Synapse Audio OBSESSION is now available!

[mholloway]

Obsession has been a synth that I just struggle to gel with. I don't know if it's the on-board effects (which I don't care much for), or just all the flipping back and forth (front panel, per-voice tweaks panel, back panel), the weak resonance (in that it never gets near self-oscillating), or the overall Oberheim OB-X/Xa/8 sound, but every few months I'll try to get back into it and I end up using RePro-5, TAL J-8, or OB-E instead when I want an 80's polysynth thing in software. I just find those 3 get me the sounds I'm looking for faster than Obsession.

Same here.
A big part is the bogus workflow that you mention -- let's say, as one example, that I want to simply Pan each Voice to slightly different positions--

On Repro-5, all voice pan knobs are side by side on the tweaks page. On OB-E, all voice pan knobs are stacked in the top left of the main interface. In OB-Xd, all voice pan knobs are in the bottom right of the main interface. For all of these, I simply move to that area and adjust as needed, DONE.

Now let's do it in OBSESSION:
• Click the voice 1 button in the bottom of the interface
• Move the mouse up to the top right of the interface and change the Pan
• Move back to the bottom of the interface, click Voice 1 again to exit it, click button for Voice 2
• Move back up to the top right of the interface and change the Pan
• Move back to the bottom of the interface, click Voice 2 again to exit it, click button for Voice 3
• Move back up to to the top right of the interface and change the Pan
• Move back......

WE'VE ONLY DONE THREE VOICES AND HAVE FIVE LEFT....so repeat all of the above steps just FIVE more times and whew, we did it, each voice has an adjusted Pan value.

for something that takes *seconds* to do on all the other mentioned synths.

OBSESSION's workflow is horrible. There, I said it. What further evidence is needed than above? It's practically a joke how bad it is.

Also, the basic layout makes no sense, based on general Synthesis layouts that are time tested. The oscs are the lowest element? why? the modulators are above the Oscs, in the middle of the interface? but then some tuning controls for the oscs (which are at the bottom) are stuck at the very top? It has never felt anywhere close to natural. I cringe every time I open the UI. Would it really have been so hard to, I dunno, base the UI on the front-panel design of the synth that is being emulated ???

I could go on...but that's enough, I imagine.

[TheHelioSequence]

The OB-Xa filter can be made to self oscillate in the 12db filter mode. It doesn’t when using the suggested/factory calibration though (manual says to turn up until oscillation is audible and then back off until it’s gone when calibrating the resonance on the voice cards). The OB-Xa definitely has a larger range than what is capable in Obsession.

[Lbdunequest]

Oh yes the workflow of Obsession is really a dowside. Some of functions like stack detuning is a chore.

[Vortifex]

..

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

The OB-Xa filter can be made to self oscillate in the 12db filter mode. It doesn’t when using the suggested/factory calibration though (manual says to turn up until oscillation is audible and then back off until it’s gone when calibrating the resonance on the voice cards). The OB-Xa definitely has a larger range than what is capable in Obsession.

Yes, I recall that from the manual where it says to set the resonance into self oscillation then back it off slightly. But even with the Tweaks pages and the res trimmer maxed out, it still never hits that point, which I'd expect it to.

[waltercruz]

Yes, I recall that from the manual where it says to set the resonance into self oscillation then back it off slightly. But even with the Tweaks pages and the res trimmer maxed out, it still never hits that point, which I'd expect it to.

I was reading it right now. Page 20 on the pdf above.

https://www.florian-anwander.de/oberhei ... nual_3.pdf

[waltercruz]

Yes, I recall that from the manual where it says to set the resonance into self oscillation then back it off slightly. But even with the Tweaks pages and the res trimmer maxed out, it still never hits that point, which I'd expect it to.

BTW, Arturia OP-Xa seems to have got this better, maybe not perfect, but better. They got the F-Env as the manual specified too (although they choosed to put the F-Env only on their modulation matrix). To me, at least in this case, it seems that OP-Xa can be a bit more faithful to the 'original' (at least, close to the specs on manual/service manual).

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Interesting about OP-Xa. I honestly think Obsession sounds better than OP-Xa, particularly once you add in some VCA saturation and a bit of that "Organic" knob on the back. Obsession just sounds bigger (more bass, more highs, maybe a little compressed). You know...all the stuff you'd tame down in a mix! But OP-Xa's simplified trimmers are easier to work with and the FX are much better sounding (though still not amazing). And OP-Xa doesn't go into self-oscillation othe 12db filter either even with resonance maxed (including the trimmer - though I think that's doing more of a per voice resonance slop than adding resonance).

