From analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Fri May 19 08:14:56 1995 Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id IAA15359; Fri, 19 May 1995 08:14:56 -0700 Received: from colin.muc.de by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA15354; Fri, 19 May 1995 08:14:52 -0700 Received: from buchi.muc.de ([193.174.4.96]) by colin.muc.de with SMTP id <25547-3>; Fri, 19 May 1995 17:01:53 +0200 To: ANALOGUE@hyperreal.com From: majortom@muc.de (mw) Subject: Re: ??? Q: OBX vs OBXa vs OB8 Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 19:03:18 +0200 Message-ID: Sender: analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Precedence: bulk jeanniel@merle.acns.nwu.edu writes: > what are the differences in: > among OBX, OBXa and OB8 I've had the OB-8, the OB-Xa and the X in that order in short sucession. I've loved every one of them, and each one impressed me even more... They have very different characters, it's hard to say that one of them sounds best, if I could I would like to have all of them. Given the choice though, I'd go for the OB-X but this is solely a matter of personal taste! It's hard to explain the differences in sound with words, but they are clearly audioable... The 8 is great, clean, soft and sweet and full of harmony, the Xa is lot more "dirty" then the 8 and I think just a tad fuller sounding through this, it's a bit of a brute actually. For me the X has the strongesty personality of them all, if you know what I mean. It's very much alive. It's sound can be best described as the "richest" and "warmest". It lacks some options from the later models like real 2. LFO, or doubled sounds, or arpeggiator but I don't really miss them, because it makes even with the cross-mod option, which none of the others have and this does open a whole new world of sound variations. One of the things I've come to judge synths by is the way they can do "music" on their own. I like to hold a chord for litarally hours on end and having the synth do it's own thing with modulaton etc. And all OBs were champions at entertaining me that way. Hope that helps. >|||||||||||||| Have you hugged your moog today? ||||||||||||||| Yes. (mw) From analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Fri May 5 16:46:50 1995 Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id QAA02092; Fri, 5 May 1995 16:46:50 -0700 Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA02083; Fri, 5 May 1995 16:46:47 -0700 From: MOOGMAN@aol.com Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA240707578; Fri, 5 May 1995 19:46:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 May 1995 19:46:18 -0400 Message-Id: <950505194617_108465782@aol.com> To: squishy@bga.com, analogue@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: OB-Xa Sender: analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Precedence: bulk I have had a few OBX-a's over the years,and the last words I would use to describe them, was thin. IMHO it should sound fatter than the OB8 and somewhat thinner on the low end compared to an OBX. I am sure you tried to detune the oscillators, or program it from scratch, so I' am at a loss to explain it. Larry From analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Fri Sep 8 08:02:29 1995 Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id IAA21884; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 08:02:29 -0700 Received: from sol.UVic.CA by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA21878; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 08:02:27 -0700 Received: by sol.UVic.CA (4.1/SMI-4.1.3-UVic-2.66MX) id AA02659; Fri, 8 Sep 95 08:02:02 PDT Date: Fri, 8 Sep 1995 08:01:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Lorne Hammond To: Richard Cirone Cc: Analogue Heaven Subject: Re: OBXa reprogramming hell... In-Reply-To: <199509072050.NAA06244@claris.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Precedence: bulk I know zip about your machine, but here are some clues from the cassette section of the Oberheim Matrix 6r: cables: 2 conductor sheilded (not attentuating) 1/4" on the matrix end, and 1/8" on the cassette end. Connect one cable from cass. out (earphone, headphone, speaker to the jack labelled FROM, connect the other cable from the cass. input jack (aux or line) to the Matrix jack labelled TO. "Both cables must be connected at the same time for the cassette function to work properly." [HMMM, might be that? my sampler wont receive /dump without two cables either, but different reasons for that] Cass. tone control? set halway. LOAD ALL: MEMORY PROTECT off, rewind tape until just before the tone starts on the tape, type in the LOAD CASS. parameter (22 on Master on the Matrix) Press the Value button under parameter. It will ask READY?, press paly on cassette and press YES on Matrix. Display will go blank or show LOADING DATA. MATRIX CASSETTE ERRORS: ERROR 1 transfere aborted, did you press the value button during transfer? ERROR 2 error in one or more patches ERROR 3 split error ERROR 4 Not used ERROR 5 master edit error ERROR 6 software difference between data and machine ERROR 7 cannot