Gforce Oberheim OB-X

[bmanic]

I have yet to hear high-resonance sounds that are actually musical. I never go beyond 50% or so, usually just 0-20%.

Depends on what you want the filters to do. Here is an example of where I use 100% self-oscillating resonance on a 1 osc + 1 noise source preset to bring in some depth and additional harmonics.

Twin3 - Singing Filters example (Google Drive mp3 1.7mb)

You hear the original dry oscillator in the middle. All the "tape stop" like stuff and the "oscillators" in the stereo image are actually self-oscillating filters that I manipulate with modwheel in real time.

You can use resonance to boost whatever harmonic of a sound you want and if the synth allows you to shape the amount of resonance over time, like OB-X does, you have a powerful tool for additional shaping of your sound.

[bmanic]

I'm surprised more synths don't use a 'peaking' filter similar to Rolands.
It doesn't lower any frequencies, just boosts frequencies around a point.
Of course, you also need to be able to move that point around with modulation.



https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... ips-part-4

Andy from Cytomic recently wrote the post to end all posts about Roland filters. But the article you linked to is referring to the JV and XV digital filters, which seem to be little more than parametric EQ’s. I love those synths but their resonance is something I avoid.

Indeed. The resonance on my Roland XP-50 and JV1080 is absolutely ear shatteringly brutal. Though they can be used to great effect if you feed it into some equally brutal distortion (analogue distortion/outboard stomp box is highly preferred in this case!). They just "sing" in a very odd way. Oh and you have to avoid the internal clipping that very easily happens in those old Roland boxes.. unless you want a bunch of horrible aliasing to go with it.

[Odd Fella]

I have yet to hear high-resonance sounds that are actually musical. I never go beyond 50% or so, usually just 0-20%.

Depends on what you want the filters to do. Here is an example of where I use 100% self-oscillating resonance on a 1 osc + 1 noise source preset to bring in some depth and additional harmonics.

Twin3 - Singing Filters example (Google Drive mp3 1.7mb)

You hear the original dry oscillator in the middle. All the "tape stop" like stuff and the "oscillators" in the stereo image are actually self-oscillating filters that I manipulate with modwheel in real time.

You can use resonance to boost whatever harmonic of a sound you want and if the synth allows you to shape the amount of resonance over time, like OB-X does, you have a powerful tool for additional shaping of your sound.

Not that I like it, too harsh and off for my ears, but it is interesting

[bmanic]

I have yet to hear high-resonance sounds that are actually musical. I never go beyond 50% or so, usually just 0-20%.

Depends on what you want the filters to do. Here is an example of where I use 100% self-oscillating resonance on a 1 osc + 1 noise source preset to bring in some depth and additional harmonics.

Twin3 - Singing Filters example (Google Drive mp3 1.7mb)

You hear the original dry oscillator in the middle. All the "tape stop" like stuff and the "oscillators" in the stereo image are actually self-oscillating filters that I manipulate with modwheel in real time.

You can use resonance to boost whatever harmonic of a sound you want and if the synth allows you to shape the amount of resonance over time, like OB-X does, you have a powerful tool for additional shaping of your sound.

Not that I like it, too harsh and off for my ears, but it is interesting

The harshness is very easy to control. I can simply put some keytracking on the high filters and balance their resonance so they don't ring so long. I made that preset in about 10 minutes just as an example. And I'm playing over 3 octave range..

.. but you get the idea.

[Uncle E]

@Bones

I was just playing around with the resonance on the OB-X and noticed that the resonance also is kind of separate from the main sound, which stays the same. No different from a ladder filter.
And as I sweep the cutoff frequency towards min, at a certain point the two become one, and at that time it no longer sounds like resonance at all because there is so little high-frequency content left.

Yes, playing next to the OB-X8, I found that the OB-X’s resonance can sound nearly the same but can also get into that whistling/separation territory. I personally don’t need that extra range but maybe useful to some people?

[waltercruz]

To you guys on Unify, OB-X was unified

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/or7stygu ... 40dq9&dl=0

[BONES]

It works with modulation - try modulating the cutoff with a short envelope, like you'd use on a bass patch, that's where you get (or don't get) the effect we're talking about. Think "funky".

You are not in a position to tell who is right and who isn't. Your opinion is just that, and no more valid any anyone else's.

Really? So a two year old child's opinion on ladder filters would be just as valid as yours or mine? My "opinion" is based on information that came straight from Dr Bob Moog's own mouth and you want to tell me it's not valid? You might also want to think about why GForce would put a second, non-ladder filter into MiniMonsta 2 if the ladder filter was as good as you seem to think it is? It's not something they thought Oddity or their Oberheims needed, so that's more evidence in favour of my argument.

Dune is all about the unison thingy.

You mean the factory patches you listened to tended to showcase that aspect of it. So what? You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

I think it is even in the name Dune.

Yes, it's short for Differential UNison Engine. The big point there is "Differential" because it allows each unison voice, at the patch level, to have different settings. When it was released, that was a fairly unique feature. But it has grown beyond that to be far more like layered patches in later versions.

And without it, it is just a normal, and in my opinion strikingly sterile, unappealing softsynth.

