Synapse Audio OBSESSION is now available!

[ScrLk]

A blind test is pointless and no one cares. Any comparison someone else offers is generated outside your own controlled environment where the composition phase happens.

I'm not sure about that. You can even create your own blind test.

Doing it well is tricky though. If the analog source is noisier then you can already tell.

[zwhita]

I suspect the 'problem' lies elsewhere

For me, the problem is digitally generated sound in general, vs. numerous recordings I have of my analogue synths to compare to. The behavior of Obsession is correct, but to me the tone is not. I felt this way about Diva, Repro, Monark, all of the newer VA's. I am monitoring through either a Rega Dac sourced from the PC's optical output or a Focusrite Scarlett gen2.

Can you call up a preset or give some settings that show the hazy midrange or metallic treble?...Same thing with the screechy bump you say you're hearing.

I would say all of them at higher filter cutoff have incorrectly balanced midrange and treble to me; this tonal flaw is present in many vst's and it does not appear in recordings of my outboard gear. The most extreme example I can think of this sound is anything released by Tone2. Admittedly, getting levels set right with Obsession seems trickier than most, but even then it still doesn't sound quite right.
"PL Fine Pluck RH" has a particularly noticeable screechy bump.

[zvenx]

So you are hearing limitations/flaws that the people at u-he, NI, Synapse Audio etc aren't hearing or saw in their scopes (unless they heard it and choose to ignore it)?
rsp

[XpanderDude]

I suppose we all hear things differently, and there is that misophonia component to it. I mean, I absolutely can't stand the sound of the Korg Minilogue, but some people adore it.

I've got some analogue hardware (Xpander, MKS70, Alpha Juno) and I am not particularly sensitive to anything in the 1-4Khz you mentioned. If this phenomenon were true, I'd be happy to record some patches so we can zero in on it.

[minkray]

there was a boy who picked up mistakes made by an orchestra that neither an orchestra or a conductor himself would notice, so the originality of the source doesn't always guarantee its absolute validity.

in other words, it's not like developers are never wrong. in fact, the opposite was proven far too many times for this to be true. it's tough for some of them to admit, though.

[zwhita]

I suppose we all hear things differently, and there is that misophonia component to it. I mean, I absolutely can't stand the sound of the Korg Minilogue, but some people adore it.

I've got some analogue hardware (Xpander, MKS70, Alpha Juno) and I am not particularly sensitive to anything in the 1-4Khz you mentioned. If this phenomenon were true, I'd be happy to record some patches so we can zero in on it.

The midrange unease is something I only associate with digital audio. Pretty sure it's my own subjective hearing and expectations. It wasn't my intention to say the developer did not do his job. I think Obsession behaves like an analogue polysynth in many admirable ways. I'm just having trouble deciding whether I want to pay $100 for it. I like OBX-d too(with additional processing, of course) but that one was freeware when I acquired it.

For polyphonic, I have an Alpha Juno 1(which I took the keys off, so I use it like a module) and a Prophet 6. I have an SH-101, TR-606, Polivoks and CS-15 all that I modified myself. 11 years ago I owned a Jupiter 8, but it had technical problems, so I sold it. The Jupiter made me kind of lazy and I tended to only noodle on it, so there are definitely impediments to having gear that can't sound bad!

Back in context to the thread, I do find the workflow and some of the controls fiddly, and many have mentioned the preset browser and gui could use some refinement but overall Obsession is a fine product. I may end up buying it after the trial ends if I can think of some creative uses for it.

[XpanderDude]

I suppose we all hear things differently, and there is that misophonia component to it. I mean, I absolutely can't stand the sound of the Korg Minilogue, but some people adore it.

I've got some analogue hardware (Xpander, MKS70, Alpha Juno) and I am not particularly sensitive to anything in the 1-4Khz you mentioned. If this phenomenon were true, I'd be happy to record some patches so we can zero in on it.

The midrange unease is something I only associate with digital audio. Pretty sure it's my own subjective hearing and expectations. It wasn't my intention to say the developer did not do his job. I think Obsession behaves like an analogue polysynth in many admirable ways. I'm just having trouble deciding whether I want to pay $100 for it. I like OBX-d too(with additional processing, of course) but that one was freeware when I acquired it.

For polyphonic, I have an Alpha Juno 1(which I took the keys off, so I use it like a module) and a Prophet 6. I have an SH-101, TR-606, Polivoks and CS-15 all that I modified myself. 11 years ago I owned a Jupiter 8, but it had technical problems, so I sold it. The Jupiter made me kind of lazy and I tended to only noodle on it, so there are definitely impediments to having gear that can't sound bad!

