New GForce Oberheim TVS Pro is here

[art&sound]

White type on the light grey background of the OB-X almost disappears.

It’s crazy they shipped something with such little contrast. GForce, if you’re listening:
- find a WCAG 2.0 tool. It’ll make sure your contrast is usable
- your fonts are all weirdly tall. Like they all look stretched out vertically. Typically horizontal tracking helps legibility and this is the opposite of that
- chill on the bevels and shadows etc. they’re over the top. M-Tron might be the easiest UI to use currentlY from a technical / execution standpoint.

[gentleclockdivider]

Make of it, what you will.

The difference between OB-E and SEM is striking.

That's why I never updated the sem , the first version still has the crystal clear gui and No wood

[Gribs]

Yeah, I do understand what you mean, and I have those thoughts as well. On the other hand, I don't have any suggestions. I really would like a "real" Alesis Andromeda A6 emulation, but that one might be too "modern". Arturia and Cherry Audio covers a lot of ground already, so what's left?

Yeah, other than the Andromeda, what is left?

I keep wishing for a Mutable Instruments Shruthi/Ambika emulation. But that is such a niche synth. Most people are unaware of it. I don't know how well an emulation of something like that would sell. Plus, it seems like only Arturia or maybe Cherry Audio could pull that off. GForce is all about taking relatively simple synths, getting their tone right, and then bolting on GForce's X-LFO and X-ADSR modulators and FX, and calling it a day.

But still, I can hope, right? IMO, the Shruthi/Ambika is a great-sounding (albeit lo-fi) hybrid synth.

Yeah, that would be cool. Michigan Synthworks still sells clones (called Xena) for $399, fully assembled. They have been on my list to buy for a long time.

[MrJubbly]

Make of it, what you will.

The difference between OB-E and SEM is striking.

The comparison images were all captured from "current versions" of GForce plugins. Most of which have received quite recent updates to their appearances.

The previous versions of SEM prior to v1.6 used to be closer in appearance to the current GUI of OB-E (i.e. they had sharper text).

OB-E being, the last remaining plugin which GForce has yet to fully update the GUI for (if they ever do?). As the most recent update for OB-E, GForce only added their new Preset menu system to the plugin, but as of yet, still retained its previous GUI graphics and text.

With regard to SEM however, It was with the v1.6 release, wherein GForce added their new pseudo-skeuomorphic borders to the plugin's GUI. Which they then somewhat backtracked slightly, after receiving customer complains, with a subsequent v1.6.1 release (i.e. the current release), wherein GForce added back a "Zoomed" GUI view setting within the plugin menu, which restored a "borderless" view, as was the default appearance for previous versions of SEM. However, the GUI text does appear rather less sharp than it was before v1.6.

Here's a like-for-like comparison for their SEM plugin, between v1.5 and their newer v1.6.1 ("Zoomed view setting")

GForce UI Text Comparison - SEM v1.5 and SEM v1.6.1.jpg

[db3]

Many of my plugins, including all GForce, appear to be in a high-dpi mode, but don't look pixel perfect on my mac — which results in a slightly blurred effect. I wonder if this is something to do with JUICE & vector scaled GUIs.

I almost didn't purchase this based on the alpha presets. I found the non-alpha presets to be far more usable as starting points. GForce need to enable all presets in demos.

[BONES]

The difference between OB-E and SEM is striking.

Think about why that might be. If SEM was displaying at the same dimensions as OB-E, as MrJubbly suggests, it's GUI is going to be stretched way more than OB-E's skin at the same size. The test might have been fairer if he'd chosen the same zoom for each skin - i.e. All at 100% or all at 150% or whatever - or if he'd sized them so that the text labels or knobs on each were roughly the same size.

MrJubbly, PC or Mac? I've never seen any GUI on my PC that looks as soft as TVS Pro does in your screen grab.

[MrJubbly]

I almost didn't purchase this based on the alpha presets. I found the non-alpha presets to be far more usable as starting points. GForce need to enable all presets in demos.

That same issue is regrettably across all GForce Software's plugins. The limited subset of "alpha" presets are those chosen by GForce staff as the ones they wish to "showcase" their plugins to prospective new customers.

(Various reasons have been suggested, including some claiming this limitation as some form of anti-piracy measure. Although, I doubt that's really all that effective, if that was/is the intention.)

