Behringer UB-Xa Synthesizer (OB-Xa clone)

[kritikon]

Absolutely what DFusion said. If you genuinely are just curious, and you work in that defined and singular way, then for hw, analogue is probably not the thing for you. A multitimbral synth will certainly fit into that workflow regime, but multitimbral synths tend to be digital. A few of the big analogues are at least bitimbral, as D-Fusion mentioned so you can at least have 2 instances simultaneously. And if you then go for digital hw synths I think you have to focus very tightly on what it is that you want in a hw synth, because most (but definitely not all) digital hw synths can be done in sw or have some close equivalent. Even having no patch memory is not a big thing on any analogue for me - unless you're doing multiple tracks with different sounds simultaneously then your knobs remain in the same position as when you turned it off, so the sound isn't lost. Obvs many people want/need to be able to recall patches for later, but personally I don't.

For me, I simply hate diddling around on a mouse for long periods and my wrists hurt beyond what is practicable that way, so hw is more about the hands on experience. I have bought and continue to occasionally buy digital hw synths if they provide something unique. But the fact still remains that saving patches with MIDI does the job, even if you only use that synth on only 1 channel. You simply use MIDI a lot more with hw than you do with all sw in a DAW. Many synths have librarian/editors so you can double back up there, and most probably still can do sysex dumps - I dunno, I gave up on that decades ago but that's a complete backup method. UBXa is a bit of a new direction for Behringer in that it sends/receives all midi CCs, so you effectively have automation if you need it, in a very similar way to plugins. Generally you need to do a bit of setting up to have a recording setup with CC automation on hw synths, but once it's set up, it's there for easy future use. Not all analogues do this though, so if that kind of obsessive control is paramount you have to select your synths carefully and check out what features it has.

Ultimately, it can be done. When I started out, I could do an awful lot of automation, patch management etc on MIDI hw analogues. Even the crappy Juno106 could be controlled by sysex and automated, then saved for posterity in Cubase or whatever (before DAWs eventuated). It's not that much different to DAW automation, just that the commands are different.

[kritikon]

Software is obviously better, though.

Dunno about that. Try as I might, I simply cannot rest my cup of coffee or glass of wine on impOSCar3. Even the sad old Juno could take 2 drinks, 1 on each side. UBXa is a bit knobby and crowded, but I reckon I could squeeze a few shot glasses on it. And it's so heavy it's good for squashing bugs/spiders down in the studio (though the warranty might possibly be void). SW definitely can't do that. I guess my laptop can squash bugs, but it won't work afterwards, dammit!

[Uncle E]

Wrong kinds of bugs!

[Scotty]

Unless you are making a custom synth with eurorack modules software is going to give the sound of the real deal. I don’t believe you can make a case for hardware based on obviously superior sound. Software has closed that gap and then some.

The physicality combined with accepting the restrictions of the hardware instrument and being prepared to commit to the sound are only benefits if that suits your creativity or workflow. At least that is how I experience it. I have more time on my hands now and more spare change to throw at this creative pursuit. That doesn’t hurt. Hardware demands time, money and space. Not to mention inputs and outputs on your interface and lots of cables.

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.

[teilo]

In case anyone would like an easy reference to the functional changes in the 2.0 release, I made this:

---

Modulation Section
Modulation amount can now be individually adjusted for all destinations. These settings were previously in Atrophy and are now saved in the Patch. Press and hold the corresponding button in the Modulation section until the display changes, and press select to adjust.

Oscillators Section
The OSC frequency can now be quantized to semitones (0 to +60), octaves (0 to +36), -/+ octaves (-48 to +36), -/+ semitones (-60 to +61), and -/+ free. Hold the corresponding Saw button, and press select to change.

There are new Portamento modes: Match, Quantize, and Bend. In addition, Portamento Spread and Speed have been moved into Patch settings. Portamento settings are accessed through the Sync button. Press and hold Sync to access a submenu to change these parameters.

Filters Section
Filter Frequency Range and Filter Pedal Range have been moved from Atrophy into Patch settings. Press and hold the OSC1 button, and press select to access a sub-menu for these parameters.

Filter resonance can now be fine-tuned to a precise value. Press and hold OSC2 Half and press select to adjust.

Filter envelope modulation range has been moved from Atrophy (FEnv Freq Amt) to a Patch setting. Press and hold OSC2 Full and press select to adjust. Range is from 48 to 175 semitones. Defaults to 120.

