Behringer UB-Xa Synthesizer (OB-Xa clone)

[cryophonik]

To my knowledge, this synth does not offer any sort of instant recall from your DAW built into it. There are some synths that do it via their respective software editors. Arturia’s PolyBrute can do it when you use their dedicated PolyBrute Connect plugin. You can have multiple instances in your DAW with different presets loaded and it will automatically load that preset on the hardware when you select that track, but I honestly haven’t used that feature enough to know how well it works, since I typically just use one instance of my PolyBrute in each song. I believe Arturia’s MiniFreak V soft synth works the same way with the hardware MiniFeak, but don’t quote me on that. The Access Virus Control and the Aura editor plugins let you load up multis (up to 16 individual Virus parts/presets) and select them individually from each track in your DAW. Just a few examples - there are many others, but I can’t think of any that offer total recall without a dedicated software plugin.

[D-Fusion]

Not sure what this has to do with this thread

It has quite a lot to do with this thread. This is a hardware synthesizer and I'm asking how to integrate it into a production environment to make it as close to software as possible. I figure those using this hardware would have answers. What better place?

Your response was interesting to me. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

I do it by making patch scripts so I can browse presets inside my daw like a vst and when I load up a song project it automaticly loads up the preset i used in that track.

When you use vst's you are also focusing on one part before you add a new instance.
With hw I bounce to audio when I am happy with the result and move on to the next sound.

[cryophonik]

I do it by making patch scripts so I can browse presets inside my daw like a vst and when I load up a song project it automaticly loads up the preset i used in that track.

I've never tried that, but I have just recorded the patch select as a sysex/program change message. Is that what your patch script is doing (i.e., sending the program change message whenever the track is selected)?

[D-Fusion]

I do it by making patch scripts so I can browse presets inside my daw like a vst and when I load up a song project it automaticly loads up the preset i used in that track.

I've never tried that, but I have just recorded the patch select as a sysex/program change message. Is that what your patch script is doing (i.e., sending the program change message whenever the track is selected)?

Yes.
I make a patch script for the daw that supports it so i can browse presets from the selected tracks that send out a program change message for that preset

In bitwig i use the reacontrolmidi vst since it doesn't have that feature built in and for studio one i make a cubase patch script and recompile it to a sound variation file.

In studio one it won't save the track with the preset but I can quickly search and browse files inside the sound variation window.

Here is how it looks like in Bitwig...



By doing this i have expanded my Yamaha Seqtrak to 9 AWM2 Tracks with preset browsing instead of only 2 tracks which is the original spec since Channel 1-7 are only for single Percussion sound or imported samples but can be worked around with this Program Change hack

[Uncle E]

Does something like this UBxa allow for that? Can you have multiple tracks with different patches where one can click on a track to automatically switch to whatever patch and settings were set for that track? Then click on a different track also linked to the UBXa and get its different patch and settings automatically loaded?

Sorry if I’m stating the obvious but program change messages are stored in the midi part. Selecting a track and having the program change automatically also works but some DAW’s don’t do it (Luna doesn’t do either ).

Also, FWIW, the UB-XA is bi-timbral.

[D-Fusion]

Does anyone Who have the UB-XA Compared it to Synapse Audio Obsession or Arturia OP-XA?
I am curious to know how close they are since I am thinking of getting the UB-XA D Now that they have fixed the issue that made me loose interest in it (The Horrible THUMP)

[Constructed Identity]

With software, the state of my virtual synth tracks are embedded in the project. So I open the cubase project and everything is as I left it -- synth state, effects rack, midi data, everything. Even a decade ago. It's all there and ready to be edited, worked, and reworked as I please.

Does something like this UBxa allow for that? Can you have multiple tracks with different patches where one can click on a track to automatically switch to whatever patch and settings were set for that track? Then click on a different track also linked to the UBXa and get it's different patch and settings automatically loaded?

I'm not sure for recording that introducing hardware would not become a tedious and much more limiting work flow.

So how do you guys overcome this? Are you guys recording full songs or just noodling? Are you simply recording fixed audio tracks? Producing with software until the final mixdown and then switching to hardware? Something else?

In the DAW I name the track I'm recording a hardware synth into the name and number of the preset of that synth. The MIDI channel each uses is well known to me; 3rd Wave is 1, Prologue is 2, etc. I don't know if everyone does this, but since I usually have more than two projects I'm working on at a time, naming the DAW tracks keeps me from forgetting what is being recorded.

Reading above now, I usually have program change turned OFF in my MIDI receive because I don't want the accidental change possibility.

[kritikon]

With software, the state of my virtual synth tracks are embedded in the project. So I open the cubase project and everything is as I left it -- synth state, effects rack, midi data, everything. Even a decade ago. It's all there and ready to be edited, worked, and reworked as I please.

Does something like this UBxa allow for that? Can you have multiple tracks with different patches where one can click on a track to automatically switch to whatever patch and settings were set for that track? Then click on a different track also linked to the UBXa and get it's different patch and settings automatically loaded?

I'm not sure for recording that introducing hardware would not become a tedious and much more limiting work flow.

