Synapse Audio OBSESSION is now available!

[AnX]

I have put up a bank of 80 (free) patches for your delectation. Most of them are rejects from the factory bank but it also includes the few that are in there, with enhancements (to utilise features that were added later in the beta process). To plump it up to 80 I also created a few new patches using Orion's Genetics feature to get them started. That's where the weird shit happens.

Most of the leads and drones plus some of the pads, are in the darker/heavier style you might expect but a lot of the rest of them aren't at all so there should be sounds in there for everyone. Going through them this morning to level the outputs and make sure it wasn't too samey, I was surprised a few times by how huge OBSession can sound without having to use Unison. It's really quite amazing, probably a bigger single voice sound than any other synth I have access to.

Have at it - https://www.kvraudio.com/banks.php?s=one&id=3440

good work, 90 downloads too, top of the shop!

[v1o]

This notion that different models of synths from the same brand have a family sound is a fraud. There is no such thing as a Roland, Moog or an Oberheim sound character. If you had to perform a blind test to positively identify synths that come from the same manufacturer, out of a random sampling of synths from different decades, you would fail.

[Richard_Synapse]

This notion that different models of synths from the same brand have a family sound is a fraud. There is no such thing as a Roland, Moog or an Oberheim sound character. If you had to perform a blind test to positively identify synths that come from the same manufacturer, out of a random sampling of synths from different decades, you would fail.

Yes, with a random sample it is impossible for sure. Some synths by different brands are almost identical (e.g. sharing the exact same Curtis chips). And Roland in particular has used a wide range of technology over the decades, both in their analog and digital synths.

Richard

[Noumena]

what a weird thing to say. You could create a test that would be hard to pass, but I can call a Roland vs Prophet vs Oberheim to a high degree of certainty when listening to a track. Sure, Rolands have sounded different over time, but the sound of a mixed pulse/saw DCO hitting that filter hard def has a "sound" while the way the Oberheims pad their filters has a very distinctive sound. And a ladder filter on a Moog is def identifiable.

[chk071]

I agree. I guess the opinion that they're indistinguishable hails from simple one oscillator sawtooth sounds through a open filter, like some use to compare synths. Well, that's definitely not the way to identify, or define character. Try a filter sweep with high resonance. Try some fast snappy decay times with high resonance. Detune a couple of oscillators, and do a filter sweep. That will make it much easier to notice the differences, and the character of different synths.

Pretty positive that I could distinguish a Oberheim, Roland or Moog synth that way.

Fitting to the topic: I've recently watched a comparison video or the Arturia and the Brainworx SEM from the praised Starsky Carr on Youtube. When it came to the most important part, the filter, he said "Well... let's get this over quickly...", and covered the filter in 20 seconds, not even going into much resonant territory, or doing multiple comparisons with and without filter envelope and different resonance nevels, LMAO... seriously, that's not a comparison, that's a joke. I wished there were people who are more competent doing those comparisons. The filter is one of the most, if not THE most important part of a synthesizer. Totally disregarding it is the worst idea ever.

[e-crooner]

This notion that different models of synths from the same brand have a family sound is a fraud. There is no such thing as a Roland, Moog or an Oberheim sound character. If you had to perform a blind test to positively identify synths that come from the same manufacturer, out of a random sampling of synths from different decades, you would fail.

Yes, with a random sample it is impossible for sure. Some synths by different brands are almost identical (e.g. sharing the exact same Curtis chips). And Roland in particular has used a wide range of technology over the decades, both in their analog and digital synths.

Richard

I posted it before, but got no answer. Is this attack behavior normal? When I play a couple of low notes and then high notes, the number of low notes I played before results in an attack bump on the same number of high notes, then it's gone.
And vice versa of course, i.e. first high notes, then low notes.
Is it supposed to be like that?
I recorded it:
https://app.box.com/s/zsxup5z8q0qa0lif9pdbjnbkb6y7y52l

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I agree. I guess the opinion that they're indistinguishable hails from simple one oscillator sawtooth sounds through a open filter, like some use to compare synths. Well, that's definitely not the way to identify, or define character. Try a filter sweep with high resonance. Try some fast snappy decay times with high resonance. Detune a couple of oscillators, and do a filter sweep. That will make it much easier to notice the differences, and the character of different synths.

...The filter is one of the most, if not THE most important part of a synthesizer. Totally disregarding it is the worst idea ever.

Totally agree. This is my big pet peeve with comparison videos. They'll spend 15 minutes comparing waveforms with the filters wide open. That probably warrants 1 minute max. The waveforms are right or wrong. Doesn't take more than a scope to figure that out.

The filter, the resonance, crossmod (or other audiorate mod), the interaction with the VCA and envelopes...that's what makes or breaks a synth. I'd rather hear patch comparisons that are well tweaked honestly. At least after hearing a few plucks, snappy resonant basslines, big ass filter sweeps with resonance, crossmod bells, filter FM...that's where you'll hear the differences. Too much time on some videos spent on the "saw a...saw b...saw a...saw b...." Slow pads with no resonance? Nope. Simple Key sounds with not much happening with the envelope or filter? Nope. Chunky sync lead patch? Now we're talking. Max resonance sweeps? Yes please. Something that shows off how fast and aggressive [deep] the envelopes get? Hell yes.

