The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
The UB-Xa Synthesizer Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 1 week ago
  #661
Gear Addict
 
AdmiralQuality's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasseru View Post
I also can't understand why I am asking for CV input on a polysynth
I was going to say, you're going to need 8 CVs and 8 Gates.

AFAIK no classic polyphonic analogs had CV/Gate inputs. (Other than the SEM based Oberheims but that was just on each monophonic module.)
Old 1 week ago
  #662
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by clusterchord View Post
...Prophet 5 has analog envelopes and analog lfo , a 3340 and 3310. (and SSM2030 and 2050 in rev1/2), and OBXa has digital lfo and analog envelopes , again CEM3310 ...
I appreciate the clarification and correction. Now I have to figure out what Dave (and other DSI employees) mean/meant by LFOs and Envelopes "coded in software, just like the Prophet-5". I've got to go get my video(s) from NAMM and figure out where I misunderstood ... thanks a lot, lol.

It is interesting that the OB-Xa LFO is digitally provisioned.
Old 1 week ago
  #663
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonStrom View Post
sorry to spoil the party but i find it rather sad seeing
people again believing they will get 100% the real deal soundwise
and so worrying about small architecture enhancements.

And that Mr Behringer is promising here again to deliver acurate authenticity
is not ok in my opinion. His products are close but every clone
will be promoted with "we nail it!" as it seems.
Is your comment pre or post listening Model D demos?If it sounds as close as the Model D to the Mini,i`ll be first in line.
Old 1 week ago
  #664
Lives for gear
 
the_soulcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonStrom View Post
sorry to spoil the party but i find it rather sad seeing
people again believing they will get 100% the real deal soundwise
and so worrying about small architecture enhancements.

And that Mr Behringer is promising here again to deliver acurate authenticity
is not ok in my opinion. His products are close but every clone
will be promoted with "we nail it!" as it seems.
who cares if it's 90,95 or 100 %?
The only question asked should be "Is it close enough for the price being offered?"

As a moog rogue owner (a less featured mini moog) for over a decade it's deffo close enough to my ears, although in one of the YT demo videos I was under the impression the original D got a bit more lower end frequencies, which can be compensated easily on the clone using an EQ.
Other than that I didn't notice any differences and for 299 US $ this product is bargain indeed. The only useful feature I'm missing is an OSC sync option, which wasn't avail. on the original either...but still

Regardless I'm looking fwd. to get my pre-ordered device soon.

So congratulations to the Behringer team
Old 1 week ago
  #665
Lives for gear
 
Jamie munro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
So are you saying that there is no use case for remote controlling an analog synth?
I mean, imagine you can twist the heck out of the knobs and be able to record and/or edit the twisting. No good?
No I didn't say that, recording knob movements would be simply done via CC as is pretty normal for any synth equipped with a midi spec and no vst is required obviously

My remark was about the use of a vst, as in hey let's use this mouse in my right hand to control parameters that I was given HUGE knobs for , that is how I think of vst. Now I like vst but not for controlling my hardware because it makes no sense. Maybe it's just me and I have had the vst all wrong the last 20 years but I don't see that as its job.

Are you trying to tell me the above is the wrong way to look at it it and that by using remote you actually mean using a vst housed in something like an iPad that could operate via wifi midi onstage or across my studio, are you saying that would be a great or preferable way to control my Synth opposed to manually adjusting it? Because if so, no, no, no.
Old 1 week ago
  #666
Lives for gear
@fmq75

post. the miniclone sounds very close indeed.

very close. but Mr Behringer again promises the absolute real deal
and people say no to enhancements because the UBXa will be
soo authentic.