So how do you guys overcome this? Are you guys recording full songs or just noodling? Are you simply recording fixed audio tracks? Producing with software until the final mixdown and then switching to hardware? Something else?

The first part is irrelevant. I don't equate sw with hw, I don't expect them to do the same things or behave in the same way. Sw has some obvious advantages as you stated and hw has some obvious advantages too. I never work in exactly the same way for every track (even using all sw) so it really is irrelevant.

Multiple tracks with presets? Yes, of course. You save program changes to midi channels/parts, same as it's been for decades. Again irrelevant though, as I am unlikely to use the same hw synth for multiple channels in exactly the same way I'm unlikely to use the same VSTi for multiple channels. I've made whole tracks out of 1 synth (both sw and hw) for shits and giggles but I wouldn't dream of doing that normally. I strongly doubt many do even in the sw world.

"I'm not sure for recording that introducing hardware would not become a tedious and much more limiting work flow."

For you, I'm sure it would be. But you're obvs stuck in the sw mindset. It really is kinda silly to expect sw and hw to work in exactly the same way. Personally I'm not stuck into working in 1 rigid way like you imply. I could come up with all sorts of similar daft questions about why can't sw do the things hw can - yes, there are many. Sometimes I record hw down to audio, sometimes I run it all live until mixdown like I used to back in the day. More usually I run hw alongside sw in both ways and it gives me almost zero problems. As mentioned previously - I rarely if ever return to a finished track. So not unlike BONES, you're assuming we do the same thing and run into the same issues. We definitely don't. I have to say that saving patches is really not difficult in hw. In fact it's exactly the same as in sw

[egbert101]

Does anyone Who have the UB-XA Compared it to Synapse Audio Obsession or Arturia OP-XA?
I am curious to know how close they are since I am thinking of getting the UB-XA D Now that they have fixed the issue that made me loose interest in it (The Horrible THUMP)

For me, only the GForce OB-X and, surprisingly, the free OB-Xd, came close to the Oberheim sound. I did not like the others.

Part of the reason why I'm holding off from the UB-Xa is because they announced a UB-X version, which is probably years away, but I prefer the OB-X sound. But I think if you really want the OB-Xa sound, then go for it, the Behringer is basically the same now.



https://musictech.com/news/gear/behringer-ub-x/

[D-Fusion]

Does anyone Who have the UB-XA Compared it to Synapse Audio Obsession or Arturia OP-XA?
I am curious to know how close they are since I am thinking of getting the UB-XA D Now that they have fixed the issue that made me loose interest in it (The Horrible THUMP)

For me, only the GForce OB-X and, surprisingly, the free OB-Xd, came close to the Oberheim sound. I did not like the others.

Part of the reason why I'm holding off from the UB-Xa is because they announced a UB-X version, which is probably years away, but I prefer the OB-X sound. But I think if you really want the OB-Xa sound, then go for it, the Behringer is basically the same now.



https://musictech.com/news/gear/behringer-ub-x/

True but Those 2 you mentioned have a totaly different sound compared to a OB-XA since they are OB-X Emulations.

I Do prefer the OB-X over the XA too but this one have so many extra functions and a propper unison mode compared to Original.

The Reason for asking is that I don't want to pay that amount of Money for something if I already have a Perfect or Close to 95% of the sound emulated in a Vst.

[vstdls]

I'm also interested in trying to find a Synapse Obsession vs. UB-Xa comparison, I haven't found one so far. Plenty of time I guess - Sweetwater told me a UB-Xa D ordered today is looking at a February ship.

[VitaminD]

With software, the state of my virtual synth tracks are embedded in the project. So I open the cubase project and everything is as I left it -- synth state, effects rack, midi data, everything. Even a decade ago. It's all there and ready to be edited, worked, and reworked as I please.

Does something like this UBxa allow for that? Can you have multiple tracks with different patches where one can click on a track to automatically switch to whatever patch and settings were set for that track? Then click on a different track also linked to the UBXa and get it's different patch and settings automatically loaded?

I'm not sure for recording that introducing hardware would not become a tedious and much more limiting work flow.

So how do you guys overcome this? Are you guys recording full songs or just noodling? Are you simply recording fixed audio tracks? Producing with software until the final mixdown and then switching to hardware? Something else?

The first part is irrelevant. I don't equate sw with hw, I don't expect them to do the same things or behave in the same way. Sw has some obvious advantages as you stated and hw has some obvious advantages too. I never work in exactly the same way for every track (even using all sw) so it really is irrelevant.

Multiple tracks with presets? Yes, of course. You save program changes to midi channels/parts, same as it's been for decades. Again irrelevant though, as I am unlikely to use the same hw synth for multiple channels in exactly the same way I'm unlikely to use the same VSTi for multiple channels. I've made whole tracks out of 1 synth (both sw and hw) for shits and giggles but I wouldn't dream of doing that normally. I strongly doubt many do even in the sw world.

"I'm not sure for recording that introducing hardware would not become a tedious and much more limiting work flow."

