I first noticed that the main volume taper seems a bit too linear: most of the change is in the first 1/4 turn. When I found some OB-Xa patch sheets and starting entering values from it, I noticed that knobs on the obxd end up being in their lower range, sometimes within mm's of completely OFF to make sense (esp with the modulation) while the patch sheets show the controls higher up. I think there might be something off because there seems to be generalized cramping of useful values towards the beginning of the controls; of course without a real OBX in front of you it's difficult to confirm a proper behavior but IMHO I think some revue of this is necessary.

- I find the Noise source could use +3 db peak more to match the osc outputs. Peak levels match but there's quite a difference in RMS value. But maybe the current level is within the OBX spec?

- There was some discussion last year about including the additional -Xa LFO waveforms as well as an LFO re-trigger option... both of these would help make it possible to use the LFO as an additional envelope (esp Saw). I hope these aren't flushed; there's a nice spot open on the GUI for that LFO re-trigger button...

- I asked this yesterday but it didn't get answered: is the LFO in the OBX series always monophonic (1 LFO for all voices)? It would be very powerful to have a separate LFO for every voice, triggered separately for every note.

- I know this is settled, but after working a while the fact that OSC 2 detunes only in a positive direction is a bit annoying when in x-mod mode and having to change OSCs Fq an octave to test... and back... the Alt control would make it possible to have the same range and resolution available over half a turn anyways... just saying...

As usual, take or leave my comments as you wish. Thanks!

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:09 pm

eXode wrote:
Z3R0T0N1N wrote:I'm w/ Funkybot here, 24db is what it should say IMHO. you can have 4 pole filters of several different decibles-per-octave, as well as high-pass, band-pass, etc. so having a '4 pole' label doesn't tell me enough about the filter. If a future version has it switchable between poles, then by all means.
No you can't. Where did you get that idea?

All filter designs are always 6 dB per POLE, i.e:

1 POLE = 6 dB
2 POLE = 12 dB
3 POLE = 18 dB
4 POLE = 24 dB

hah, ye gods! Right you are. Getting my labelilng mixed up. no sleep in 48 hours now, bad time to post

Thnx for the correction, lord knows it shouldn't be necessary.

FWIW i still prefer the db/oct terminology, but it's only a preference. I could be mistaken but I think it's more common; possibly just more common in the gear I use, though.

nineofkings · Post by **nineofkings** » Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:59 pm

Cooks. Kitchen. Way too many bodies here.

layzer · Post by **layzer** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:09 am

http://s7.postimg.org/5tifoera3/OBXDflt.png

better label spacing per fluffy. totally agreed

proposed solution for 24db 4 pole button label

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:19 am

Perfect..................

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:41 am

It think I found a bug: when you use the octave transpose I don't think the filter Key follow is being transposed.

Frantz · Post by **Frantz** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:46 am

layzer wrote: proposed solution for 24db 4 pole button label

I hope you're satisified Evil Dragon. Now we've got friggin' hieroglyphics!

But seriously, it's OK although I prefered BP and 24 or 24dB.

layzer · Post by **layzer** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:13 am

haahh frantz, just throwing it out there, its 2D's call when the smoke clears!

nineofkings · Post by **nineofkings** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 5:30 am

Breeze wrote:It think I found a bug: when you use the octave transpose I don't think the filter Key follow is being transposed.

This is normal synth behavior, I believe. The pitch controls just change the pitch at the oscillator level. To make a corresponding change to the key follow you'd have to transpose the actual MIDI note coming in or just adjust the cutoff to compensate.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:09 am

nineofkings wrote:
Breeze wrote:It think I found a bug: when you use the octave transpose I don't think the filter Key follow is being transposed.
This is normal synth behavior, I believe. The pitch controls just change the pitch at the oscillator level. To make a corresponding change to the key follow you'd have to transpose the actual MIDI note coming in or just adjust the cutoff to compensate.

That is usually called "footing" when it is relative to oscillator pitch. If you have a transpose section in "master" rather than inside "oscillators" people will and should intuitively understand that you will be transposing the key, which relates to all keyboard tracking including the oscillators, filter and anything else.

In master section I've only ever seen "pitch" working this way. Although if meant to be inspired by the function of an existing design, may as well follow the existing design regardless of how odd it may be.

Obxd synthesizer