Obxd synthesizer

[Ingonator]

2dat should do a Synthex next

I am a big fan of Xils Lab Synthix (in fact a fan of all Xils Lab synths)...

A new Synthex emulation would only make sense if it sounds even more authentic than Synthix already does (fwiw Synthix already got zero delay feedback filters). For that it would be necessary to own the real thing IMO. Xils Lab did not own a Synthex themselves AFAIK but they had contact to the creator of the original factory sounds (Paul Wiffen) and also played with he real thing together with him.

My favorite filter in Synthix is the 6dB BPF which sounds different to other BPFs i know.


Ingo

[fmr]

I don't see the point of 2Dat creating a Synthex emulation. For OB-X, we only have a SynthEdit based instrument, which, in spite of being very good, is therefore confined to 32-bit and Windows.

But for the Synthex, we have Synthix, which, besides being excellent, is Mac and Windows, abd 32/64-bit. What would be the purpose, when there are so many not done? If he was in the mood, I would rather have a Matrix-12.

[Ingonator]

I would rather have a Matrix-12.

That would indeed be very cool. Must be the ultimate analog polysynth.
In fact a proper Matrix 12 emulation (with a few additional features like FXs mabye) could be the only analog polysynth emulation you ever need.

Would not even be necessary to own the Matrix 12 to create a proper emulation, an Xpander should be enough.

AFAIK MachFive 3 (and the UVI Workstation) contain filters of the Matrix 12 while i don't know how accurate those are.

Just had athought about which fiter modes are alread possible with OBXD:
LPF12dB, LPF 24dB, LPF 24dB II, LPF 18dB, LPF 12dB II, LPF 6dB, BPF 12dB, HPF 12dB, Notch 12dB (those with the "II" are those done with the new variable slope which do sound different).


Ingo

[fmr]

Would not even be necessary to own the Matrix 12 to create a proper emulation, an Xpander should be enough. Ingo

Easy, huh?

[Ingonator]

Would not even be necessary to own the Matrix 12 to create a proper emulation, an Xpander should be enough. Ingo

Easy, huh?

At least the Xpander should be less expensive. Speaking about doing a really proper emulation owning the real thing should be necessary. Never played one myself, i just had the Matrix 1000 and a Marion Pro Synth (doen by Tom Oberheim too).

As mentioned earlier the rest of teh synth in OBXD is close to the OB-X/Xa but the filter section seems to be a mix of multiple Oberheim synths like the OB serries, SEm and with the latest variable filter maybe also a bit of the Matrix 12/Xpander.


Ingo

[fmr]

AFAIK MachFive 3 (and the UVI Workstation) contain filters of the Matrix 12 while i don't know how accurate those are.
Ingo

There are some similarly configured filters in UVI/Mach Five, indeed, but, AFAIR from when I worked with a Matrix-12, the sound is not similar. Bear in mind that the Xpander/Matrix-12 is way more than the filters, and, as often, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. It's amazing what the Oberheim engineers did squeeze out of such low rated components.

[fmr]

... i just had the Matrix 1000 and a Marion Pro Synth (doen by Tom Oberheim too).
Ingo

I saw the Marions when it was launched - even had a meeting with Tom Oberheim that year in the Musikmesse, but never tried it. Some say that it is very much like the Matrix-12, but I have some doubts, since there are not so many envelopes, LFOs, ramps, lags, etc. Besides, AFAIK, Tom had little to do with the creation of the Xpander/Matrix-12, and he is not very fond of it (he told me so personally). Perhaps because it was never his baby.

[Ingonator]

AFAIK MachFive 3 (and the UVI Workstation) contain filters of the Matrix 12 while i don't know how accurate those are.
Ingo

There are some similarly configured filters in UVI/Mach Five, eys, but, AFAIR from when I worked with a Matrix-12, the sound is not there. Bear in mind that the Xpander/Matrix-12 is way more than the filters, and, as often, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. It's amazing what the Oberheim engineers did squeeze out of such low rated components.

Indeed. As already mentioned my me and other the Matrix 1 seems to be one of the best (if not THE best ) polyphonic analog synths.

A complete emulation would indeed be very difficult which should be one reason why it is not done so far. I do not think that the reason is that it is not worth to do it.

AFAIk Urs owns a Matrix 12 (which AFAIK was broken and repaired).


Ingo

[Ingonator]

... i just had the Matrix 1000 and a Marion Pro Synth (doen by Tom Oberheim too).
Ingo

I saw this when it was launched - even had a meeting with Tom Oberheim that year in the Musikmesse, but never tried it. Some say that it is very much like the Matrix-12, but I have some doubts, since there are not so many envelopes, LFOs, ramps, lags, etc. Besides, AFAIK, Tom had little to do with the creation of the Xpander/Matrix-12, and he is not very fond of it (he told me so personally). Perhaps because it was never his baby.