[BONES]

Whilst I agree completely with your post, my pet peeve with videos is that the idiots who make them are far more interested in being first to post, rather than providing the best information. I saw an OBSession video the other day where the guy hadn't even worked out how to use it before he started passing judgement on it. e.g. You could see how he was troubled by the three states of the OSC 2 button in the filter but he just kept glossing over it, pressing it twice to get the LED fully bright, without ever working out what it was doing. It just means that once everyone else has the synth, he'll look like a complete idiot for not bothering to RTFM before he made the video.

I agree. I guess the opinion that they're indistinguishable hails from simple one oscillator sawtooth sounds through a open filter, like some use to compare synths. Well, that's definitely not the way to identify, or define character. Try a filter sweep with high resonance. Try some fast snappy decay times with high resonance. Detune a couple of oscillators, and do a filter sweep. That will make it much easier to notice the differences, and the character of different synths.

Of course but it's a test designed to show that up. In normal, everyday use it will be almost impossible to work out which synth plays any specific part in a song arrangement.

The filter is one of the most, if not THE most important part of a synthesizer. Totally disregarding it is the worst idea ever.

Sometimes and, again, in specific circumstances. But if you look at a synth like DUNE, it sounds great no matter which of its multiple filter designs you use. The Alesis Micron also had around 50 different filter types but you could make it sound great using any of them. Where filters come into their own is in instruments like the SEM, where the ability to morph between states allows it to do things you just can't do with other filters. Most of the time, though, the oscillators are the most important single part of a synth and establish its sound. Even the envelopes can play a significant role. But mostly it's the way all these things come together that really makes one synth different to another and, as often as not, it's where an instrument fails that establishes its uniqueness as much as where it shines. e.g. At high resonance settings you'd pick a MiniMoog by the lack of bottom end.

[Richard_Synapse]

I posted it before, but got no answer. Is this attack behavior normal? When I play a couple of low notes and then high notes, the number of low notes I played before results in an attack bump on the same number of high notes, then it's gone.
And vice versa of course, i.e. first high notes, then low notes.
Is it supposed to be like that?
I recorded it:
https://app.box.com/s/zsxup5z8q0qa0lif9pdbjnbkb6y7y52l

That's portamento. And yes such effects are typical for analog synths with a fixed number of voice boards that are always active, just waiting to get (re-)triggered. Conceptually such synths are very different from most digital synths/samplers, which will give perfectly static and predictable behavior on each key press, as they simply keep firing new voices.

Richard

[urosh]

Thanks ! I'd be really interested in the technical explanation (same goes for the filter, "musical filter", I hear it a lot but I have no idea what does it mean).

Set Obsession to init patch, turnoff both oscillators, set filter to 4 pole, resonance to maximum and then boost it in mod matrix (const->reso, max amount). Filter will self-oscillate in higher registers. Now do slow filter sweep with env. You'll notice that self-oscillation dies out in lower registers. That's how 3320 behaves (likely because gain of each filter stage dips a bit at low cutoff control voltage due the rather low output impedance of variable gain cell).
IMHO this contributes to two favorable traits, sounding controlled and open at high resonance settings, because huge reso boosts in lows and low mids tend to cause masking issues.

[e-crooner]

I posted it before, but got no answer. Is this attack behavior normal? When I play a couple of low notes and then high notes, the number of low notes I played before results in an attack bump on the same number of high notes, then it's gone.
And vice versa of course, i.e. first high notes, then low notes.
Is it supposed to be like that?
I recorded it:
https://app.box.com/s/zsxup5z8q0qa0lif9pdbjnbkb6y7y52l

That's portamento. And yes such effects are typical for analog synths with a fixed number of voice boards that are always active, just waiting to get (re-)triggered. Conceptually such synths are very different from most digital synths/samplers, which will give perfectly static and predictable behavior on each key press, as they simply keep firing new voices.

Richard

You mean it's a different type of portamento? I had the portamento knob set to zero in my audio file.
Even if it is normal as you say, I don't like it. Oberheim probably didn't like it, either, but it might have been an unavoidable issue resulting from individual components.

Just downloaded and checked the Diva demo, I don't hear that behavior there. Maybe U-he forgot to emulate that behavior

[AnX]

uhe haven't done an obxa clone

[urosh]

I posted it before, but got no answer. Is this attack behavior normal? When I play a couple of low notes and then high notes, the number of low notes I played before results in an attack bump on the same number of high notes, then it's gone.
And vice versa of course, i.e. first high notes, then low notes.
Is it supposed to be like that?
I recorded it:
https://app.box.com/s/zsxup5z8q0qa0lif9pdbjnbkb6y7y52l

Filter tracking engaged in this patch, am I correct?

[e-crooner]

I posted it before, but got no answer. Is this attack behavior normal? When I play a couple of low notes and then high notes, the number of low notes I played before results in an attack bump on the same number of high notes, then it's gone.
And vice versa of course, i.e. first high notes, then low notes.
Is it supposed to be like that?
I recorded it:
https://app.box.com/s/zsxup5z8q0qa0lif9pdbjnbkb6y7y52l

Filter tracking engaged in this patch, am I correct?

It happens with and without filter tracking.

[Richard_Synapse]

Well if you remove all the "weirdness" from analog synths, there is not much left to emulate. That's precisely what most people love about those synths and associate with warmth, depth etc

Richard