Any VST Synth VS Oberheim OB-6

[chk071]

I did some further tests in Diva. If you fire up Diva, pick the Jupiter 8 starter, and change the filter to the Uhbie, you can get in the ballpark of that sound. Also, some 2-pole lowpass filters can get in the ballpark for some sounds. One trick to make the filter sing a bit is to be in the lower cutoff freq range and use lower amounts of filter env, something like 20-40%, while having a relatively high resonance setting. I tried a similar trick with an analog hardware 2-pole and also got in the general ballpark, for that gritty hollow sound. By no means a 1 to 1 but capturing the general character of the sound.

Just wondering, but... what would be the oscillators in Diva which are the closest to the SEM/OB-X?

[wagtunes]

Hard to quantify this, without having an OB-6 in front of you - but there are (not so) subtle timbre differences when you're listening directly to the output of the OB v. compressed video audio (YouTube). An example, if you get a chance to sit down with an OB-6, is to find a lead patch. Listen to it, then try it with Unison and some detune, (if it is not already on - or turn these off, if they are already on). Then listen. It's the same basic timbre, but with a unison detune/spread - is often brought to a completely different level. Seriously, from OK to fricken explosive. This is one little example. It would probably be difficult to hear the difference via YouTube audio - but definitely unmistakable in person. Its the last mile stuff though... the last 15-20% of timbres that are easily squeezed out of an OB-6.

I would be interested in hearing some Wagtunes examples of OB-6 versus soft-synths. I am certain there are some timbres which could be made close. I did em myself. The OB-6 though, has the possibility of taking more things, in greater direction, imo and experience.

Basing opinion of the OB sound on compressed youtube soundbites? Well done.

TBH, i never understood why someone wouldn't be able to judge a synth's base sound by Youtube videos. A Moog sounds like a Moog, a Oberheim sounds like a Oberheim, and a TB-303 sounds like a 303, regardless of 192 kbit/s MP3. Basically, what you are saying is that nobody would be able to judge whether the music he listens to is any good, because, everything on the net comes MP3 encoded these days.

No comprende, really.

Whether or not it is wise to judge before you got your own hands on with the synth is another topic.

And in a vacuum, I would probably agree with you. But in the context of a mix, with EQ, compression, layering, FX and everything else that goes into a mix, who is gonna know the difference? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Sure, if you get your jollies turning knobs and sliders and listening to some beast live in your studio and you've got $3,000 to plunk down on a synth, God bless you. Go for it. But I make music that, for the most part, nobody would be able to tell if I used an OB-6 or any other high quality soft synth, nor would they care. If the song sounds good, that's the ball game for most people and not how you got to the end result.

[chk071]

Hard to quantify this, without having an OB-6 in front of you - but there are (not so) subtle timbre differences when you're listening directly to the output of the OB v. compressed video audio (YouTube). An example, if you get a chance to sit down with an OB-6, is to find a lead patch. Listen to it, then try it with Unison and some detune, (if it is not already on - or turn these off, if they are already on). Then listen. It's the same basic timbre, but with a unison detune/spread - is often brought to a completely different level. Seriously, from OK to fricken explosive. This is one little example. It would probably be difficult to hear the difference via YouTube audio - but definitely unmistakable in person. Its the last mile stuff though... the last 15-20% of timbres that are easily squeezed out of an OB-6.

TBH, i'm doubtful. Most people aren't even able to tell which synth is the analog original synth a software emulation is based on, in a A/B test, as the A/B comparison Diva to the Behringer Model D showed once again. OK, from your point of view you could argue again that it isn't possible to judge that in a Youtube video , but, frankly, i doubt that many are really able to tell the difference. When the Faunhofer MP3 codec was developed, they did loads of blind tests, and, there were very few people who could hear the difference, and, mostly those people had some kind of hearing damage, which led to the psychoacoustics being messed up for them.

If you can hear a massive difference, kudos to you, i'm sure the general population won't.

[Sound Mechanics]

I've listened to more A/B testings than I should have but I still can't resist a new one when it come along... it's fun I guess, especially if it's done well.
I've finally settled in my mind that listeners would not always pick the hardware over the software as 'sounding better' so it's down to how much money you have, wanting the real machine sitting on your table, needing a synth for live use or still believing it 'sounds better'. I was listening to Any McClusky from OMD yesterday loving the fact that when you close your DAW at the end of the day it opens next day exactly the same... no rewiring or setting things up again, having to remember this or that.
He sighed with relief!