recognize, data recorded too high or too low a volume ERROR 8 cassette speed too slow, change batteries use speed correction? ERROR 9 Not used ERROR A speed too fast Unlisted problems: recorded data too low a volume, says LOADING DATA but light never goes off, its still waiting for the tone, might also be your cables. Other possibilities, dirty cassette heads, bad alignment, need to be demagnetized, wrong bias on machine, cables wrong, not pushed in properly, connections reversed. Hope that helps. Might be the original cable setup. I think Left to machine and machine to line is all you need. keep it mono, forget the stereo merging. lorne lhammond@sol.uvic.ca From analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Sun Oct 29 08:54:40 1995 Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id IAA21358; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 08:54:40 -0800 Received: from eserver.sms.siemens.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id IAA21352; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 08:54:37 -0800 Received: from iserver.sms.siemens.com by eserver.sms.siemens.com with ESMTP (8.7.1/16.2) id LAA29836; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:52:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from opsusa.sms.siemens.com by iserver.sms.siemens.com (8.7.1/4.03) id MAA13957; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 12:56:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:54 EST From: MARSHALLR@opsusa.sms.siemens.com (RICHARD MARSHALL--ASTON, PA) Message-Id: <0099897DB33C7A2C.2E50@opsusa.sms.siemens.com> To: ah602@detroit.freenet.org, analogue@hyperreal.com Subject: RE: Midi kit for OB-XA X-VMS-To: SMTP%"ah602@detroit.freenet.org" X-VMS-Cc: @ANALOG Sender: analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Precedence: bulk >Does anyone know who makes midi kits for the OB-XA? Are some better than others? Price? Thanks, >Bryan There are 2 that I know of: - Archive Sound makes one that is a basic note on/note off w/ program change for $175.00. Disadvantages are no mod/pitch bend, sys ex. Advantages are price and ease of installation, basically plugs in. (610) 559-7605. - Kenton makes one that is around $400.00 that does offer control over some analog parameters, incl. pitch bend, mod wheel. Disadvantages are price, installation much more difficult, (approx. 4 hours by technician), no sysex. Advantages are midi control over analog parameters. Hope this helps, RM From analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Tue Dec 5 01:42:22 1995 Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id BAA19165; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:42:22 -0800 Received: from proxy.scn.de by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id BAA19159; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:42:18 -0800 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by proxy.scn.de (8.6.11/8.6.11) id KAA02678; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:38:10 +0100 Received: from marina.scn.de(192.129.41.2) by proxy.scn.de via smap (V1.3) id sma002646; Tue Dec 5 10:38:01 1995 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by marina.scn.de (8.6.11/8.6.11) id KAA20295; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:41:47 +0100 Received: from r316.m30x.nbg.scn.de(142.120.5.16) by marina.scn.de via smap (V1.3) id sma020140; Tue Dec 5 10:41:17 1995 Received: from msmgate.m30x.nbg.scn.de by r316.m30x.nbg.scn.de id aa24808; 5 Dec 95 10:39 MEZ Received: by MSMGATE.M30X.NBG.SCN.DE with Microsoft Mail id <30C49241@MSMGATE.M30X.NBG.SCN.DE>; Tue, 05 Dec 95 10:41:05 PST From: Haible_Juergen#Tel2743 To: analogue , DIY Subject: OB-8 mod (OB-Xa sound) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 95 10:40:00 PST Message-ID: <30C49241@MSMGATE.M30X.NBG.SCN.DE> Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Precedence: bulk Hi! As I posted before, the main difference in sound between the OB-8 and the OB-Xa is a bass loss of the OB-8 due to a 22Hz highpass in the signal path. While 22Hz don't look that dramatic, remind You that the phase is fucked up at much higher frequencies. You can see the saw wave distorted to an exponential slope instead of a linear one for the entire low octave. The pulse has extreme overshots (differentiated), and the triangle is hard to describe, but not a triangle at all anymore. In my earlier posting I suggested increasing coupling capacitors, but this affects the autotune routine which is optimized for speed and will produce errors with the enlarged time constants. Last night I tried an alternative method: Compensating the phase shift of the voices in the output stage (after the autotune loop). The "bad guy" actually is the coupling between the VCF and VCA: it's a 75kOhm resistor in series with a 100nF capacitor. To compensate for this, we have to put a similar network into the feedback loop of an opamp. To avoid additional stages, I decided to change the frequency response of the opamp that converts the final VCA's output current to a voltage. Now here's the way to go: (1) Replace the resistors R505 and R506 (100k) with 1M resistors on both voice boards (4 resistors in total). If You stand in front of Your open OB-8, these resistors are located near the right edge of the board, next to a TL082 opamp. Cutting them out is easier than desoldering them on the 2-sided pcb. (2) Now build a small network of a 120k resistor and a 56nF cap *in series* and connect the whole network *in parallel* to the new 1M resistors (solder it right on top). That's all. If You want to do an A-B crosscheck, modify one voice board first and cycle thru the voices. You will hear the difference, and You will also see it at a scope. If You find the original OB-8's sound more pleasant, just short the four 56n capacitors. Or solder 4p1t switch across the caps to have immediate access to both sounds. For my part, I have the change hardwired, without a switch. If I want less bass, I can do this with the mixing console ... DISCLAIMER: Though this works fine on my OB-8 (and I don't know any reason why it shouldn't ob Yours as well), I guarantee for nothing. JH. From analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Tue Sep 24 14:44:12 1996 Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.7.5/V2.0) id OAA08600; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from janus.swip.net by taz.hyperreal.com (8.7.5/V2.0) with ESMTP id OAA08587; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lupus.pollux.se (dialup111-5-12.swipnet.se [130.244.111.112]) by janus.swip.net (8.7.6swip/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA03262 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:42:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from ricard@localhost) by lupus.pollux.se (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00340; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:40:19 +0200 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 23:40:18 +0200 (MET DST) From: Ricard Wolf To: Analogue Heaven Subject: Re: OB-Xa tuning suggestions? (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Eric Frampton wrote: > The manual isn't too clear on how to do all the scaling - I can match > starting pitches, of course, but then the scaling goes to hell up and down. > Any suggestions or stupid things I'm missing? The manual just doesn't make > that much sense to me. (for once - arrgh!) I've only got the service manual, don't know if the procedure is printed in the users manual (perhaps differently) as well. It's described as an iterative procedure, which means it can be pretty anoying if you're far off to start with. I always find the tuning procedures described in service manuals awkward to use. I find that after a half-hour of tinkering I devise my own method... There are basically two adjustments for this type of oscillator (i.e. 3340-based oscillators, but many synths, for instance monophonic Moogs and ARPs have the same adjustment procedures: Scale (i.e. volts per octave) and Range (i.e. relative pitch). The Range trimpot doesn't affect the volts per octave, it just sets the relative frequency of the oscillator and is non-critical in this respect as the autotune will take care of it anyway. Many autotune systems (such as the OB-Xa uses I beleive) can't correct Scale errors so this adjustment really is critical. (Side note: has anyone studied the autotune systems of various synths, like the JP-8, MemoryMoog, OB-Xa, Polysix (trick question!) or Prophet 5 to figure out exactly which effects they attempt to autotune? Range only, or both scale and range, or more?) I usually start by setting the Range trimpot to a reasonable value by ear, i.e. playing two notes an octave apart and adjusting the trimpot so it really sounds like an octave apart. If you get tired listening to octaves, play a little melody you're familiar with and try to hear if the notes are too widely or too closely spaced. When the tune sounds 'good' you're not too far off. After this I get out my guitar tuner, and select a key, for instance, A. I play the A and adjust the pitch (usint the Range trimpot or the front panel tune knob or whatever) so that the guitar tuner shows an A. Then I go up an octave and adjust the Scale trimmer to that it's an octave away from the note below. Then back to the lower note. Normally this will have drifted a bit as a result of the adjustment, so you'll have to redo the Scale adjustment a few times. The important thing is not that it's exactly an A but that the deviation is the same for both the low and high notes, e.g. A + 17 cents or whatever. This means that you don't have to reset the Range trimpot after each adjustment of the Scale trimpot which makes it much easier to perform the procedure. After adjusting over one octave I try to verify that the osc is in tune over several octaves as well. Greater accuracy can be acheived by tuning over several octaves, but if the osc is too far off it can be difficult to hear how far off you are. Don't go into too high frequencies in this step, as there's a separate adjustment for this usually (Hi end trim). Some oscs just don't track too well over several octaves, and there's not much that can be done about it. Some