Upcoming Synapse OB-Xa: Obsession

[davidvilla]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe The Legend came out as a Reason Rack Extension first (the VSTi followed shortly thereafter), and seeing as both versions look exactly the same, Synapse developed the GUI having to work around Reason's rack space constraints. Obsession, using the same GUI framework, suffers because it has to work around these same RE space constraints. Synapse had the idea that Obsession would (possibly, most likely) also be a Rack Extension from the beginning, because he somewhat hinted about it on Reasontalk. So I think Obsession's GUI suffers from needing to be accommodating to the RE format. I hope they keep Reason out of the picture for their next synth and create a GUI where they're freed from the handcuffs. I mean it's not bad, but it could have been better.

[vertibration]

Perhaps it's so they could use the same GUI framework alleviating the need to create a new one. Perhaps that same framework could be used in the hinted on P600 and MemoryMoog emulations as well (if they are indeed planned).

I'd be disappointed if they use this square box format for a memorymoog vsti.

Why ? If the workflow is efficient and the sound is spot on why care ? The Legend doesn't look exactly like a MiniMoog. Do you really need an on GUI keyboard ?

If using a common GUI framework allows them to produce plugins in a more timely manner that seems like a win/win to me.

I agree with the keyboard at the bottom of a synth vst. I just dont see the point? I think their GUI is ok.....a guy is working on a Skin right now for Disco DSP OBXA that looks like the OB-6 and it looks really good if you check their skins thread on KVR. I would have liked to see more of an OB-6 style skin for the Obsession myself, but the video is vague, and I would like to see it myself once it comes out. I trust Synapse, and its going to sound really good, so I am going to buy it regardless. The Arturia version is just way too CPU hungry for me, and I have a really good PC.

[Yorrrrrr]

Some of you guys seem to be very nitpicky. Actually using Obsession, I don't face any issues with the GUI. It's all there, easily accessible and functional..just in a different place. Modulation on the center, yes..so what? The really important stuff, like oscillators, filters and envelopes, are still very close to each other at the bottom. Maybe it's just an aesthetics thing for some of you, and that's OK. You can dislike the aesthetics all you want, as it is subjective, no problem with that. But give it a chance. The plugin is quick and easy to use, while it sounds and behaves great., just like the real thing. And it also has some killer additional features when compared to the hardware.

[mholloway]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe The Legend came out as a Reason Rack Extension first (the VSTi followed shortly thereafter), and seeing as both versions look exactly the same, Synapse developed the GUI having to work around Reason's rack space constraints. Obsession, using the same GUI framework, suffers because it has to work around these same RE space constraints. Synapse had the idea that Obsession would (possibly, most likely) also be a Rack Extension from the beginning, because he somewhat hinted about it on Reasontalk. So I think Obsession's GUI suffers from needing to be accommodating to the RE format. I hope they keep Reason out of the picture for their next synth and create a GUI where they're freed from the handcuffs. I mean it's not bad, but it could have been better.

Great points for sure. And yeah, it's not terrible, it's not even bad, but somehow I just (like you) feel like it could have been much, much better, based on how it looks in the images we are seeing so far.

My favorite UI, fwiw, is Repro-5, because it beautifully captures the look+feel of the original while also integrating a small but nice new feature set. It's easy on the eyes, functional, and true to the source.

[mholloway]

Earlier, we got annoyed at beta-testers telling us how amazing it is while none of us get to use it; now we additionally get beta-testers telling us we aren't allowed to dislike the UI because we haven't used it. Cool, cool. It's the thread that keeps on giving.

But look, we can dislike a UI based purely on seeing an image of it. We are not required to use the synth to judge the UI's aesthetics and layout/arrangement.

[Echoes in the Attic]

Another far less expensive competitor that runs in Halion SE and sounds quite good. I can't wait to hear a shootout between the various OB emulations out there:

https://new.steinberg.net/rast-a/

I have HALion 6, think it's a wonderful product, but no way in hell does this sound like an OB-Xa. It sounds nice, don't get me wrong. But even they say it's not meant to be a one to one emulation and it's not. I can get these sounds right now out of my HALion 6 without buying Rast-A.

