Synapse Audio OBSESSION is now available!

[wagtunes]

Yes, just like the hardware is based on, you can only split the oscillators, filter and envelopes. The modulation section remain universal. Full parameter split has been requested (I think), but only Richard knows if it can be done.

See, this is what happens when you begin to venture off into "Stuff not in the original" territory. Where does it end? I would be less frustrated right now if this was an exact OB-Xa without the extras that have been added. They only made me want more and that's what leads to me pulling my hair out of my head because the patches I want to make (all splits mind you) cannot physically be done.

[Ingonator]

For Dual mode patches the current implementation is very useful. You could do things with that not possible with the Single mode.
Besdes other options for example you can use it as 4 physical oscillators and and with some detuning in the voice trimmers it can emulate a 2-voice poly unison. Of course it ca be used for typical layers with 2 differnt sounds. I have done Dual patches that use all those options just mentioned.

[wagtunes]

For Dual mode patches the current implementation is very useful. You could do things with that not possible with the Single mode.
Besdes other options for example you can use it as 4 physical oscillators and and with some detuning in the voice trimmers it can emulate a 2-voice poly unison. Of course it ca be used for typical layers with 2 differnt sounds. I have done Dual patches that use all those options just mentioned.

Yeah, dual mode is fine and quite useful. But split mode, very difficult to do anything interesting with it because of all the shared parameters.

[AnX]

But split mode, very difficult to do anything interesting with it because of all the shared parameters.

pretty much pointless today, when you can load 2 instances and have full control over each sound (dual is pretty much the same imo) without any compromises

[wagtunes]

But split mode, very difficult to do anything interesting with it because of all the shared parameters.

pretty much pointless today, when you can load 2 instances and have full control over each sound (dual is pretty much the same imo) without any compromises

Which is meaningless when creating a patch library.

[AnX]

not at all, I've created tons of "patch libraries" for synths I use

[nix808]

@wag tunes-
you could put the 2 complementary presets in a folder and put a .txt explaining to load them conjunctive?

[wagtunes]

not at all, I've created tons of "patch libraries" for synths I use

When creating a patch library for Obsession specifically for the purpose of selling to other people, relying on being able to load multiple instances of Obsession is meaningless as far as the actual patch I'm programming for the purpose of the customer loading that patch and playing it. The customer isn't interesting in me saying in my patch notes "Take patch X and patch Y and put them on 2 separate tracks and play them together." He doesn't want to hear that. He wants a patch that he can load up and function in that manner without having to jump through hoops.

Sheesh

[wagtunes]

@wag tunes-
you could put the 2 complementary presets in a folder and put a .txt explaining to load them conjunctive?

As I just explained to AnX, nobody wants to be bothered to do that.

When I made my Falcon library, I made a bunch of multi patches that were actual multi patches because they loaded more than one patch together. That's what a customer wants. Not a workaround.

[AnX]

they don't want compromises either, so good luck with that archaic feature

[wagtunes]

they don't want compromises either, so good luck with that archaic feature

Then maybe the archaic feature shouldn't have been included if it's so useless.

[AnX]

@wag tunes-
you could put the 2 complementary presets in a folder and put a .txt explaining to load them conjunctive?

As I just explained to AnX, nobody wants to be bothered to do that.

wrong, lots of ppl are quite happy to layer synths, and most are more likely to do it without a compromise of both control and polyo

[wagtunes]

@wag tunes-
you could put the 2 complementary presets in a folder and put a .txt explaining to load them conjunctive?

As I just explained to AnX, nobody wants to be bothered to do that.

wrong, lots of ppl are quite happy to layer synths, and most are more likely to do it without a compromise of both control and polyo

For that matter then I can just include a text file that says "All patches can be combined via layering in your DAW to make even more interesting sounds."

Yeah, what a cop out. You think anybody will take that seriously?

[AnX]

they don't want compromises either, so good luck with that archaic feature

Then maybe the archaic feature shouldn't have been included if it's so useless.

my thoughts exactly, but it was a quick bolt on very late in beta, hence the miniscule amount of dual/split patches in the factory bank

[wagtunes]

they don't want compromises either, so good luck with that archaic feature

Then maybe the archaic feature shouldn't have been included if it's so useless.

my thoughts exactly, but it was a quick bolt on very late in beta, hence the miniscule amount of dual/split patches in the factory bank

Did the beta testers bother to mention that it was useless? I mean I'm sure you of all people would have said something.