Problem with that policy is, sound preferences can be somewhat arbitrary and different from one user to another. My "alpha" might be your "never-woulda" and vice-versa. I also tend to prefer many of their non-alpha patches, which unfortunately, are not even accessible to Trial users to try out when demoing these plugins.

Many years ago, I demoed a couple of GForce plugins, but I wasn't convinced by their selected "alpha" presets at the time. And due to other commitments I never really had much chance to fully explore the plugins themselves, before the time-limited trials had expired. Needless to say, I never purchased either.

Several years passed before I decided to give GForce's products another chance (on a new device). I had more time to play with them and was very impressed ... moreso than by just auditioning the limited "alpha" presets as previously.

Since then, I have bought all of GForce plugins and really like and respect the company. But it does make me wonder how many other potential customers, they may have lost, who never gave their plugins a second chance. Either longer demo periods to trial their plugins, and/or access to all available factory presets could help increase sales.

Perhaps, they're doing well enough financially without having to change that policy and so prefer their current sales tactic of running discounted products a lot of the time instead, to attract new customers that way. But it's undeniable that they make some of the best-sounding synth plugins around. And could probably also attract more customers just by offering more lenient and generous trial restrictions, with or without discounting their product line.

[MrJubbly]

The difference between OB-E and SEM is striking.

Think about why that might be. If SEM was displaying at the same dimensions as OB-E, as MrJubbly suggests, it's GUI is going to be stretched way more than OB-E's skin at the same size. The test might have been fairer if he'd chosen the same zoom for each skin - i.e. All at 100% or all at 150% or whatever - or if he'd sized them so that the text labels or knobs on each were roughly the same size.

MrJubbly, PC or Mac? I've never seen any GUI on my PC that looks as soft as TVS Pro does in your screen grab.

The goal in the comparison screenshots was not to set each plugin to the exact same zoom level, which wouldn't reflect real-world use. Since all of GForce's synth plugins possess different height/width dimensions to one another.

But rather, to set each plugin wrapper to their largest "usable" or workable comparable state within the DAW. i.e. occupying most of the available/usable screen display within the DAW. Since that, is how each plugin would most likely be used practically in typical day-to-day DAW sessions. And to then compare how each of those plugins' UI and text appear next to one another.

I think that approach provides a more practical comparison of how these GForce user interfaces and text actually look along-side one other when used generally within a DAW session.

Some forum members commented regarding certain GForce plugins/text appearing perhaps more blurry than some others. Which I don't dispute may be the case in some device setups/scenarios, either by deliberate design choice on the part of GForce, or perhaps due to some other technical settings or issues.

With regards to the previous OB-E and SEM comparison screen shots, I used the 'Zoomed' view for both plugins so that the control panels were more-or-less comparable in size to one another.

The screen captures were made while using each plugin within FL Studio 24 (set to use System scaling with DPI awareness enabled) on Windows 11 (with OS scaling set at 300%), which is comfortable scale for me to view on my 4K display (3840 x 2160 px).

You can see in the following screen capture, both those plugins side-by-side within the DAW for size comparison.

GForce OB-E and SEM in DAW - Size Comparison.jpg

[SebAV]

I wonder why some developers have so many iterations on their designs when u-he with repro just show how great a « skeumorphism » UI / UX can be. Just copy them !

[BONES]

I don't find U-He's GUI design to be better than anyone else's and they make some really dumb decisions sometimes. e.g. The extras in RePro are so hard to see over that PC board that it puts me off using the things and Hive's default skin is all but unusable. I only started using Hive regularly when I found a 3rd party skin that makes sense.

The goal in the comparison screenshots was not to set each plugin to the exact same zoom level, which wouldn't reflect real-world use. Since all of GForce's synth plugins possess different height/width dimensions to one another.

What? Don't you resize your GUIs so the controls are sort of the same (usable) size?

But rather, to set each plugin wrapper to their largest "usable" or workable comparable state within the DAW. i.e. occupying most of the available/usable screen display within the DAW.

That's stupid because smaller instruments will have to be scaled far more than larger ones, putting them at an immediate disadvantage.

Since that, is how each plugin would most likely be used practically in typical day-to-day DAW sessions.