I'm confused as to how it's modeled inside Halion 6. They say it's modeled on the OB, oscs and filters. But it would have to be sampled, or use wavetables or the built-in oscs so I don't understand what's going on there.

HALion 6 has the capability of creating custom instruments. It's not for me because you need incredible patience and skill, kind of like with Reaktor. But it can be done.

With what functions? I used to own Halion 6. Every synth was just a front end for the existing oscillators and filters. There are the VA oscs, wavetable/resynthesis osc and sample/granular oscs. You can't model filters or oscillators in any module I knew about.

[revvy]

Arturia have def nailed the 'looks like an old HW synth' vibe, including the scuffed bits on bottom left which is pure cheeze IMO.

Sure Synapse will nail the sound.

Discussion is good, bunched up panties less so. Of course, we can and are judging what we want, it's a long thread with plenty of dissenting opinions.

[Teksonik]

Let it go man, our opinions do not have to match yours.

Of course not but I'm allowed to have my opinions without being told to "let it go".

I've already explained why having a common GUI framework may make it easier for Synapse to develop plugins in a more timely manner and why that could be a good thing for everyone.

No one else has explained why the Legend/Obsession framework is bad.

Just because you don't like the look ? Let it go man.

[BONES]

you know we have wide screens now, and there's no valid reason to shoe horn controls in to that format...

Depends on your host. I don't like my plugin GUIs to take up the whole screen, I like to be able to access other things without constantly having to close them and re-open them. So the actual shape is of zero relevance to me. Side-by-side or one above the other, I can still stick two on screen at once. The way I organise things in Orion definitely favours squarer windows, in Cubase it doesn't matter at all.

How successful was it compared to the repro suite from U-he?

Why is that relevant? In any event, those GUIs are just as square as these ones.

What's wrong with it? Just look at the layout. The modulation is front and center. When is the modulation the most important thing on a synth?

When is the most important thing on a synth shoved into the middle, not at one end or the other of the signal path? The parameter order simply follows the hardware, only on three "lines" instead of one. And if you look at signal flow charts, they tend to put the modulation sources above the oscillators and filter, so it's actually quite intuitive to place them there. But, you know, I've only been using it for 6 months so what would I know about how easy it is to work with. OTOH, you've seen a picture of it, so clearly you have a much better idea of that than I possibly could.

Why would the OSC and Filter be at the bottom?

Because they were last in the order of things on the hardware.

It's "burrying the lead" (e.g. putting the important stuff somewhere that isn't front and center).

But it is front and centre if, like me, you have the VSTi window open at the top of your screen so you can still access the mixer and piano rolls below it. i.e. It is closest to the other controls I am likely to want/need to adjust, outside the synth, while working with it. As it is not a standalone instrument, these considerations matter and, while I am sure it was completely unintentional, it works brilliantly in practice.

If they put the bottom third of the GUI on top, and the top two-thirds on the bottom, I'd at least have understood it.

You'd have to ask Oberheim why they did it the way they did.

You can't figure out why Minimoogs are revered but you think this GUI is "great even?"

Yes, because I've used it extensively, I am not merely speculating. And, for the record, I know exactly why Minimoogs are revered - it's no secret that people are pathetic and largely incapable of objective assessment. Any objective observer can see that.

Also, no one suggested it wasn't legible, or that it needed f*cking stripes. Stop with the straw man arguments.

Actually, at the time no-one had bothered to say why they didn't like the GUI and so I assumed they were disappointed it didn't look like the hardware. It would certainly never have occurred to me it was about the shape because that would be totally ridiculous.

The Legend follows the Minimoog layout almost exactly.

As does Obsession. Left to right, top to bottom, the parameter order is pretty much identical. The only changes are that the LFOs are horizontal, not vertical, and that everything is spread over three distinct 'layers" of controls, not just one long line of controls, which made sense when you have a 5 octave keyboard below it but doesn't really make sense on a computer screen.

It's the layout that makes no sense.

Talk to Oberheim about that, it is their parameter order that has been followed. If they had put the oscillators first, then I'm sure OBSession would have, too. But they didn't, they stuck the oscillators in the middle, after the global controls and LFOs. But, as I've said, it may look weird but it works really, really well in practice so don't obsess over it until you've had a chance to try it (pun intended).

