Upcoming Synapse OB-Xa: Obsession

[AnX]

no comment

[e-crooner]

I wonder to what extent the sound differences in the video linked result from diverging patch programming rather than a different base sound.

[BONES]

All I'm going to say is that I am about half-way through finishing the last song for our new album but when I get home from work, all I want to do is play with the new beta. I've made more patches for this synth than anything else I've owned in years, probably since I had to make banks for my SynthEdit creations 12 or 13 years ago. It sounds amazing and for something so seemingly simple, it can do a lot of really cool stuff. Rich and Marcin have done an amazing job on it, building on what they did with The Legend without just making another clone.

[mholloway]

It sounds amazing and for something so seemingly simple, it can do a lot of really cool stuff.

This is exactly how I describe TAL U-No-LX, their Juno 60 emulation, which ranks in my top 5 plugin synths of all time. So incredibly simple and straightforward, yet you can do so, so much with it (which of course would apply to a Juno 60 as well, but TAL added some really nice features that are subtle but important to expanding its powers). So, I like hearing this about the OB-Xa emulation, I'm really looking forward to it -- and hoping it nails that, uh, Oberheim Feeling

[Robmobius]

Looks like we might finally be getting a good OB vst. Bitchin'....

Not mad on Arturia's version tbh.

[JoeCat]

I have no opinion in the OB-X versus OB-Xa realm, I'm just excited that a company I really like is doing an Oberheim and it's *not* another SEM (Arturia and Brainworx have that area fully covered).

OP-X Pro II, the free OB-Xd and the Uhbie filter in Diva are based on the SEM design too.

Actually Arturia Matrix-12 so far seems to be the only other Oberheim emulation based on Curtis filter chips while those in the Matrix-12/Xpander are other chips than used in the OB-Xa/OB-8 and Prophet-5 Rev3.

Looks like the original 12 had the 3372 chip and the Matrix 6 (which I owned) had the 3396. I always thought the 6's LPF filter was the same as the 12 (without the other variations), but apparently the 3396 was considered kinda sh*tty compared to the 72.

From what I can find the OB-Xa was a 3320 which predates both. In any case, I thought those Curtis chips were basically the same LPF design with various tweaks / features, but it seems there was a real difference in sound.

Looking forward to this!

[BONES]

This is exactly how I describe TAL U-No-LX, their Juno 60 emulation, which ranks in my top 5 plugin synths of all time. So incredibly simple and straightforward, yet you can do so, so much with it (which of course would apply to a Juno 60 as well, but TAL added some really nice features that are subtle but important to expanding its powers).

If that's true then it can't be a very good emulation because the original Juno 60 was anything but versatile; one oscillator is way too limiting. Juno 60 to me is like a worse sounding Korg PolySix - it's great for what it can do but versatility is almost non-existent. I love the sound of Korg's PolySix VSTi, especially the filter, but I don't often find a good use for it because it either works or it doesn't. I never understood how anyone bought a Juno over PolySix, the Korg sounds so much better - better oscillator, better filter.

Anyway, at least the OB-Xa has two oscillators so you can actually do stuff with it.

[Ingonator]

For the records i am participating in the beta testing for the new OB-Xa plugin (like i did with Legend and DUNE 3) and besides that currently i also got those Oberheim emulations:

- OB-Xd (freeware)
- Arturia SEM V2
- Arturia Matrix-12 V2
- Uhbie filter in Diva
- OP-X Pro II demo version (had the full version some years ago)

The only Oberheim hardware synths that i owned in the past were a Matrix-1000, a Marion Pro Synth (created by Tom Oberheim) and an OB-12 virtual-analog synth (created by Viscount and branded as Oberheim).

[mholloway]

If that's true then it can't be a very good emulation because the original Juno 60 was anything but versatile; one oscillator is way too limiting. Juno 60 to me is like a worse sounding Korg PolySix - it's great for what it can do but versatility is almost non-existent. I love the sound of Korg's PolySix VSTi, especially the filter, but I don't often find a good use for it because it either works or it doesn't. I never understood how anyone bought a Juno over PolySix, the Korg sounds so much better - better oscillator, better filter.

Anyway, at least the OB-Xa has two oscillators so you can actually do stuff with it.

Wow Bones, even when I reply with nothing but total positivity to your post, you still reply with nothing but a useless stream contrarian negativity. I say I like a thing, you just have to start rambling about how that thing sucks. It must be so tiring to be you.

So with that said, let me offer my own observation: You must really suck at programing synths if you don't know how to get versatility out of a 1 osc synth like the Juno 60. First off, that single osc lets you stack 1. a sawtooth 2. a square wave (with PWM at that) 3. a sub osc square wave and 4. noise -- so you can try to write it off as 'one osc you can't do anything with', but sorry, facts and experience are against you here.