[HypersonicNinja]

Try getting this song to have the same impact played on a piano. Good luck with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57HicYcY4Ow

Is this version any good? I'm not familiar with the song, but it seemed to have a good response from the Genesis fans on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DybNmWqjTsM

[wagtunes]

Try getting this song to have the same impact played on a piano. Good luck with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57HicYcY4Ow

Is this version any good? I'm not familiar with the song, but it seemed to have a good response from the Genesis fans on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DybNmWqjTsM

He's a very nice pianist but, in a word, no. It does not have nearly the same feel, impact or anything. It sounds just like any other solo piano piece.

[jdoo]

TBH, i'm doubtful. Most people aren't even able to tell which synth is the analog original synth a software emulation is based on, in a A/B test, as the A/B comparison Diva to the Behringer Model D showed once again. OK, from your point of view you could argue again that it isn't possible to judge that in a Youtube video , but, frankly, i doubt that many are really able to tell the difference. When the Faunhofer MP3 codec was developed, they did loads of blind tests, and, there were very few people who could hear the difference, and, mostly those people had some kind of hearing damage, which led to the psychoacoustics being messed up for them.

If you can hear a massive difference, kudos to you, i'm sure the general population won't.

I'll drop this now - but wanted to say, you're nearly making my point for me. Listening over a YouTube compressed audio, it's often difficult to hear sonic differences in timbres. In person - the differences can be striking. Again, it's the last 20% that I'm talking to - not a general feel for a timbre. Certainly, one can get close with emulations, particularly if youre listening within a mix, or over internet video. For capturing playback audio - depending on expected media, you definitely want highest fidelity, imo. Close is close. Maybe even crappy emulations are 'good enough' if someone is targeting YouTube compressed audio output. I understand both sides of this discussion, was just pushing back on the premise that 'any' VST could sonically match what comes from an OB-6. Maybe over crappy speakers, in a compressed YouTube audio, Wags has a point.

[chk071]

Just saying, but... when Fraunhofer developed the MP3 codec, and made loads of lind tests with their students, MP3 128 kb/s was considered CD quality, which fooled more than 95 % of the listeners (if i recall the numbers correctly...). In 2019, we have up to 320 kb/s MP3, and the audio in Youtube HQ quality vids is 192 kb/s variable bit rate, i think. I really don't know when mankind developed platinum ears. The speakers and all surely have gotten better, but, i'm sure 95 % of the general population still can't figure out the difference between uncompressed audio, and MP3. And, the 5 % rest surely don't consist entirely of audiophiles with premium speakers as well, but, as in the test the Fraunhofer institute did, there's surely also people who have unusual hearing, or hearing issues, which makes them more perceptive to the differences.

YMMV, but, i can't hear the difference between uncompressed audio and MP3 320 kb/s. Probably can't hear the difference between uncompressed and 192 kb/s as well. And, i wouldn't say i have a total crap hearing.

[Tj Shredder]

Try getting this song to have the same impact played on a piano. Good luck with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57HicYcY4Ow

Is this version any good? I'm not familiar with the song, but it seemed to have a good response from the Genesis fans on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DybNmWqjTsM

He's a very nice pianist but, in a word, no. It does not have nearly the same feel, impact or anything. It sounds just like any other solo piano piece.

Before listening to that piano version I would have agreed to you, you asked for impact. Especially if you know the original, this version is stunning in any respect (what an impact). And it shows how complex this composition is, it does not need to hide behind a Beethoven sonata...
Of course also the orchestra version of the „pictures at an exhibition“ does have a different feel than the piano version as well as the ELP version. Impact often is in the performance obviously...
That the sound and feel of different arrangements is different is obvious I guess...

[wagtunes]

Try getting this song to have the same impact played on a piano. Good luck with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57HicYcY4Ow

Is this version any good? I'm not familiar with the song, but it seemed to have a good response from the Genesis fans on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DybNmWqjTsM

He's a very nice pianist but, in a word, no. It does not have nearly the same feel, impact or anything. It sounds just like any other solo piano piece.