My favorite UI, fwiw, is Repro-5, because it beautifully captures the look+feel of the original while also integrating a small but nice new feature set. It's easy on the eyes, functional, and true to the source.

RePro 5 is too big for me and if I shrink it down to a more acceptable size, I can't read any of the labels. I do like the design, though, it's just a lot less practical for me. OTOH, if OBSession and Legend had an even smaller skin, I'd probably use that because they are both a lot clearer.

If there is anything that bugs the bejeesus out of me with Legend and Obsession, it is having shit on the back panel. It drives me f**king nuts constantly going back and forth. At least the RePros don't have that problem.

[Teksonik]

the video is vague, and I would like to see it myself once it comes out.

That's all I'm trying to say. People are making assumptions based on a brief and glitzy demo.

Just wait until you get to see the real thing in action when the demo is released and then make up your mind.

[nirm123]

I do have to admit, I don't like the layout of Obsession at all. At least the Legend was close to the Mini. This is in a different universe and quite honestly, I don't get it.

And unless it comes out before June 9th, I probably won't.

the idea of an emulation layout having to strictly resemble the original synth is just plain silly.

the sound is what important, layout should be functional and contribute to the overall workflow experience which is much more important than giving you the cheap thrills of looking in a GUI exactly resembling an old favourite synth.

[Aliens]

Depends on your host. I don't like my plugin GUIs to take up the whole screen, I like to be able to access other things without constantly having to close them and re-open them. So the actual shape is of zero relevance to me. Side-by-side or one above the other, I can still stick two on screen at once. The way I organise things in Orion definitely favours squarer windows, in Cubase it doesn't matter at all.

My host is fine. How you work your ancient host is your business.
Using my screen shot from earlier, there shouldn't be a problem for any competent coder to get that to easily fit, even with a patch panel and added fx, if they weren't blinded by a concept that is. If you accept the Synapse way of doing it, making a clone fit so it's practically unrecognisable from the original, then again, that's great. I have no problem. Fortunately there are other synths to buy, so as always, the market will decide, so nothing to get in a defensive quote war over.

Why is that relevant? In any event, those GUIs are just as square as these ones.

It's relevant to basing a vsti on an existing instrument and having it look like a little bit like the thing it emulates, and I'm disputing whether the repro 5 is as square looking as the new Obx-a alike. It doesn't look like it at all, but then maybe Urs is better at putting things in boxes than Richard.

[Whywhy]

I love the Ui !
And I'm pretty sure, I will love the sound!
Can't wait!

[Aliens]

No one else has explained why the Legend/Obsession framework is bad.

Apart from it not looking like the thing it's based on, and bad hasn't really come up, has it? It's more like a little wtf is that vibe.
It may sound great, so that will be it's saving grace anyway, no matter what it looks like, even for those who were hoping for a full on Obx-a experience. I wouldn't discount it on looks alone, that would be stupid, especially as some photo realistic guis have awful synth engines underneath, but if there were a choice of designs, it would be interesting to see which was downloaded most.

[mholloway]

Let it go man, our opinions do not have to match yours.

Of course not but I'm allowed to have my opinions without being told to "let it go".

I've already explained why having a common GUI framework may make it easier for Synapse to develop plugins in a more timely manner and why that could be a good thing for everyone.

No one else has explained why the Legend/Obsession framework is bad.

Just because you don't like the look ? Let it go man.

You misunderstood -- I wasn't saying let go of liking the UI, that's your opinion of course. What I was asking you to let go of was your compulsion, as shown in this thread, to respond to every single person who said they dislike the UI by saying their reasons for disliking it were invalid. For example, I said I didn't like it, you replied and told me I couldn't dislike it yet because I hadn't used the synth. I call BS. Then you quoted other people who disliked it, telling them their evaluation was wrong or misguided, etc. Point being: let it go, just let us not like it, we don't need to be 'corrected' by you every time. Our opinion of disliking it is not the same as your opinion of thinking our opinion is wrong. If you really want to continue journeying down that rabbit hole, then I guess continue telling all the dislikers they are somehow wrong for forming that conclusion on their own. But it's incredibly tiresome. (As is this post, I fully realize, so I will quit now and focus on actual synth talk going forward).