The deepmind is not authentic Juno and the Miniclone is not authentic Mini,
the reso is more harsh, the filter gets thin at some points.


don't get me wrong, those synths are fine but

you should only promise what you can deliver.
Old 1 week ago
  #667
Lives for gear
 
Jamie munro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mindseye9 View Post
Load up the plug-in, dial in the sound on the analog synth (the plug-in follows). Save the DAW project, come back two months later, load the project, and the analog synth is automatically set and ready to go with the correct sound. No patch management needed, it just works. Seems like a simple concept to me.
Or just hit dump # PChg, done, open project and boom the #PChg I sent, no need for a vst in my project
Old 1 week ago
  #668
Lives for gear
 
Jamie munro's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rasseru View Post
I also can't understand why I am asking for CV input on a polysynth
Are you ?
Old 1 week ago
  #669
Lives for gear
 
rasseru's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie munro View Post
Are you ?
No. Just midi note on (and off)
Old 1 week ago
  #670
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunnyKine View Post
Beautiful synth. Lucky guy (or gal). ^
Yeah that's mine, I've asked for a fridge to be built in the back with Wifi and BT

Old 1 week ago
  #671
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasseru View Post
I also can't understand why I am asking for CV input on a polysynth
plenty of polys have CV inputs for filter control. i think even maybe the Xa. very handy for FM
Old 1 week ago
  #672
Lives for gear
 
Analog Rob Lowe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBetty View Post
Yeah that's mine, I've asked for a fridge to be built in the back with Wifi and BT

Old 1 week ago
  #673
Lives for gear
 
BassX's Avatar
a UB-Xa is very nice, but secretly people want this for $1499
Attached Thumbnails
The UB-Xa Synthesizer-behraks.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #674
Lives for gear
 
rasseru's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BassX View Post
a UB-Xa is very nice, but secretly people want this for $499
Fixed
Old 1 week ago
  #675
Lives for gear
 
the_soulcatcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BassX View Post
a UB-Xa is very nice, but secretly people want this for $1499
$499 sounds more realistic to me
Old 1 week ago
  #676
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_soulcatcher View Post
$499 sounds more realistic to me
If it was $199 I would have to think about it and maybe consider getting a paper route
Old 1 week ago
  #677
Lives for gear
 
BassX's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_soulcatcher View Post
$499 sounds more realistic to me
Hmmm that wouldn't be achievable i guess
Old 1 week ago
  #678
Lives for gear
 
Analog Rob Lowe's Avatar
If a miniboog goes for $299, what do you think for a UBx, like $1299 ? Or less than a DM12?
Old 1 week ago
  #679
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralQuality View Post
I was going to say, you're going to need 8 CVs and 8 Gates.

AFAIK no classic polyphonic analogs had CV/Gate inputs. (Other than the SEM based Oberheims but that was just on each monophonic module.)
The Oberheim Xpander has CV/Gate inputs on each voice and is multi-timbral. The OB-X has CV/Gate on one voice, which is kind of cool, but it wasn’t multi-timbral so pretty limited.

I think CV/Gate on the UB-Xa is unnecessary. Maybe CV input for filter, but that will probably be controllable by MIDI.
Old 1 week ago
  #680
Here for the gear
 

Estimated price could be relevant here.
If they can make an 8-voice (or more) OB-xa, with nothing added for 899 or less. Well, then I'm all for them keeping it as close as possible.
But if the price would be over 1000 including local taxes, then I think they should take the chance to expand it, in order to make it more of a complete synth. I think the market for an exact clone (featurewise) isn't that big unless the price is low.
Also worth considering; if it is limited to the orignal feature-set, it might have it sales canabilized by other more feature rich Behringer synths in the making if it can't be considered cheap enough to by one anyway.
(We can also expect korg to release a poly with higher note count than the Minilogue, and perhaps Arturia will finally be able to bring out a poly, and if it isn't based on the matrix, the price might not be astronomical)

For the average synth buyer, a product need a decent Feature/Price ratio. Collectors and some that are deep in to their synth addiction will justify spending a lot of money on an original or a 1:1 clone, to get the exact original sound.
So sure, Behringer could make that 1:1 clone, even if they can't make it "cheap", but the customerbase that would be able to enjoy such a product would be limited. Adding a little extra that would not necessarily drive the price up a lot, could make it much easier for people to justify the purchase.

The feature-set will be the difference between it beeing a main synth (or only synth, even), or Another synth to add to a collection.
If the price is right, it could be a worthy addition even to a pretty small hardware synth collection, or a complement to soft-synths, or a synth to put on a two-tier, to complement a workstation/stage-keyboard, even considering the limited feature-set of the original.