Why? To me that's a stupid way to work. I resize plugins to the smallest usable size I can work with. Otherwise they just get in the way and you have to constantly close and re-open them.

Windows 11 (with OS scaling set at 300%), which is comfortable scale for me to view on my 4K display (3840 x 2160 px).

So you're using nine times more GPU processing than you need to, why? Why would you buy a screen you can't use at 100% scaling? Scaling your screen by 300% means that your work area is effectively 1280x720 so it's no wonder things look blurry - all the anti-aliasing in those bitmaps is three times bigger than it should be. I don't know how you can work at all with such a tiny amount of screen real estate. I've got my 2.5k monitor at 100% and it still feels cramped sometimes.

[MrJubbly]

I don't find U-He's GUI design to be better than anyone else's and they make some really dumb decisions sometimes. e.g. The extras in RePro are so hard to see over that PC board that it puts me off using the things and Hive's default skin is all but unusable. I only started using Hive regularly when I found a 3rd party skin that makes sense.

... What? Don't you resize your GUIs so the controls are sort of the same (usable) size?

... Why? To me that's a stupid way to work. I resize plugins to the smallest usable size I can work with. Otherwise they just get in the way and you have to constantly close and re-open them.

... So you're using nine times more GPU processing than you need to, why? Why would you buy a screen you can't use at 100% scaling? Scaling your screen by 300% means that your work area is effectively 1280x720 so it's no wonder things look blurry - all the anti-aliasing in those bitmaps is three times bigger than it should be. I don't know how you can work at all with such a tiny amount of screen real estate. I've got my 2.5k monitor at 100% and it still feels cramped sometimes.

Well, it's not "stupid" if it works for me. And to be honest, I really don't see what is difficult to understand. I clearly stated in my initial posts, which included the screen captures of the GForce synths. I generally use ALL my plugins at their maximum usable scale within my DAW. I rarely use more than one plugin at a time, so there's really no need to make them any smaller than that. I have a single 4K UHD display set-up, so that workflow works perfectly fine for me.

I mean, I don't use a ruler to check and calibrate whether each dial or font is exactly equal size to each other, if that's what you're suggesting. Who even has time for that? That would be nonsensical and impractical My approach is far more straightforward and sensible. I simply expand each plugin to fill most of the available screen display, allowing me a comfort of use with no eye-strain, then set that as their default state and work with each plugin like that going forwards, never having to resize, or pay them too much thought thereafter.

In a similar vein, with Fabfilter plugins, I tend to use their built-in full screen toggle view for ease and comfort. Most u-he plugins on the other-hand, unfortunately do not currently accommodate maximum zoom scaling settings all the way for a full 4K UHD display. So I settle for the next best thing and just set them to their current maximum available scale setting of 200%.

Luckily, Urs has confirmed that u-he plan to adjust this in the future, when they eventually move over to Vectorial GUIs for their plugins over the coming years. However, two of u-he's newer/updated plugins, Filterscape and Zebralette3 both do scale nicely at 4K though, which is a good sign. Most other developers' plugins I own, all pretty much scale great at UHD, like GForces product-line, so I comfortably use them in the same manner.

Closing / Opening plugins is never a problem for me. I always work that way and am used to it. After all, it takes less than a second (which is next to nothing) to either click on their 'X' or simply press the Escape key to close the current open plugin and to click on the next plugin I want to open. Or if I really prefer to have multiple 'Full Screen' plugins open simultaneously and wish to cycle quickly between them, I'll just use the 'TAB' key to instantly switch to the one I need. But honestly, this is never a concern I have ever encountered.

As for extra system resources, nowadays I never give GPU / CPU even a second thought, when using my more modern device with the 4K native support. I never even glance at the CPU load during DAW sessions these days, since it never maxes out or causes underruns/dropouts). In fact my projects rarely go much above 30% to 40%, so I simply don't have to worry about system resources anymore. I just use whatever plugins I want and enjoy making music. Which is a relief, because I used to have to be much more conservative on my older device some years ago, but I no longer worry about that, or need to bounce to audio anymore, etc, to mitigate such issues, with my individual workflow.

Also, the images don't really look "blurry" to me. Everything is pretty sharp. Some of GForces user interfaces look sharper than others. But I wouldn't really complain about any of the others. They are still clearly legible to me. But then, these are 4K images, captured from a 4K display and viewed at that resolution. I don't know how they are appearing on your set-up. Which may be the issue?