Here, again, we circle back to the value of your opinion. Because I never use the layers, they unnecessarily complicate things, yet I find DUNE capable of doing things no other synth in my arsenal can. It's quality from end to end.

Regarding the Minimoog filter, that is what the amp envelope is there for, to compensate for such changes.

So I have to set the amp envelope to the inverse of the filter envelope so it compensates properly? Seems like a big ol' waste of an envelope to me when there are hundreds of other synths I could use that don't have that problem, at least not to that degree.

And if you needed really low bass, why would you use a lot of resonance?!

For the same reason you'd use it anywhere. If you set the cutoff to 20Hz, then your resonance should enhance the signal at 20Hz, giving you more bass.

That's like deliberately removing the bottom so that you can complain about the lack of bottom.

No, it's trying to enhance the bottom end and finding out that all you are doing is getting rid of it. It's OK up to about 40% but, beyond that point, it starts to become troublesome.

And that whole "fat" talk with 32 stacked voices and what not. Really, if someone needs such exaggerated sounds to make music, their music is probably not worth much to begin with.

It's OK, most of us couldn't do that if we wanted to because bx_oberhausen would bring our computers to their knees in the attempt. But it's nice to know it's there if you really, really need it. I find 4 voices is usually the sweet spot for nice, fat strings patches with a bit of movement. Of course, you don't need it for basslines because you can use the filter resonance to push the bottom end up and get all those wonderful wet, squelchy bass sounds.

So, you ask why would I want something that sounds thin and weak and in the next sentence you confirm that the Minimoog had a big sound. Which is it?

It will depend entirely on your settings, won't it? I shouldn't have to explain that to you, surely? If you want that big oscillator sound, you need to be very careful with your resonance settings, which limits the sonic palette of the instrument quite a bit.

I have yet to hear high-resonance sounds that are actually musical.

I've yet to hear a patch made using only the Noise osc that sounds musical, so what? That's not what it's there for. People use synths for all manner of things you wouldn't classify as musical.

[DashOfLime]

Regarding the Minimoog filter, that is what the amp envelope is there for, to compensate for such changes.

FYI you're arguing with a guy who doesn't have a clue about filter design and really doesn't understand why the original Minimoog ladder works the way it does. He also doesn't understand that there is nothing inherent in a ladder filter design that says it needs to lose gain (not bass, its losing gain) around the resonance frequency. That was the design choice made for the Minimoog. This isn't a problem in the Subsequent 37 which of course is also a Moog ladder filter design but has ways to compensate for the .001% of the time you want high resonance and lots of low end. Its also why he keeps harping on "well Oberheim does it" and the answer to that is yes because they built-in gain compensation in their filter design. So have other manufacturers. Many have not. Prophet-5 doesn't have gain compensation for example.

[felis]

What kind of filter is that? Doesn't look like a LP or HP, so kind of BP?

Like Uncle E says - it would basically be like a parametric EQ.
But like I said, for it to be practical as a filter you'd have to be able to modulate the peak point.
And it's not really a filter as it wouldn't cut any frequencies, only boost some.

I think a band pass filter normally reduces both high and low frequencies around the cutoff point.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Prophet-5 doesn't have gain compensation for example.

They added it to the Rev 4 in the last firmware. But your point still stands.

[DashOfLime]

Prophet-5 doesn't have gain compensation for example.

They added it to the Rev 4 in the last firmware. But your point still stands.

Couple of things...first had no idea that was in the firmware. They don't have 2.0.4/1.1.3 linked from the support website Found the release notes in their forums tho. Need to see what version my P5 has.

That said...I was kinda referring to the original (well... rev2/3...4 is "original" haha) since we're talking Minimoogs, etc

[felis]

edit, not quote

[andy-cytomic]

I'm surprised more synths don't use a 'peaking' filter similar to Rolands.
It doesn't lower any frequencies, just boosts frequencies around a point.
Of course, you also need to be able to move that point around with modulation.



https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... ips-part-4

Andy from Cytomic recently wrote the post to end all posts about Roland filters. But the article you linked to is referring to the JV and XV digital filters, which seem to be little more than parametric EQ’s. I love those synths but their resonance is something I avoid.

The shelf / peak filter shape I mentioned is only in the feedback path of a JP8 / Juno 6 type 4 pole cascade. The only way you hear this response is that it compensates the low frequency loss with increased resonance, and changes the sound of the resonance as it passes through the non-linearities of the filter - the output is still a 4 pole low pass, not a peaking filter.

The (edit: original) JV type filters are "cheap" Forward Euler type SVF, computed I think with fixed point numbers - and yeah, they sound very brittle with high resonance and high frequency - I owned a JV1080 for a long time, so I'm familiar with those early Roland digital filters.

[felis]

........................

[felis]

.....
The JV type filters are "cheap" Forward Euler type SVF, computed I think with fixed point numbers - and yeah, they sound very brittle with high resonance and high frequency - I owned a JV1080 for a long time, so I'm familiar with those early Roland digital filters.

Might it be possible that things have advanced to where it's possible to have a smooth, lush sounding peaking filter.