There are many huge differences. The most obvious are that the Matrix 12 had VCOs and a shitload of filter modes while the smaller Matrix modules (and the Pro Synth too) had DCOs and just a LPF (only a 24dB LPF in the Matrix 1000, no 12 dB version).

In terms of modulations the Matrix 1000 and Pro Synth indeed had a lot of options (20 mod souces, 32 targets). The Matrix 1000 had 3 envelopes, 2 Ramp generators, 3 LFOs and a lag generator.
The Matrix 1000 was based on the Curtis CEM-3396 chip which is like a "synth in a chip" approach:
http://www.synthtech.com/cem/c3396pdf.pdf


From what i remember OBXD seems to sound superior compared to the Matrix 1000 (while it does not have the same modulation options).


Ingo

[fmr]

AFAIk Urs owns a Matrix 12 (which AFAIK was broken and repaired).
Ingo

I think Urs is considering creating some modules based on the Matrix-12 for Zebra 3, but, as he told several times, he is not interested in creating emulations, so, the other possibility would be the integration of some modules of the Xpander/Matrix-12 (namely the filters) in DIVA. This would already be great, but without that complex operating system, and the huge amount of modulators coupled with the 20 point matrix, it would hardly be close.

[crimsonwarlock]

2dat should do a Synthex next

I am a big fan of Xils Lab Synthix (in fact a fan of all Xils Lab synths)...

A new Synthex emulation would only make sense if it sounds even more authentic than Synthix already does (fwiw Synthix already got zero delay feedback filters). For that it would be necessary to own the real thing IMO. Xils Lab did not own a Synthex themselves AFAIK but they had contact to the creator of the original factory sounds (Paul Wiffen) and also played with he real thing together with him.

My favorite filter in Synthix is the 6dB BPF which sounds different to other BPFs i know.


Ingo

I was just kidding of course. I haven't even started testing OBXD myself (but I'm following this topic daily). I'm one of those users that think you can get by with just a bunch of deep synths and a few very characteristic ones in addition (hence my interest in OBXD). I'm not that much interested in exact emulations of certain patches but rather make my own patches based on what a track needs. I don't need a whole stack of (close) emulations of old hardware, although with free stuff like SQ8L, PG8x and now OBXD we are pretty spoiled (and they are all very different and therefor complementary to each other).

[vurt]

I don't see the point of 2Dat creating a Synthex emulation.

because he might want to?
because done well it would get him more job offers?
because not everyone is willing to deal with other companies that already have one?
because he sees it as a challenge?

theres 4 possible reasons he may choose to do such a thing, without even thinking.

[EvilDragon]

Playing a bit with this latest version, here are my thoughts:

* It is sorely missing negative filter envelope amount

* It is sorely missing bipolar detune and oscillator pitch controls

* It is sorely missing continous keyboard tracking

* It is sorely missing continuous pitch bend range adjustment

* Ctrl+click or doubleclick on knobs should bring default values - this is a massive oversight

* Clicking on CLEAR button should be momentary, not a toggle (at least it seems to me that way)

* Clicking the BP button when 24dB button is enabled, it would be awesome if we would get a 4-pole bandpass, not just 4-pole lowpass.

* I agree with whoever mentioned that PITCH in LFO section is mislabeled. It should be DEPTH.

* "Transpose" doesn't transpose in semitones but only octaves? Then the control should be called OCTAVE, not TRANSPOSE. Alternatively, actually make the knob transpose in semitones as it should have done so from the start!

[fmr]

Playing a bit with this latest version, here are my thoughts:

* It is sorely missing negative filter envelope amount

* It is sorely missing bipolar detune and oscillator pitch controls

* It is sorely missing continous keyboard tracking

* It is sorely missing continuous pitch bend range adjustment

* Ctrl+click or doubleclick on knobs should bring default values - this is a massive oversight

* Clicking on CLEAR button should be momentary, not a toggle (at least it seems to me that way)

* Clicking the BP button when 24dB button is enabled, it would be awesome if we would get a 4-pole bandpass, not just 4-pole lowpass.

* I agree with whoever mentioned that PITCH in LFO section is mislabeled. It should be DEPTH.

* "Transpose" doesn't transpose in semitones but only octaves? Then the control should be called OCTAVE, not TRANSPOSE. Alternatively, actually make the knob transpose in semitones as it should have done so from the start!

Many of these things were aledy mentioned, and will probably be addressed in a future version 2.0 As of now, features are frozen, according to 2Dat.
But it's always good to have more input

[EvilDragon]

Great! I didn't really want to scan through 10 pages back.