Upcoming Synapse OB-Xa: Obsession

[AnX]

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth

the obvious answer is the sound, isn't that why anyone chooses a synth?

[fmr]

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth

the obvious answer is the sound, isn't that why anyone chooses a synth?

I'm also a fan of the Oberheim sound But... Compared to OB-X and OB-8.

[vurt]

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth

the obvious answer is the sound, isn't that why anyone chooses a synth?

so, what you are saying is, if i enjoy the sounds, the synth might well be one id like.
on the other hand if the sound doesnt excite me it not?

interesting theory, i shall have to look deeper in to this.

[AnX]

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth

the obvious answer is the sound, isn't that why anyone chooses a synth?

I'm also a fan of the Oberheim sound But... Compared to OB-X and OB-8.

never had all 3 to compare

obviously a few diff features opens up the sonic palette

[AnX]

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth

the obvious answer is the sound, isn't that why anyone chooses a synth?

so, what you are saying is, if i enjoy the sounds, the synth might well be one id like.
on the other hand if the sound doesnt excite me it not?

interesting theory, i shall have to look deeper in to this.

well, its still only a theory

[chk071]

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth

the obvious answer is the sound, isn't that why anyone chooses a synth?

I'm also a fan of the Oberheim sound But... Compared to OB-X and OB-8.

Judging by sound demos and comparison videos, I think the OB-X sounds the best of the bunch.

[e-crooner]

For the guys posting here_:

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth, and what features does it have to make it so?

2. Between OB-X, OB-Xa and OB-8, which one would you prefer?

3. Would you be satisfied with a strict emulation of OB-X, or would you prefer one that would merge OB-X, ON-Xa and OB-8 in a single instrument?

I am curious to know what will be your answers. Personally, I would rather go for the third hipothesis over anything else.

Frankly, I don't care which one. I don't even care whether it's an Oberheim or an SCI I never had any of those synths, so I can't compare nor do I remember some Oberheim mojo personally. All those classic poly synths sound rather similar to me.

[e-crooner]

free emulation discoDSP has taken over

OBXD is for kids. George has taken over nothing. he can't even handle the acid guy, who drops his acid feces on George whenever he desires.

big boys cool their ballsacks in a summer breeze and play OP-X Pro, which gets version 3 refreshment this year.

Rich's OB-Xa will be the new ballsack cooler.

carry on.

I just couldn't deal with the GUI of the OP-X Pro, frankly.

[fmr]

For the guys posting here_:

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth, and what features does it have to make it so?

2. Between OB-X, OB-Xa and OB-8, which one would you prefer?

3. Would you be satisfied with a strict emulation of OB-X, or would you prefer one that would merge OB-X, ON-Xa and OB-8 in a single instrument?

I am curious to know what will be your answers. Personally, I would rather go for the third hipothesis over anything else.

Frankly, I don't care which one. I don't even care whether it's an Oberheim or an SCI I never had any of those synths, so I can't compare nor do I remember some Oberheim mojo personally. All those classic poly synths sound rather similar to me.

You need to listen more carefully They may sound close in certain patches, but they certainly can (and do) sound very different from each other when explored.

The filter, for example. The OB-X features the SEM filter, while the OB-Xa and OB-8 have a regular LPF with 12dB and 24dB per octave (no Band-Pass, no High-Pass, no Notch, no dynamic changing between LPF and HPF).

[BONES]

1. Why do you think OB-Xa is a desireable synth, and what features does it have to make it so?

It's an interesting question because in this case it seems to be a matter of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. e.g. The filter is even worse than the Moog Ladder Filter when it comes to losing the bottom end at high resonance settings, yet somehow it manages to be a better filter overall. I should hate it but I don't. It has a really nice and quite distinctive sound to it that I think most people would like. It's also a fairly easy synth to work with so it's easy to feel that you are using all of its potential. I made around 30 patches for it in a couple of hours, which is a lot for me.

2. Between OB-X, OB-Xa and OB-8, which one would you prefer?

Whichever one had the SEM filter.

3. Would you be satisfied with a strict emulation of OB-X, or would you prefer one that would merge OB-X, ON-Xa and OB-8 in a single instrument?

I abhor the very idea of a strict emulation. As long as it captures the essence of the original, I think it should be made to be as good as it can be.

[fmr]

2. Between OB-X, OB-Xa and OB-8, which one would you prefer?

Whichever one had the SEM filter.

In that case, that would be the OB-X

[PAK]

Would you have 8 patch points for the 8 filters? How would that work?

Nah. Global. Even "cheap" synths like the Juno implemented a VCF jack. Since panel control (of all voices) is required you can choose to implement modulation points too. In theory you could provide assignable patch points which could route to individual voices, but I'd doubt that especially when cost is an issue, plus it'd add a lot of complexity to an early poly attempt..

Either way, they'll have to provide some way to vary individual voice timings as it's part of the sound signature. Will be interesting how that's approached in firmware or if they expect people to adjust loads of trim pots under the hood with a screwdriver.. Anyway, as pointed out, a bit OT, just thought I'd clarify.

[e-crooner]

You need to listen more carefully They may sound close in certain patches, but they certainly can (and do) sound very different from each other when explored.

The filter, for example. The OB-X features the SEM filter, while the OB-Xa and OB-8 have a regular LPF with 12dB and 24dB per octave (no Band-Pass, no High-Pass, no Notch, no dynamic changing between LPF and HPF).

Frankly, I think I am just not enough of a synth nerd to care about those differences.
I am merely hoping for a new, great-sounding, general-purpose poly synth that does all the sounds I want to program.

[pdxindy]

Would you have 8 patch points for the 8 filters? How would that work?

Nah. Global. Even "cheap" synths like the Juno implemented a VCF jack. Since panel control (of all voices) is required you can choose to implement modulation points too. In theory you could provide assignable patch points which could route to individual voices, but I'd doubt that especially when cost is an issue, plus it'd add a lot of complexity to an early poly attempt..

Either way, they'll have to provide some way to vary individual voice timings as it's part of the sound signature. Will be interesting how that's approached in firmware or if they expect people to adjust loads of trim pots under the hood with a screwdriver.. Anyway, as pointed out, a bit OT, just thought I'd clarify.

Thanks!

[wagtunes]

I owned Oberheims in the 90s but honestly, I can't tell the difference between any of the OB's. They all sound like Oberheims to me.