For you, I'm sure it would be. But you're obvs stuck in the sw mindset. It really is kinda silly to expect sw and hw to work in exactly the same way. Personally I'm not stuck into working in 1 rigid way like you imply. I could come up with all sorts of similar daft questions about why can't sw do the things hw can - yes, there are many. Sometimes I record hw down to audio, sometimes I run it all live until mixdown like I used to back in the day. More usually I run hw alongside sw in both ways and it gives me almost zero problems. As mentioned previously - I rarely if ever return to a finished track. So not unlike BONES, you're assuming we do the same thing and run into the same issues. We definitely don't. I have to say that saving patches is really not difficult in hw. In fact it's exactly the same as in sw

You don't really have a defined workflow then I see. I don't consider a single, defined workflow as a rut but as a means to avoid extra steps and confusion. My music occurs over months and years not in a single session. It's just a different way of working than you. But I was looking to see if there were ways to introduce hardware, and specifically this synth, into my way of working. That's all. I have limited experience with hardware, so implementing them into a production workflow is relatively new to me. As a result, I ask questions. No attacks or hostility meant.

[cryophonik]

I have limited experience with hardware, so implementing them into a production workflow is relatively new to me. As a result, I ask questions. No attacks or hostility meant.

If the tone around this subforum seems a little hostile toward people questioning hardware, it's because we're accustomed to the occasional software evangelists and trolls coming into some of these threads and trying to stir things up with the boring and overplayed "my software is better than your hardware" attitude. Pretty much everybody who frequents this hardware subforum also uses software to varying degrees and we're far more aware of the pros and cons of each than the software evangelists are, so we have little patience for that tired old debate here. I'm not saying that's you, VitaminD, and you've always been an upstanding KVR member, but I just thought I'd provide some context, at least as I see it.

[D-Fusion]

With software, the state of my virtual synth tracks are embedded in the project. So I open the cubase project and everything is as I left it -- synth state, effects rack, midi data, everything. Even a decade ago. It's all there and ready to be edited, worked, and reworked as I please.

Does something like this UBxa allow for that? Can you have multiple tracks with different patches where one can click on a track to automatically switch to whatever patch and settings were set for that track? Then click on a different track also linked to the UBXa and get it's different patch and settings automatically loaded?

I'm not sure for recording that introducing hardware would not become a tedious and much more limiting work flow.

So how do you guys overcome this? Are you guys recording full songs or just noodling? Are you simply recording fixed audio tracks? Producing with software until the final mixdown and then switching to hardware? Something else?

The first part is irrelevant. I don't equate sw with hw, I don't expect them to do the same things or behave in the same way. Sw has some obvious advantages as you stated and hw has some obvious advantages too. I never work in exactly the same way for every track (even using all sw) so it really is irrelevant.

Multiple tracks with presets? Yes, of course. You save program changes to midi channels/parts, same as it's been for decades. Again irrelevant though, as I am unlikely to use the same hw synth for multiple channels in exactly the same way I'm unlikely to use the same VSTi for multiple channels. I've made whole tracks out of 1 synth (both sw and hw) for shits and giggles but I wouldn't dream of doing that normally. I strongly doubt many do even in the sw world.

"I'm not sure for recording that introducing hardware would not become a tedious and much more limiting work flow."

For you, I'm sure it would be. But you're obvs stuck in the sw mindset. It really is kinda silly to expect sw and hw to work in exactly the same way. Personally I'm not stuck into working in 1 rigid way like you imply. I could come up with all sorts of similar daft questions about why can't sw do the things hw can - yes, there are many. Sometimes I record hw down to audio, sometimes I run it all live until mixdown like I used to back in the day. More usually I run hw alongside sw in both ways and it gives me almost zero problems. As mentioned previously - I rarely if ever return to a finished track. So not unlike BONES, you're assuming we do the same thing and run into the same issues. We definitely don't. I have to say that saving patches is really not difficult in hw. In fact it's exactly the same as in sw

You don't really have a defined workflow then I see. I don't consider a single, defined workflow as a rut but as a means to avoid extra steps and confusion. My music occurs over months and years not in a single session. It's just a different way of working than you. But I was looking to see if there were ways to introduce hardware, and specifically this synth, into my way of working. That's all. I have limited experience with hardware, so implementing them into a production workflow is relatively new to me. As a result, I ask questions. No attacks or hostility meant.

The Bonus with the UB-XA is that it has 2 parts so you can use 2 sounds before you need to bounce VS a 1 part Instrument or you could get inspiration for a song by playing it live with a Bass arp on the Lower Keys and a Lead or Pad on the higher keys on the Keyboard.

It is a different workflow compared to SW and if you are used to a Pure SW Workflow a HW synth might not be what you want.

[Uncle E]

If the tone around this subforum seems a little hostile toward people questioning hardware, it's because we're accustomed to the occasional software evangelists and trolls coming into some of these threads and trying to stir things up with the boring and overplayed "my software is better than your hardware" attitude. Pretty much everybody who frequents this hardware subforum also uses software to varying degrees and we're far more aware of the pros and cons of each than the software evangelists are, so we have little patience for that tired old debate here. I'm not saying that's you, VitaminD, and you've always been an upstanding KVR member, but I just thought I'd provide some context, at least as I see it.

Software is obviously better, though.