This is an odd comparison to compare an UB-Xa with a Rev2 ... They are not close sound wise and not sure why you would wait on the UB-Xa and how that should influence a decision or why the UB-Xa should do a price drop of the Rev2 at all ...
I think that nothing Behringer does will influence Sequential pricing with the exception as it will kill their business sufficiently. I cannot see that coming. There are two distinct buyers ... The ones that want to have a Sequential (btw. UB-Xa will not be a Sequential clone at all) and can afford it, and the others that want the sound and cannot or do not want to spend that amount of money.
I doubt that Sequentials revenue will get impacted by Behringers UB-Xa. If they release a Prophet 5 clone, it still will also not impact the price of the Sequential one. It is just, you want a Sequential or you just want the sound (similar to the VST discussion).
I guess you were addressing me, but I only read your post just now.
There are still not that many 8+ voice analog polys in production right now. I don't think it's a stretch at all to see a parallel between Dave Smith and Tom Oberheim's designs.
Personally, for my own needs and my own preferences, I think that I prefer the sounds that the Rev2 can create versus even what an OG OB-Xa can do... But if the UB-Xa was due to drop soon, I don't think it's beyond the realms of imagination that some people might be prompted by that to sell their Rev2s (thus increasing supply, relative to demand and therefore dropping used prices on the Rev2) just because people are Jonesing for the latest flashy release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazerbrains
Believe it or not, there are people who think they sound the same....
There is obviously a lot of overlap between modern Prophets and the Oberheim sound. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Well, the REV2 uses very similar synth-on-chip chips to the Matrix1000/6. So soundwise they're close, but of course the REV2 has a LOT more modulation.
Now, I am not quite certain how close the matrix 6 is to the OB-Xa. Maybe not that much.
I guess you were addressing me, but I only read your post just now.
There are still not that many 8+ voice analog polys in production right now. I don't think it's a stretch at all to see a parallel between Dave Smith and Tom Oberheim's designs.
Personally, for my own needs and my own preferences, I think that I prefer the sounds that the Rev2 can create versus even what an OG OB-Xa can do... But if the UB-Xa was due to drop soon, I don't think it's beyond the realms of imagination that some people might be prompted by that to sell their Rev2s (thus increasing supply, relative to demand and therefore dropping used prices on the Rev2) just because people are Jonesing for the latest flashy release.
There is obviously a lot of overlap between modern Prophets and the Oberheim sound. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Got to say that those OB8 sounds are the least 'oberheimy' sounds I've heard coming out of that synth. They actually sound quite 'prophety'. Apologies for using such technical engineering terminology in the context of a music forum.
It's not too many more steps to do what I said, but I hear you. Some people don't want screens (unless embedded on a synth). A rev2 is high on my list, though I'll prob go with something else further afield than the OB6 (a Digitone). I definitely came to believe that I need something that is easy and sounds heavenly with ease, as well as something that let's me dive in and design things.
I suspect the UBXa will be somewhere in between.
Yeah seems like manufacturers don't want to give us both feats in one single (affordable) machine. The UDO Super 6 comes to mind but is spenny.
The mod matrix on the UBXa sounds like a promising step towards the right direction. Fingers crossed!
Got to say that those OB8 sounds are the least 'oberheimy' sounds I've heard coming out of that synth. They actually sound quite 'prophety'. Apologies for using such technical engineering terminology in the context of a music forum.
Thanks. That's precisely the point I was making.
I *want* Prophet sounds.
Some posters seemed to be suggesting it was wildly ridiculous of me to imagine any Oberheim could ever get into Prophet territory.
The point of my post that you are quoting was to show that, actually, Oberheim designs can cover some of the same ground.
Some posters seemed to be suggesting it was wildly ridiculous of me to imagine any Oberheim could ever get into Prophet territory.
The point of my post that you are quoting was to show that, actually, Oberheim designs can cover some of the same ground.
I found that link for you.... where it shows the module version of the UB-Xa
That article is two years old and seems to just feature mock-ups, but I totally take your point that it's not out of the question to imagine a desktop of this.
Still, after posting here, I listened to lots of demos of the OG 1980s OBXa and I found I far prefer the sound of the Rev2... So unless this Behringer sounds a lot different from the OBXa but in a direction that I perceive to be far better than the OBXa (seems unlikely), then I think I'm better off buying a Rev2.
... Now I just need to find a Rev2 at market prices (all the ones I see advertised now are 'eBay sellers on crack' who want hundreds and hundreds more than their typical resale price.
That article is two years old and seems to just feature mock-ups, but I totally take your point that it's not out of the question to imagine a desktop of this.
Still, after posting here, I listened to lots of demos of the OG 1980s OBXa and I found I far prefer the sound of the Rev2... So unless this Behringer sounds a lot different from the OBXa but in a direction that I perceive to be far better than the OBXa (seems unlikely), then I think I'm better off buying a Rev2.
... Now I just need to find a Rev2 at market prices (all the ones I see advertised now are 'eBay sellers on crack' who want hundreds and hundreds more than their typical resale price.