Before listening to that piano version I would have agreed to you, you asked for impact. Especially if you know the original, this version is stunning in any respect (what an impact). And it shows how complex this composition is, it does not need to hide behind a Beethoven sonata...
Of course also the orchestra version of the „pictures at an exhibition“ does have a different feel than the piano version as well as the ELP version. Impact often is in the performance obviously...
That the sound and feel of different arrangements is different is obvious I guess...

Well, everybody's tastes are different. For me, there is no comparison. And there is really nothing more to say than that.

[e-crooner]

Just saying, but... when Fraunhofer developed the MP3 codec, and made loads of lind tests with their students, MP3 128 kb/s was considered CD quality, which fooled more than 95 % of the listeners (if i recall the numbers correctly...). In 2019, we have up to 320 kb/s MP3, and the audio in Youtube HQ quality vids is 192 kb/s variable bit rate, i think. I really don't know when mankind developed platinum ears. The speakers and all surely have gotten better, but, i'm sure 95 % of the general population still can't figure out the difference between uncompressed audio, and MP3. And, the 5 % rest surely don't consist entirely of audiophiles with premium speakers as well, but, as in the test the Fraunhofer institute did, there's surely also people who have unusual hearing, or hearing issues, which makes them more perceptive to the differences.

YMMV, but, i can't hear the difference between uncompressed audio and MP3 320 kb/s. Probably can't hear the difference between uncompressed and 192 kb/s as well. And, i wouldn't say i have a total crap hearing.

To me 128 kbps mp3's sound just fine
My playlist has songs in a wild mix of formats, I don't hear which is 128, 256 or 320. I have to check the display in the audio player.

[chk071]

I guess I have to do a proper test for myself one day. I'm curious whether or not and when I will hear a difference. So far, it really all sounded the same to me. Unless the bitrate really gets low.

[zerocrossing]

Obviously emulating an analog takes lots of cpu so thats one of the benefits of having real hardware...

I’ve sort of fallen into a way of working where my effects are almost single handedly done ITB, but some of them can be very resource hungry, as can the better analog synth emulations. I remember trying to see if I could emulate the sound of the Modal 002 using Diversion, and I got very close... but I had to keep the oversampling so high, to attain the same quality, that I brought my i7 to its knees doing more than a few voices at a time. I wasn’t even running anything else at the time. I know I could have lowered the oversampling and just rendered at a higher quality, but I do music for myself, and I want it to sound amazing as I’m playing, not so much caring about the quality of the final product.

Now I run that 002 though a Behringer X-Air Mixer for it’s effects (and to deal with the 002’s odd hard panned outputs) and I have a 12 voice hybrid that sounds amazing and it doesn’t take a CPU cycle to run. Maybe there are faster processors now that could run 12 voices of Diversion at high quality, and a bunch of effects plugins at the same time, but I feel like I have found a way of working that just plain and simply works with no fuss. I know at some point in the future, CPUs will be fast enough to get me exactly what I want. I’ll probably abandon my hardware at that point, but until then, I find it useful.

[e-crooner]

I guess I have to do a proper test for myself one day. I'm curious whether or not and when I will hear a difference. So far, it really all sounded the same to me. Unless the bitrate really gets low.

Just bought like two dozen mp3's (mostly 320 kbps), they sound fantastic to me. Whatever got lost with that lossy format, fine with me I hear absolutely no difference to a wav, not even on my analytical headphones.

[tasty tatsyn]

I'm sorry but to me as many examples i listen to, P.ex: Bandcamp/soundcloud sound diferent from one another, even both being MP3 Streams

Granted!...In the end it won't make the original synth or mixing/mastering any better !!!!!!!!

but we also have to take in consideration there's specific technics to make things sound better, one i can recall is special software to make Youtube videos stream Hi quality Audio by replacing the Audio after posting the Video in the platform

something also relevant is the uncompreseed format vs the end coded format and who does it,
I'm almost sure a 24 Bit Wav 44.1 to a 128 Bitrate MP3 end result is not the same as 16 Bit 48Khz as source

I'm sure there's a lot of other little tricks

... just as an example
https://tatsyn.bandcamp.com/track/archangels-rain
https://soundcloud.com/tatsyn/archangel ... se-version