Back in context to the thread, I do find the workflow and some of the controls fiddly, and many have mentioned the preset browser and gui could use some refinement but overall Obsession is a fine product. I may end up buying it after the trial ends if I can think of some creative uses for it.

Definitely not trying to call you out for being a liar or dramatic - as the guy above me noted, devs are not infallible in their code, so any perceived differences that can be quantified should be called out to fix. It's definitely OK to say you prefer one thing over another, but it only gets hairy when people start putting down software as "less than" with no solid argument to back it up.

Over the years I've learned that I either just don't care, or can't hear anything specific that would make me more partial to the analogue hardware. The side effect to this is me dumping tons of money into more expensive studio monitors, treating my room, and audio interfaces with better converters. I didn't want to, but I also wanted to rule that out I was missing out on differences due to my shit setup. Now, I just scope-peep on a (probably overkill) setup, ha.

[ScrLk]

Aliasing could be a factor but remember this is measurable, not magic

[Teksonik]

in other words, it's not like developers are never wrong. in fact, the opposite was proven far too many times for this to be true. it's tough for some of them to admit, though.

It's not like users are always right either. Too often they are affected by confirmation bias.

OBsession is a great sounding synth as are many many other soft synths.

But if people prefer hardware then they should use hardware. Here's a place they can start. $8,500 for a non-working OBX-a:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Oberheim-OB-Xa ... SwWGdf99cd

[zwhita]

It's definitely OK to say you prefer one thing over another, but it only gets hairy when people start putting down software as "less than" with no solid argument to back it up.

We all hopefully use our ears as the final verdict. My own bias has consistently been in favor of certain engineering imperfections, so unfortunately for me with software, the dominating prerequisite is that everything must be deliberate, including sonic flaws/characteristic. The more developers learn about emulating circuits, logically the better these emulations will get. Hopefully it's as straightforward as that in approach. The magic factor is all in our brains.
The creative space provided with Obsession gives a nice blend of both worlds, so perhaps I am just spoiled.

if people prefer hardware then they should use hardware. Here's a place they can start. $8,500 for a non-working OBX-a

It's funny how these machines have always had a kind of capitalist or consumerist attachment, to be seen by some as possessions more than tools for music making or even just musical inspiration. I am certainly guilty of it on a number of occasions. The fundamental rules of supply and demand are an unfortunate imperative in dealing with the hardware, of course. Best we leave them to the collectors as artifacts to admire from afar.

I had once dreamed of a time when electronic music would stay out of the limelight and analogue synths would never be seen as cool or chic. Yet here we are now with sellers naming their price for broken synths they can use to pay a few months rent on, and be rid of their so-called burden forever. Why else would you sell now?
I guess software is supposed to save most of us from such a grim fate. And perhaps Behringer. Only time will tell.

A few things I took note of about Obsession:

• The sync reminds me alot of the SCI Pro~One, and I guess it should considering it emulates the same Curtis oscillator IC's
• Crossmod doesn't seem to have much range, but maybe I'm doing something wrong
• I thought the latest version would have had a page two for modulation matrix slots by now, is that still on its way?
• Someone mentioned a global effects disable, but I didn't see anything comprised of one single control to disable all three at once. Reverb is ok, the rest I think are of sub-par quality and degrade the dry signal too much, similar to the effects in the Prophet 6

[AnX]

Someone mentioned a global effects disable, but I didn't see anything comprised of one single control to disable all three at once.

[AnX]

[zwhita]

Yes thank you, if it were a snake I would need to fetch the antidote.

[AnX]

So the envelopes in Obsession may be spot on and just exhibit the same type of behavior as the hardware

let's not start throwing facts around eh....

Are you asserting that the envelopes are, in fact, the same as the hardware?
If so, can you back that up with any actual info from the developer, or someone who owns the hardware or...anything?

Obsession is a powerful vintage synthesizer emulation. It starts out with the classic synth design comprised of two oscillators, a switchable two/four pole low-pass filter, two ADSR envelope generators and two LFOs, all meticulously modeled from the hardware.

[revvy]

So the envelopes in Obsession may be spot on and just exhibit the same type of behavior as the hardware

let's not start throwing facts around eh....

Are you asserting that the envelopes are, in fact, the same as the hardware?
If so, can you back that up with any actual info from the developer, or someone who owns the hardware or...anything?

Obsession is a powerful vintage synthesizer emulation. It starts out with the classic synth design comprised of two oscillators, a switchable two/four pole low-pass filter, two ADSR envelope generators and two LFOs, all meticulously modeled from the hardware.

I mean, that was a weird question to ask in an attempt simply to rubbish AnX. Obsession be like an accurate emulation no?