Estimated pricepoint and polyphony, I would say would be quite important information at this point, and if that price indcludes a larger number of added features, in order to focus the discussion on what direction the product should take.
Old 1 week ago
  #681
Lives for gear
 
Heinakroon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonHolstein View Post
Estimated price could be relevant here.
If they can make an 8-voice (or more) OB-xa, with nothing added for 899 or less. Well, then I'm all for them keeping it as close as possible.
But if the price would be over 1000 including local taxes, then I think they should take the chance to expand it, in order to make it more of a complete synth. I think the market for an exact clone (featurewise) isn't that big unless the price is low.
Also worth considering; if it is limited to the orignal feature-set, it might have it sales canabilized by other more feature rich Behringer synths in the making if it can't be considered cheap enough to by one anyway.
(We can also expect korg to release a poly with higher note count than the Minilogue, and perhaps Arturia will finally be able to bring out a poly, and if it isn't based on the matrix, the price might not be astronomical)

For the average synth buyer, a product need a decent Feature/Price ratio. Collectors and some that are deep in to their synth addiction will justify spending a lot of money on an original or a 1:1 clone, to get the exact original sound.
So sure, Behringer could make that 1:1 clone, even if they can't make it "cheap", but the customerbase that would be able to enjoy such a product would be limited. Adding a little extra that would not necessarily drive the price up a lot, could make it much easier for people to justify the purchase.

The feature-set will be the difference between it beeing a main synth (or only synth, even), or Another synth to add to a collection.
If the price is right, it could be a worthy addition even to a pretty small hardware synth collection, or a complement to soft-synths, or a synth to put on a two-tier, to complement a workstation/stage-keyboard, even considering the limited feature-set of the original.


Estimated pricepoint and polyphony, I would say would be quite important information at this point, and if that price indcludes a larger number of added features, in order to focus the discussion on what direction the product should take.
I concur. It either has to be pretty cheap, as a clone, or extended feature-wise to justify a higher price.
Old 1 week ago
  #682
Lives for gear
 
Heinakroon's Avatar
On reflection, I think one of the reasons the debate on this thread is so heated, is that we all see an opportunity of making our dream synth come true. I guess that's one of the downsides of @Uli Behringer opening up the development in this manner. Finally we have a (small) chance of influencing the makings of a new synth and we're going wild with pent up wishes and frustration over old instruments and their shortcomings.
Old 1 week ago
  #683
Lives for gear
 
robinkle's Avatar
Design Rule #1 You must be able to play Jump on it, right out of the box. 61 keys required.
Old 1 week ago
  #684
Here for the gear
 

There is no polysynth in production that got oberheim sound with a price point bellow 1000$. Behringer customers may get an economical UI in a desktop perhaps 3 times cheaper than fully featured and advanced modern synth like DSI OB-6. Low price point will be attractive for struggling musicians who want to just get and play an instrument. Making gear in butique fashion just for collectors with big wallets doesn't pay up in the end because their number is small and they are a spoiled bunch. I think the general idea for UBXA is the same as for Behringer Model D, which was a minimoog option for 300$ instead of a minimoog for 3500$.
Old 1 week ago
  #685
F5D
Lives for gear
 
F5D's Avatar
 

Ok, interesting. I have never played an OB-Xa, but looking at the panel gives a pretty good idea of the functionality on offer. I wish Behringer considers the following:

1. In addition to a module, consider a 5 oct keyboard. The panel depth can be easily reduced + has room for additional functionality
2. Add 2nd LFO with possibility to use the exact same destinations, i.e. double the LFOs with the exact same functionality for both
3. Add noise as mod source for pitch in the oscillator section (original design has this only for filter cutoff)
3. Add a proper mixer section for Osc 1, Osc 2 + add noise mix knob in the mixer as well (original design seems to use noise only as mod source)
4. Consider moving the Osc 2 detune knob to the osc section (original location possibly left like this to make it a performance fx feature)
5. Do not add any LCD or fx processor.

