Upcoming Synapse OB-Xa: Obsession

[zvenx]

Interesting....
rsp

[TheMaestro]

If in a blind test people can't tell the difference between the analog hardware and DIVA then you can certainly say DIVA sounds analog.

There WAS a difference. That's why they chose Diva.

So there was a tiny difference. That doesn't mean DIVA doesn't "sound analog" whatever that means.

So basically what you're saying is that the analog hardware was inferior because people preferred DIVA?

Ok that I can agree on.

Let's hope people find OBsession equally superior to the hardware.

If OBsession sounds better than the hardware will you say it doesn't "sound analog?
Well, then it would'nt sound like the hardware, would it.

You're confusing "sounds exactly like" with "sounds analog", again whatever that means.

So there was a tiny difference. That doesn't mean DIVA doesn't "sound analog" whatever that means.
It means it didn't sound like the hardware.

So basically what you're saying is that the analog hardware was inferior because people preferred DIVA?

No. No one has said that.

[TheMaestro]

And why anyone mentions Diva when talking about emulations is beyond me.
It doesn't sound analog. In a blind test between Diva and analog hardware, people chose Diva as the analog hardware.

This is easily the single funniest thing I've ever read on this board. Diva doesn't sound analog because in a blind test people thought it sounded more analog than the analog synth.

Wow, this has got to be U-He's new marketing material. "Doesn't sound analog... Sounds more analog than analog!"

Who said it sounded more analog? Reading comprehension is a thing.

[TheMaestro]

There WAS a difference. That's why they chose Diva.

And did they not chose Diva as their guess as to which was the analog hardware synth?

Exactly. Yes they did.

[vurt]

There WAS a difference. That's why they chose Diva.

And did they not chose Diva as their guess as to which was the analog hardware synth?

Exactly. Yes they did.

so they chose diva as sounding more analog?

[chk071]

I somehow lost the plot.

[zvenx]

I somehow lost the plot.

lol
I can guarantee it is not just you
rsp

[chk071]

[Yorrrrrr]

DIVA could not really replace OBsession for me for what that one is able to do. Same is true about Repro-5 while this is based on the same CEM chips as in the OB-Xa but besides other differences in the sound it does not include the state variable 2-pole Lowpass filter (and also misses some features found in OBsession).

Not to mention Obsession cpu usage is way lower than Repro-5!

Yes that is true. Much lower CPU usage especially with multiple instances.

I don't know what magic Richard applies to achieve such good CPU usage. Same quality as RePro, but RePro is a hog.

[vurt]

I somehow lost the plot.

is it behind the sofa?

[wagtunes]

I somehow lost the plot.

is it behind the sofa?

I think it's in the cemetery.

[zvenx]

DIVA could not really replace OBsession for me for what that one is able to do. Same is true about Repro-5 while this is based on the same CEM chips as in the OB-Xa but besides other differences in the sound it does not include the state variable 2-pole Lowpass filter (and also misses some features found in OBsession).

Not to mention Obsession cpu usage is way lower than Repro-5!

Yes that is true. Much lower CPU usage especially with multiple instances.

I don't know what magic Richard applies to achieve such good CPU usage. Same quality as RePro, but RePro is a hog.

FTR I don't think Legend is the same quality as Repro-1 in HQ mode......

But have no reference to Obsession yet to compare it to Repro-5.

Sound is always personally indeed though, but Repro-1 is the best sounding synth I have ever owned or played.
Not to take anything away from The legend which indeed is really good sounding. (although I do prefer the sound of Monark, which alas is much more cumbersome to use).
my two cents
rsp

[TheMaestro]

There WAS a difference. That's why they chose Diva.

And did they not chose Diva as their guess as to which was the analog hardware synth?

Exactly. Yes they did.

so they chose diva as sounding more analog?

They thought it sounded like Nexus, in Reaper.

[Yorrrrrr]

DIVA could not really replace OBsession for me for what that one is able to do. Same is true about Repro-5 while this is based on the same CEM chips as in the OB-Xa but besides other differences in the sound it does not include the state variable 2-pole Lowpass filter (and also misses some features found in OBsession).

Not to mention Obsession cpu usage is way lower than Repro-5!

Yes that is true. Much lower CPU usage especially with multiple instances.

I don't know what magic Richard applies to achieve such good CPU usage. Same quality as RePro, but RePro is a hog.

FTR I don't think Legend is the same quality as Repro-1 in HQ mode......

But have no reference to Obsession yet to compare it to Repro-5.

Sound is always personally indeed though, but Repro-1 is the best sounding synth I have ever owned or played.
Not to take anything away from The legend which indeed is really good sounding. (although I do prefer the sound of Monark, which alas is much more cumbersome to use).
my two cents
rsp

To me Legend is up there with RePro (I love Repro too, especially 1) as far as quality. I don't think you can improve any further on any of them as far as an emulation goes. And Obsession is up there as well.

[Teksonik]

Reading comprehension is a thing.

Writing coherently is a thing too. You wrote:

And why anyone mentions Diva when talking about emulations is beyond me.
It doesn't sound analog. In a blind test between Diva and analog hardware, people chose Diva as the analog hardware.

You said DIVA doesn't "sound analog". I say that is utter rubbish and nonsense and your second sentence proves my point if you're able to comprehend.

But since you either won't or can't define what you mean by "sound analog" any further discussion is pointless.

Have a wonderful "analog" day.....