The Filter and Loudness envelopes have new options. Flip inverts the envelope polarity. Retrigger re-triggers the envelope with each keypress. Repeat repeats the attack and decay phase of the envelop once before going into the sustain phase. Loop repeats the attack and decay phases of the envelope as long as a key is held down. Legato will not re-trigger an envelope if a key is already held down. To access these settings, press and hold the 4 Pole button to access a submenu, rotate to choose the filter or loudness envelope, and press select to access the options.

You can now adjust Filter Key Tracking from -4 to +4 semitones in 0.25 semitone increments. Press and hold Track, and press select to adjust.

Global Settings - Miscellaneous
There are new settings for the performance control side panel to set whether performance settings are saved with the patch, whether any saved performance settings will be loaded with a patch, and whether the transposer setting will affect MIDI Out.

There is new a setting to choose whether atrophy settings will be saved to an atrophy preset or the current patch.

USB / MIDI settings
There is now a transpose option to apply a global MIDI transposition from -64 to +63 semitones.

Atrophy
As noted above, the following Atrophy settings have been moved to Patch settings: Filter Frequency Amount, Filter LFO Depth, Filter Env Frequency Amount, PWM LFO Amount, VCO LFO Amount, Portamento Spread, and Portamento Speed.

Filter and VCO Env Drift have been renamed to VCFEnvChaos and VCOEnvChaos and now include the sustain phase.

Filter Envelope Attack has been replaced with Filter Envelop Attack and Decay curve adjustment parameters. Likewise, VCA Envelope Attack has been replaced with VCA Envelop Attack and Decay curve adjustment parameters.

Modulation Matrix
The following sources have been added: VCO 1 Drift, VCO 2 Drift, Filter Drift.
The following destinations have been added: Filter Drift Amount, Filter Drift Speed, OSC Drift Amount, OSC Drift Speed

MIDI
Mod Lever Down now sends and responds to CC32 (Modwheel Down MSB), and CC62 (Modwheel Down LSB).

New Bugs
The new Envelope modes are causing erratic behavior, and some of them only work in Unison mode (retrigger and legato). Loudness Env Flip causes all notes to remain playing. It is unclear how re-trigger differs from the normal behavior. It makes no sense that you can turn on both retrigger and legato at the same time.

Filter Pedal Range was supposed to be removed from Atrophy since this is now a Patch setting. However this setting now exists in both places and it is unclear how they interact.

The updated manual mentions that Filter and Loudness envelopes have new Atrophy parameters to set the Attack, Decay, and Release curves. However, in the current release there are no Release curve parameters.

[kritikon]

Thanks Teilo
I haven't had a chance to upgrade yet. Looping envelopes is a great addition, wasn't expecting that, effectively another LFO. Invert polarity, great. I was scratching my head trying to find that and couldn't until I figured it must just not have been an OBXa feature as it was so old. One of the specific things I had an idea for getting the UBXa was to have things like sweeping pads with one increasing envelope filter, the other decreasing filter but otherwise identical then layer them up. And I couldn't do it. Interesting mod matrix additions to make changing antiqueness or brokenness in a patch, and saving some atrophy with the patch. Really very useful upgrade IMO.

[egbert101]

Thanks Teilo
I haven't had a chance to upgrade yet.

If or when you do upgrade, I will be interested in your thoughts or impressions, as to me, it does sound so much closer to the real thing.

[teilo]

Thanks Teilo
I haven't had a chance to upgrade yet. Looping envelopes is a great addition, wasn't expecting that, effectively another LFO. Invert polarity, great. I was scratching my head trying to find that and couldn't until I figured it must just not have been an OBXa feature as it was so old. One of the specific things I had an idea for getting the UBXa was to have things like sweeping pads with one increasing envelope filter, the other decreasing filter but otherwise identical then layer them up. And I couldn't do it. Interesting mod matrix additions to make changing antiqueness or brokenness in a patch, and saving some atrophy with the patch. Really very useful upgrade IMO.

The new envelope modes are rather buggy and poorly implemented. Flip is not very useful on the Loudness ENV, since it turns all previously played (up to the poly limit) notes on. But in general, these modes just don't work right. You'll see what I mean. They behave erratically. Also, I cannot explain how Retrigger and Legato are toggles, since they are mutually exclusive. Retrigger does nothing since that's the default behavior. Setting it has no effect.