Adding the 2nd LFO should not be split in functionality, like some synths have an LFO for pitch and another routed for PWM. Just double the LFOs with the same functionality and allow user to choose for example both LFOs for osc pitch at different frequencies.

About the noise generator used for audio mix and modulation to sound proper and smooth. It is essential that the noise circuit is a dedicated circuit, either analog or high speed digital circuit dedicated for producing white noise. The noise signal should not be taken from a D/A-converter of a processor that very often generates lower speed LFOs and envelopes in synthesizers. For example DSI Prophet 8 uses a dedicated circuit for noise and is much better (smoother) than that of P12 that uses a digital noise waveform that makes it less useful, sounding rough like s/h 'noise', especially when used as mod source. A single noise generator is enough. There is no need to have 1 per voice. Do not run the filter or oscillator noise mod signal through a processor to set the amount. Instead, use a digitally controlled analog amplifier to set the mod or mix level for the analog noise signal. It is essential to not make it quantized.

Last edited by F5D; 1 week ago at 01:50 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #686
That's be great to add to my toolbox. Definitely looking forward to this.
Old 1 week ago
  #687
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundReverend View Post
Size matters...

Absolutely, size matters. Mister B, if you make a keyboard version, please make it big, fat and heavy. I want it to sit in my studio like a tank. (Oh and to cut down the costs, maybe you could save on those stripes...)
Old 1 week ago
  #688
Gear Maniac
 
Uli Behringer's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
First of all thanks for the great input!

We have read all comments. The main question is whether you want us build an authentic synthesizer which means sticking as close as possible to the original. Or do you want us add features which will run the risk to turn this synthesizer into a different instrument.

Here is an interesting observation:
When we designed the DeepMind12 we listened to you and created the sound of the Juno by replicating the relevant DCO and Filter circuitry of the Juno but added lots of new functionality. Because we used the same sound engine, the DeepMind can sound like a Juno but as you are aware the synth offers much more. What is remarkable is that to this day people are still asking us to build a straight up Juno-replica. The conclusion is that often less is more.

I fully agree that compromises can be achieved, however this is a truly fine line. Together with you we like to find out where exactly this line is when designing the UB-Xa.

Our ultimate goal is to authentically capture the truly remarkable sound of the OB-Xa, while replacing the outdated digital section by means of modern technology.
Please also keep in mind that adding features increases cost and time to market. For that purpose we suggest to omit features such as displays and FX.

Next week we will be posting our first video around this topic and I appreciate all of you to chime in and share your views. Your opinion matters and you can truly make a difference.

Thanks!

Uli

Last edited by Uli Behringer; 1 week ago at 11:25 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #689
Lives for gear
 
Mr Knoch's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli Behringer View Post
First of thanks for the great input!

We have read all comments. The main question is if you want us build an authentic synthesizer which means sticking as close as possible to the original. Or do you want us add features which will then quickly turn this into a different instrument.

Here is an interesting observation:
When we designed the DeepMind12 we listened to you and created the sound of the Juno by replicating the relevant DCO and Filter circuitry of the Juno but added lots of new functionality. Because we used the same sound engine, the DeepMind can sound like a Juno but as you are aware the synth offers much more. What is remarkable is that to this day people are still asking us to build a straight up Juno-replica. The conclusion is that often less is more.

I fully agree that compromises can be achieved, however this is a truly fine line. Together with you we like to find out where exactly this line is when designing the UB-Xa.

Our ultimate goal is to authentically capture the truly remarkable sound of the OB-Xa, while replacing the outdated digital section by means of modern technology.

Next week we will be posting our first video around this topic and I appreciate all of you to chime in and share your views. Your opinion matters and you can make a difference.

Thanks!

Uli
My vote is to make it authentic (with keys). Thanks, Uli.
Old 1 week ago
  #690
Lives for gear
 
rasseru's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Knoch View Post
My vote is to make it authentic (with keys). Thanks, Uli.
But also a no key version for us poor brexit Brits .
(I'm being serious, money is getting tight)
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump