Bazille - most misunderstood synth?

[Urs]

I don't know the details about filter circults, but I love the sound of the Oberheim OB-8, OB-Xa, Elka Synthex and Prophet 5. If it really adds that little bit of magic compared to a standard Moog filter, then I'm all for it.

Well, "magic" is usually attributed to "standard Moog filters"

However, because of that the Moog filter is also the most researched and cloned one. To a degree where "magic" becomes exactly that... "standard". Which might make something else more desirable - maybe also nowadays people value other qualities of analogue sound than back then.

[audiosabre]

In any case, sure, I bought repro-1 because of the ITB filter model. I just don't care about a poly variant. In fact, I already have one, 4X copies of Repro-1 work nicely inside of MUX on my five year old i5.

I'm the opposite. I skipped Repro-1 believing u-he would release a Repro-5. Mono synths are fun, but I'd rather have a poly that can work in mono mode, and save myself some hassle. Or have my cake and eat it. Mmm.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[david.beholder]

The P6 is not a P5 clone, it is a very modern poly that attempts to capture what was great about the rev 1/2 P5 and reimagines that in a modern design.

That's marketing bluff "it's almost like p5 but it's not a clone, it's tribute" and I don't buy it.
In fact P6 is more P5 clone rather then anything else: they share same voice architecture, same way of sound generation, same interface etc. The only original thing in P6 is onboard fx but today is 2016 and dsp is cheap.

And actual tribute is Pro2 - distant relative of Pro1 with close featureset and modernised architecture.

[ghettosynth]

The P6 is not a P5 clone, it is a very modern poly that attempts to capture what was great about the rev 1/2 P5 and reimagines that in a modern design.

That's marketing bluff "it's almost like p5 but it's not a clone, it's tribute" and I don't buy it.
In fact P6 is more P5 clone rather then anything else: they share same voice architecture, same way of sound generation, same interface etc. The only original thing in P6 is onboard fx but today is 2016 and dsp is cheap.

And actual tribute is Pro2 - distant relative of Pro1 with close featureset and modernised architecture.

There are enough significant differences that it isn't a clone. The filter section has both a rev 1 inspired clone and a two pole highpass. The oscillators have sub-oscillators and continuously variable shape. Shape and highpass cutoff are available as modulation destinations, the LFOs have a different waveform selection and are midi syncable. The synth has six voices and not five.

Clearly, with sub oscillators and the addition of a high pass filter it can, at best, be said to have a similar architecture.

We can agree to disagree on what constitutes a tribute, but, by definition, it isn't a clone or even as close a clone as a modern synth can be. You can't dismiss DSP as being cheap today without admitting that including it is a modern refinement.

[waltercruz]

... the effort goes mostly into designing the voice logic, which we need anyway. Background: Repro-1 uses a new event scheduling method which we designed as remedy for flaws in our existing voice architecture. If we would like to take advantage of this in our other synths, we need to expand this into a poly model. There you go. Making a polyphonic Repro-1 is closely entangled with improvements for Bazille, Zebra, Hive, Diva and ACE. It's definitely something we need to do for Zebra3 anyway. I call it a "low hanging fruit".

It's real nice reading Urs posts and seeing how the code is interconnected - a development on one synth reflects in a buch of other synths. So, even if you're not a P-5 enthusiast , it's amazing to see how the research on it will reflect in other synths

BTW, had a nice time with Bazille today recreating a

[waltercruz]

That's why I think Bazille is the king of U-he lineup.

Bazille and Zebra <3

[ghettosynth]

I don't know the details about filter circults, but I love the sound of the Oberheim OB-8, OB-Xa, Elka Synthex and Prophet 5. If it really adds that little bit of magic compared to a standard Moog filter, then I'm all for it.

Well, "magic" is usually attributed to "standard Moog filters"

Well, I'm not sure that I agree, but, it's somewhat missing my point that the CEM3320 was not universally viewed as all that back in the day. Interestingly, the Oberheim sound is really more about the filter being open than anything else. Often people want to believe that all synths across the Oberheim line have the "Oberheim sound", which just makes me laugh. They are as different as can be and there is very little in common between, e.g., the M1000 and the OBXA.

The OBXa is a really boring synth with really boring modulation routings. I owned one for quite some time. Side by side with the P5 Rev 3 there is far less difference than you imagine when put the OBXa in 24 dB/Oct mode . Again, there's a lot of retro memory happening here. The Oberheim sound being defined by the original discrete state variable filter. To me, other than a few differences in modulation routing there isn't all that much difference among the second wave of vintage polys that went all CEM in an effort to be competitive. Nor the third wave of CEM3387 based hybrids that all used some variant of the Juno DCO.

IMNSHO, this is where I still think that Roland shines, even though I don't like their later filters as much. Even though their synths used the same CEM chips for oscillators, they stuck with their own filter chips. Nobody thinks of the SH-101 as a CEM synth, but it uses CEMs in the VCO and VCA IIRC. It's the IR3109 filter that largely defines the character of that synth.

The Synthex, OTOH, is an awesome synth, but, it's filter does a bit more with the 3320 than most and has really interesting (DCO based) oscillators. I've never owned one, but I would have kept it if I had. I think that there's enough variation in it that it's interesting despite the 3320.

[fmr]

The Synthex, OTOH, is an awesome synth, but, it's filter does a bit more with the 3320 than most and has really interesting (DCO based) oscillators. I've never owned one, but I would have kept it if I had. I think that there's enough variation in it that it's interesting despite the 3320.

I'm still hoping that Urs recreates the Synthex Osc and filter modules for use in DIVA. Actually, Urs was very enthusiastically mentioning the Synthex before picking the Pro-One (right when I was evangelizing the Matrix-12). I am still hoping that something will make it's way into DIVA. I agree that it would offer way more variety than anything from P5, and it goes way beyond what anyone else did with the CEM 3320.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[Urs]

Well, yes, a Synthex is most def on the table for Diva. I've got a mint Synthex and I love it. I don't care much about recreating all its gimmicks, I only care about its sonic properties. Hence Diva is a good framework for it.

Won't comment about existing attempts to emulate this thing, I'm sure they've done the best they could. I can't begin to imagine how difficult it must have been to do this without an actual machine in their lab.

[ghettosynth]

Well, yes, a Synthex is most def on the table for Diva. I've got a mint Synthex and I love it. I don't care much about recreating all its gimmicks, I only care about its sonic properties. Hence Diva is a good framework for it.

Which is exactly what I want to hear. Nail what they did with the multimode 3320, which, to me is more interesting than the 3320 as a 24db/Oct low pass, and nail the interesting aspects of the DCOs and it's a win.

Honestly, I really don't get all of this fascination with exact emulations of polys when the vast majority of them have remarkably similar architectures with the major differences coming from their components.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[fmr]

Well, yes, a Synthex is most def on the table for Diva. I've got a mint Synthex and I love it. I don't care much about recreating all its gimmicks, I only care about its sonic properties. Hence Diva is a good framework for it.

Which is exactly what I want to hear. Nail what they did with the multimode 3320, which, to me is more interesting than the 3320 as a 24db/Oct low pass, and nail the interesting aspects of the DCOs and it's a win.

Honestly, I really don't get all of this fascination with exact emulations of polys when the vast majority of them have remarkably similar architectures with the major differences coming from their components.

+1. Glad to hear that Urs maintains what we talked about earlier. I also prefer the module approach in DIVA than exat emulations (but just because I already have so many that I becoming a little tired, and also because I share your feelings about the old synths having so similar architectures that it becomes a little boring).

Of course, back in those days, basically noone could dream of having them all, like we can with the emulations.

[egbert101]

<delete>