Also, Loop only loops over the attack and decay phases, which makes sense.

[kritikon]

Well yeah, this is Behringer we're talking about .
I never expect them to have flawless updates. Having said that, they are getting more and more responsive to feedback. The fact that they put out an OS upgrade already for a pretty new synth is pretty good IMO. The general opinion of Behringer is that they never listen to anyone with no support whatsoever. Which is quite untrue nowadays. Yeah, it's patchy, but some is always better than none IMO.

[Scotty]

Documentation is a weak point for Behringer. The firmware updates are welcomed.Hopefully we'll see some clarification or further updates to finalize the latest envelope options.

Well yeah, this is Behringer we're talking about .
I never expect them to have flawless updates. Having said that, they are getting more and more responsive to feedback. The fact that they put out an OS upgrade already for a pretty new synth is pretty good IMO. The general opinion of Behringer is that they never listen to anyone with no support whatsoever. Which is quite untrue nowadays. Yeah, it's patchy, but some is always better than none IMO.

[lfm]

I looked through some vids today to see if maybe the desktop could be interesting as it about to be released(jan 2025 i saw one store) and €900 only.

Been so spoiled it seems regarding two layers, having each preset location also have A and B layer.
- both in REV2 and Prologue that was the case.

UB-Xa has 35 locations to store when making a layered preset.
- was there any update on this in firmware v2?
- thought those 16 voices could really be interesting to use in two layers

It seems more lika a performance/favorite thing only that usually are fewer in synths.
- and the style to store these were numbered D1-9, A-Z as I recall
- was Shoebridge using the wrong operation for Double layer?

DeepMind impressed in every way
- the synth how things were put together
- manual that were extensive and really good

Hardly the same development team on Ub-Xa it seems.
- display position though will not be a problem with desktop

Compared more to TEO-5 where all three oscillator waveforms could be combined
- seems only one at a time in Xa(litting both buttons the third is chosen)
- but seems Xa has volume knobs, not needing two handed operation to adjust level

TEO-5 is my contender possibly....

[Jim Roseberry]

I'm lucky to have experienced most of the best hardware keyboards... as well as having many of the best software instruments.

Software is obviously more practical/affordable/etc.

A big FWIW:
I don't like any of my software instruments (especially Analog type virtual-instruments) as much as the Nord Stage 4 or Montage M... let alone any of the better real analog synths.
Any time I fire up a software VA synth, I always walk away feeling like it sounds ok/good... but there's a character that sounds/feels like "software" for lack of a better word.
To me... there's just some element that's (still) missing.

I can already hear the "blind listening test" comments.
If you feel different, I totally respect that.
For me, I'll take hardware if/when possible.

The UBXa is a good instrument.
If you're expecting the same exact character as a real OBXa, it's close... but I think the Filter sounds more neutral.
On the OB-X8:
-Dial up a pair of Sawtooth waves (slightly detuned)
-Pull down the Filter Cutoff
-Play a low note
There's an "angry" character to the sound. To me, that's the signature Oberheim sound.
The UBXa is a wonderful achievement (and especially for the cost)... but it doesn't quite have that same character.

I kind of wonder (if Behringer would ultimately design their own analog synth), what could they create at the $2000-$3000 mark? I realize some would balk at a $3k Behringer synth... but what if it really was (feature/sound wise) on par with something like the MoogOne... without all the One's issues?
I'd definitely consider it.

[revvy]

Edit.

[elassi]

@Jim

Behringer has the tech skills, for sure, to build a $3k monster synth that can rival the best of the best.

But clients who will pay such an amount aren't their target group. Behringer (successfully) competes by price and this can only happen with mass production. And there's the point: a $3k synth isn't a product for the masses just because of the price only.

In other words: You won't achieve the numbers necessary to fit to the Behringer production and enterprise design.

[Jim Roseberry]

@Jim

Behringer has the tech skills, for sure, to build a $3k monster synth that can rival the best of the best.

But clients who will pay such an amount aren't their target group. Behringer (successfully) competes by price and this can only happen with mass production. And there's the point: a $3k synth isn't a product for the masses just because of the price only.

In other words: You won't achieve the numbers necessary to fit to the Behringer production and enterprise design.

Good Point.
Was thinking out loud... just what I'd like to see