I'd rate OP-Xa as being better sending than comparable Roland Cloud poly synths, but still not quite at U-he/Synapse level modeling when it comes to the raw sound. Note: this isn't my opinion on all Arturia synths - I think they farm out a lot of DSP so you get some variation where some have killer filters and sound huge (MS-20, Buchla) and other synths sound a bit more polite like OP-Xa.

[Echoes in the Attic]

I have made the suggestion that a parameter should have some kind of pop-up to set offsets for all voices from the main value but it didn’t take. I think the way arturia did their sem was excellent. Easy to quickly draw across values in a chart. Obsession could have a similar view in the back section or could have a pop up if dials or something for a given parameter. But yeah there should be a view with knobs side by side for all voices.

[waltercruz]

And OP-Xa doesn't go into self-oscillation othe 12db filter either even with resonance maxed (including the trimmer - though I think that's doing more of a per voice resonance slop than adding resonance).

But I don't think it should cause the callibration suggested on the service manual is to backoff a little bit until the self oscillation is gone, so this is the right thing to do, at least thinking about the emulation part. Allowing them to self-oscillate was non-standard. Of course it could be added as a plus, but it's not wrong or missing something in the emulation.

[waltercruz]

Does Obsession come with the original stock patches? If so it would be easy to compare it with the OB-Xa V ones.

(ok, I know that I'm necro-answering)

I did some patches from the OB-Xa factory. Just 12, matched the best I could against videos, etc - this is why I began my nitipickings on parameter ranges, etc.

Maybe it's useful for someone.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

And OP-Xa doesn't go into self-oscillation othe 12db filter either even with resonance maxed (including the trimmer - though I think that's doing more of a per voice resonance slop than adding resonance).

But I don't think it should cause the callibration suggested on the service manual is to backoff a little bit until the self oscillation is gone, so this is the right thing to do, at least thinking about the emulation part. Allowing them to self-oscillate was non-standard. Of course it could be added as a plus, but it's not wrong or missing something in the emulation.

Here's why I disagree with you [friendly disagreement ], at least in the case of Obsession: Synapse added the "Tweaks" page with individual trimmers. If you're going to do that, it should work just like the voice cards. So if the voice cards allow you to easily set the OB-Xa into self-resonance, then that should be the same range available on the Tweaks page of Obsession. If the manual states something to the effect of "to calibrate the resonance, set the resonance trimmer to self-oscillation then back the trimmer off slightly" then that should be the default state of the resonance on the Tweaks page. So adding a little more resonance on the Tweaks page should therefore get you into self-oscillation. The fact that it doesn't, to me anyway, indicates, "no, this doesn't behave like the hardware because 1) these will never oscillate like the hardware could, and 2) the calibration is not right on the edge of self-resonance because increasing the resonance trimmer never has that effect." So it's either an incomplete model of the filter, that doesn't include that behavior, or the really knee-capped the resonance depth on purpose to never self-oscillate.

Now, Arturia could say, "our resonance trimmer is just per voice offset, it never adds resonance" and maybe I'd buy that. But I think Synapse can't say that. Their resonance trimmer clearly adds or subtracts the resonance depth per voice and adding never gets into self-oscillation like the hardware did.

[waltercruz]

Here's why I disagree with you [friendly disagreement ], at least in the case of Obsession:

I demand a trial by combat!

kidding!

But really, I agree about Obsession: in the way they included the trimmers, it's kinda expected that they go full on what the trimmers should do. OP-Xa trimmers are labeled as 'dispersion', so they're kinda of exact stating what they are doing.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

One more thought: and it's not a knock on anyone, just something that hadn't previously occurred to me that now seems obvious in relation to this discussion...

If you're a developer or a beta tester working on an emulation of a vintage anything...one of the first things you could make a point of doing is pull up the original documentation and note any specific behavior called out in the manuals and test to make sure the software behaves the same way. It'll be very easy for some random schmuck on the internet like me to have never touched the hardware and call out the differences (like the resonance thing, but also Walter's pitch mod depth). That would be a big step towards saying an emulation is credible, before getting into the undocumented quirks. And if the developer's hardware behaves differently, that's ok, emulate the hardware and just call that out in the manual or something (e.g. "the original manual states the range is one octave, but the reference hardware has a range of one active and a fifth").

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Here's why I disagree with you [friendly disagreement ], at least in the case of Obsession:

I demand a trial by combat!

I'm a small guy, I'm not winning an "anything by combat!"

But if you're ever up near Newark NJ, hit me up for a beer. We have a huge Brazilian community here so I wouldn't be surprised if you ever visited the neighborhood.