Rev2 ... You really can't go wrong..... go for the 16 voices, to layer and combine patches.....
personally I prefer more immediacy. Which is why I sold my Rev2, kept the Prologue 16 and bought an OB-6 I am quite over the moon with it....some have described it as "one giant sweet spot"
You can literally find a rendering of the module version on the first page of this thread though. In fact the very first idea for the UBXA was for it to be a desktop module.
Trademarks fade away if not both used and defended, at least in the US.
This is also why companies have to go after "the little guy" so often, when they are using their trademark. It's not a matter of being "mean", it's necessity to keep the mark.
This is also why getting a trademark can be an expensive proposition. It's not just the cost of filing for and making the case for the mark.
A trademark owner must submit proof of continuous use throughout the time they own it. If they lapse, they lose it.
Gibson transferring the mark back to Tom was mostly about them agreeing not to use it in the future. It otherwise had no value to it at the time, because it was not used. Pretty sure the same was true of Yamaha/Sequential.
Interestingly, if you do a TM search for "Sequential". One of the first ones that pops up, as live, is "Sequential Circuits" owned by someone in Annapolis, Maryland (not far from me):
was perusing different words in the uspto site, and found this...
<moderator message - I'll allow this for now, but PLEASE stop discussing legal issues on this forum @
S_A_P
? thanks!!>
Last edited by Reptil; 12th November 2020 at 08:13 AM..
Reason: -
was perusing different words in the uspto site, and found this...
<moderator message - I'll allow this for now, but PLEASE stop discussing legal issues on this forum @
S_A_P
? thanks!!>
The curse of the prophet. If you try to register its trademark you die shortly after. It's protected by the synth gods of mount olympus. Legend says that like Sisyphos, you will be forced to roll a Yamaha CS-80 in a wheeled flight case up a hill, only to have to roll down every time you near the top, repeating this action for eternity.
Now that we have cleared this up, let's ask the oracle about that the modulation matrix - how many LFOs and and what can these be assigned to
Lol! Nobody is any industry cares about the copying. Everyone does it, it's expected. It's actually a quite respectable career now.
Patents and trademarks are for lawyers to squabble over to settle lawsuits between companies, they're literally traded away in cross licensing. They're strategic leverage in a negotiation. The engineers don't care, we copy good ideas for all customers. I've got 48 patents with my name on them - copy away! I would love to see someone copy my ideas :0) I only did them to get the patent bonuses.
You folks have no idea what goes into this stuff, or what the designers get out of it. It's clouded by marketing and competitive messaging.
I'm in it for the products. I can't wait to see UB-Xa, BBG, or the rest. And I want a MonoPoly to mod!! :0) give me the good stuff guys! :0)
I can't imagine it being priced much differently than the Deepmind 12.....
16 full oscillators vs 12 full oscilaltors plus 12 limited ones.
8 filters vs 12 filters.
5 octaves vs 4 octaves keyboard.
Hype and demand for Oberheim vs demand for Roland.
Counting in the new factory that makes it possible to build things cheaper.
My bet would be 1100$ to 1200$ on launch and maybe 800$ to 900$ a year later.
16 full oscillators vs 12 full oscilaltors plus 12 limited ones.
Actually the Suboscillators are no oscillators at all (technology wise). They are just taking the original oscillators signal and creating a square wave by using the peaks of the original oscillators signal. That is the exact same like using a waveshaper, but with just half the speed. For every fall or rise of the original signal you build on flank (up or down) of the square wave, resulting in half of the frequency, or on octave down.
Literally in the DM12 there is actually only one oscillator (which is a digital clock signal). The 12 Oscillators are actually just wave shapers, as they are DCOs.
However there are 12 Circuits - one for each voice - that counts as good as a VCO in technology effort.
Actually the Suboscillators are no oscillators at all (technology wise). They are just taking the original oscillators signal and creating a square wave by using the peaks of the original oscillators signal. That is the exact same like using a waveshaper, but with just half the speed. For every fall or rise of the original signal you build on flank (up or down) of the square wave, resulting in half of the frequency, or on octave down.
Literally in the DM12 there is actually only one oscillator (which is a digital clock signal). The 12 Oscillators are actually just wave shapers, as they are DCOs.
However there are 12 Circuits - one for each voice - that counts as good as a VCO in technology effort.
in the ubxa it is not using sub osc, it is using 2 vco per voice, the dm12 is a diff synth
Actually the Suboscillators are no oscillators at all (technology wise). They are just taking the original oscillators signal and creating a square wave by using the peaks of the original oscillators signal.
That’s certainly true of the Juno, but not of the DM12. On the latter the frequency of the “sub” oscillator is independently variable. It’s effectively been upgraded to a second, pulse-only, oscillator.
Hype and demand for Oberheim vs demand for Roland.
But this is neither an Oberheim nor a Roland - it is a Behringer. In a way, Behringer has painted themselves into a corner as everyone expects it to be cheap, so it it isn't, it probably won't sell much.
Would be nice to see a new video and shipping date on Christmas day.
I doubt about it. I guess we'll read news around NAMM (end of January). This is not about a budget mono synth. They consider it a flagship. I bet they would want it to be in the headlines instead of a casual post in social media.
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Latest
Trending