In summary: the synth is versatile, you aren't. End of story. But like a classic jackass, you naturally blame the gear instead of yourself.

[BONES]

Wow Bones, even when I reply with nothing but total positivity to your post, you still reply with nothing but a useless stream contrarian negativity.

That's because I don't care about who writes, only what is written, and I'd hate anyone to get the impression that this new synth might be as limited as a Juno 60. It's nothing personal so don't take it as such.

I say I like a thing, you just have to start rambling about how that thing sucks. It must be so tiring to be you.

It amazes me that people can take stuff like this personally, as if there is no separation between your opinions and yourself. I didn't have a go at you, I had a go at what you said. They are two different things.

So with that said, let me offer my own observation: You must really suck at programing synths if you don't know how to get versatility out of a 1 osc synth like the Juno 60. First off, that single osc lets you stack 1. a sawtooth 2. a square wave (with PWM at that) 3. a sub osc square wave and 4. noise -- so you can try to write it off as 'one osc you can't do anything with', but sorry, facts and experience are against you here.

And the cross-modulation opportunities are what, exactly? FM? No. Hard Sync? No. Ring Mod? No. They didn't even think to add a Unison mode. Juno -6 was really just a polyphonic SH 101, and I owned a 101 for many years, so I think I have a fair handle on what's possible.

What's really weird about it to me is that within a year or so of the Juno-6, Roland released the JX-3P, which was a much better synth in every way - two of the same oscillators as Juno with the same filter and VCA, plus full MIDI control - yet it languishes in Purgatory because nobody ever bought an old, used one and made a notable song with it. JX-3P was a real contender against synths like the OB-Series, for half the price, the Junos weren't in the same league.

In summary: the synth is versatile, you aren't. End of story.

Yes, that's very convincing. Yet, strangely, someone who owned the original said this of the emulation -
"This plugin takes me back, and playing it eases the pain and suffering I still feel from selling the original back in the day …"
"… Not the most versatile or dirty soft synth, but it's not meant to be".
He still gave it 5 stars, though, he just didn't need to believe it was more than it is to do that. You can read the review HERE.

Anyway, enough OT, suffice to say the OB-Xa is a much more versatile synth than any Juno and that is sure to be reflected in the emulation.

[christian f.]

Anyway, enough OT, suffice to say the OB-Xa is a much more versatile synth than any Juno and that is sure to be reflected in the emulation.

With that logic ... 12 string guitar is more versatile than a six string guitar. What a nonsense.

OB-XA with extra features sounds more like an OB-8 . I had both and kept the OB 8 which I still have because of these extra page 2 features.

The sound differences between OB-XA and OB-8 are kind of like the difference between a Juno 60 and Juno 106.

PS Juno 6/60/106 >>> Poly Six and JX3P any day

[V0RT3X]

You know I can’t wait for this. I’m a pretty big Oberheim Fan.

[Ingonator]

The sound differences between OB-XA and OB-8 are kind of like the difference between a Juno 60 and Juno 106.

PS Juno 6/60/106 >>> Poly Six and JX3P any day

As i already mentioned earlier in this thread the OB-Xa has two seperate circuits for the 2-pole and 4-pole LPFs (with 2 CEM 3320 filter chips per voice!!) where the 2-pole LPF has a SVF design which with using the seperate filter chip keeps most of the low end even at full resonance. The separate 4-pole LPF circuit is a 4-pole OTA cascade design.

The OB-8 has a 2-pole/4-pole LPF too but uses a single circuit for that (with a single CEM 3320 chip per voice).

Technically both approaches seem to create a 4-pole cascade LPF and 2-pole SVF filter but the resulting sound seems to be different while i have no idea how that difference is exactly, especially when using full filter resonance.

This is a comment about the OB-Xa and OB-8 filter that i found at Gearslutz:

As far as sound wise the main and most noticable difference between the 2 is in the filter. the xa filter has more resonance in it than the 8 does and will get far more shrill. osc wise they are the same with the 8 having more mod features and some extra tricks. the "rawness" of the sound isn't the difference. it's the gain staging in the xa is different than the 8 which means you can do the stupid rush tom sawyer patch on an xa and not on an 8. the xa resonance is more shrill on mid to high cutoff points and the 8 will act in a more standard way and reduce the volume overall at the mid to high cutoff when you use lots of res and not have the level of res effect it does at low cutoff points.

What i can say is that in the new OB-Xa plugin (and i am quite sure it should be similar in the hardware) the 2-pole SVF LPF keeps most of the low end even at full resonance while with the 4-pole LPF the low end gets less with more resonance (like in other OTA cascade filters and the Moog ladder filter).

[AnX]

As i already mentioned earlier in this thread...

don't let that stop you...

[revvy]

It'll be great, as are all synths designed by this dev.