But as I also said in that initial post, YMMV.

[BONES]

Well, it's not "stupid" if it works for me.

... Unless...

And to be honest, I really don't see what is difficult to understand. I clearly stated in my initial posts, which included the screen captures of the GForce synths. I generally use ALL my plugins at their maximum usable scale within my DAW.

The bit I bolded in the quote is the bit that's hard to understand. Why do your plugins need to be as big as possible? And it's not about having multiple plugins visible, it's about being able to adjust channel settings in the mixer and/or added effects as you tweak parameters in the instrument. e.g. If you are playing around with the filter, the instrument will usually get louder or quieter in the mix, so you want to be able to quickly move between the instrument GUI and the mixer. Like this -

WORKING_SCREEN.jpg

As you can see, even ARP 2600's intricate screen still lets me see the 2600's mixer channel, so I can make adjsutments in both places in the same interaction. It may only take a second to open/close a window but those seconds add up very quickly when you're working and can derail your train of thought at times.

I mean, I don't use a ruler to check and calibrate whether each dial or font is exactly equal size to each other, if that's what you're suggesting.

But what you said led me to believe that you would, for example, make a SEM window the same size as an OB-E window, which would make the controls on the SEM around 4 times bigger than on the OB-E. That seems an exceedingly odd way to go about things to me. As I said, I make them all as small as I can get away with so as soon as the text labels are big enough to read, I lock off the size. That generally results in all the knobs/sliders/switches being vaguely the same size on screen.

I simply expand each plugin to fill most of the available screen display, allowing me a comfort of use with no eye-strain

Mate, you're working with 300% zoom, I don't think you need to worry about eye strain, unless you're using a tablet screen. Even the 8.8" screen on my PC is perfectly usable at 150% scaling (although it's HD res, not 4k).

Luckily, Urs has confirmed that u-he plan to adjust this in the future, when they eventually move over to Vectorial GUIs for their plugins over the coming years.

This is the nub of my issue here - stupid people make daft decisions about what screen they use and plugin devs have to spend hundreds of man-hours accommodating said stupidity, instead of making more wonderful sounding toys for us to play with. Seriously, why do you think you need a 4k monitor when you are effectively running your computer at 1280x720? Do you really not see the stupidity of that?

Closing / Opening plugins is never a problem for me.

I think it would be if you knew what you were doing or actually had to get things done. Efficiency is its own reward.

After all, it takes less than a second (which is next to nothing) to either click on their 'X' or simply press the Escape key to close the current open plugin and to click on the next plugin I want to open.

Surely there are times when you need to interact with the DAW when you are working, not just other plugins? (See the example above.)

[Frantz]

The price is more than fair so I gave it a try. Immediately I am annoyed with their self-defeating policy of keeping most of the presets behind a velvet rope. However, the synth is simple enough to demo without access to the presets.

I like the sound better than Arturia's SEM. The sequencer is fun and the effects are simple and good sounding. It gives immediate gratification but when you try to adjust a patch in a more precise way, it starts feeling limited.

It's great at doing fat bass but I can't easily get a punchy bass out of it. I feel like the limitation is with the SEM itself rather than the emulation. I wish I could put compressor and overdrive effects before the phaser/delay/reverb effects.

[Cuauhtli]

Yeah, an overdrive/distortion effect would have been cool. Just have to use external effects I guess. I had requested a standalone ratcheting sequencer from them. I guess they decided to throw a synth in as well (cuz I'm sure their product decision was based on my input). I went ahead and bought it along with the OB-1. They need to fix the glide function on the ob-1 sequencer. Anyway, for the intro price with the loyalty discount, why not? Nice sequencer and lovely sound.

[gaf_thit]

Yeah, an overdrive/distortion effect would have been cool. Just have to use external effects I guess. I had requested a standalone ratcheting sequencer from them. I guess they decided to throw a synth in as well (cuz I'm sure their product decision was based on my input). I went ahead and bought it along with the OB-1. They need to fix the glide function on the ob-1 sequencer. Anyway, for the intro price with the loyalty discount, why not? Nice sequencer and lovely sound.

I can't find it mentioned anywhere, but does it also have midi out from the sequencer?