synths offer adjustments for hi, mid and lo notes to compensate for this. After the Scale is as good as I can get it, I adjust the Range trimpot using the tuner to get the Range ok. Following this, it's time for the second osc in the voice. After getting the Scale as good as I can, I try to match the scale to the first osc. This is because it's most important that both oscs in a voice track in the same way, compared to getting all voices to track equally. Matching oscs is a matter of listening to beats, so you don't even need a tuner for this. It can be annoying though, listening to sustained sawtooth waves, if nothing else to the rest of the family or your cat! Finally - hi end trim. The synths I've dived into seem to have a random amount of error at the hi end, and the Hi end trim pot isn't always enough to correct it. I've stopped worrying about this and try to get a reasonable accuracy in the high range. Sometimes I've concentrated on getting the oscs the same, more than getting them all perfect, if one or several oscs can't be brought into perfect tuning using the Hi end trim pot. Often the errors in the high range can't be heard as being 'out of tune', but do cause unpleasant beats, especially if doing any form of FM. Keeping the oscillators "together" helps, more so than just adjusting them to be as close to perfect as possible (because that just doesn't always work). If the octave switch has a separate adjustment, now is the time to do that. Octave adjustments can be done using beats, and most often the lowest octave is unaffected by the adjustment making it all easier. Some synths, like the Polysix and the Mono/Poly, have a 'stretch tuning facility' the idea being that 'all octaves don't sound equal', i.e. that high and low octaves should be longer (or is that shorter???) than the middle octaves, frequencywise, because this sounds better to the human ear (pianos are tuned this way, for instance). If the stretch tuning can't be disabled, like on the Mono/Poly then you pretty much have to follow the instructions given (often things like 'C0 - 7 cents, C5 + 7 cents'). And, if it's a polysynth, like the OB-Xa, you've just got to repeat the procedure for each voice...happy tuning! If possible, you can try to match the other voices to the first one you've tuned, using beats, but beat tuning has the disadvantage that you don't know 'which side' you're on until you begin adjusting the Scale trimmer and then "Bummer, wrong way!...". /Ricard -- Ricard Wolf (ricard.wolf@swipnet.se) Analog synth, railroad and Citroen GS fanatic -- "Ich bin der Musikant mit Taschenrechner in der Hand" -- From analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Wed Apr 23 04:01:24 1997 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hyperreal.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id EAA07022; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.sbs.de (ns.sbs.de [194.112.84.17]) by hyperreal.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id EAA07018 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:01:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by ns.sbs.de (8.8.3/8.8.2) id NAA17102 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:02:44 +0200 (MDT) Received: from marina.fth.sbs.de(192.129.41.2) by ns via smap (v3.0.1) id sma017063; Wed, 23 Apr 97 13:02:10 +0200 Received: from r316.m30x.nbg.scn.de (r316.m30x.nbg.scn.de [142.120.5.16]) by marina.fth.sbs.de (8.8.5/8.8.2) with ESMTP id NAA14262 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:00:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nbgm335a.m30x.nbg.scn.de (msmgate.m30x.nbg.scn.de) by r316.m30x.nbg.scn.de with SMTP (1.40.112.4/16.2) id AA163573221; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:00:22 +0200 Received: by nbgm335a.m30x.nbg.scn.de with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) id <01BC4FE6.5917DDE0@nbgm335a.m30x.nbg.scn.de>; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:00:41 +0100 Message-Id: From: Haible Juergen To: "'analogue'" Subject: AW: OB-8 or OB-Xa Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:56:10 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: analogue-owner@hyperreal.com Precedence: bulk >I figured apart from a Matrix 12 or Xpander, I should get either an OB-8 or >OB-Xa with >MIDI. Which do you guys think is better? Tom thinks the OB-Xa sounds >"dirtier" since >its oscillators are less stable. Most AHers have said the same thing. Yet >overall it >seems the OB-8 is less prone to failure than the OB-Xa, and I don't want to >face massive >repair costs in the future (or tuning costs). I'm not an electrical >engineer, so I can't >make the repairs myself (even when they're easy - I have no soldering iron the essential tools of the trade). >What do you guys think? This is a hard question. I own an OB-8 and I love it - and I know that an OB-Xa does sound slightly different indeed. As does an OB-X or an OB-4Voice. No other manufacurer has such a smooth evolution from model to model. And even during a certain model (an early OB-8 is quite different from a later one). Want the ultimate fat and experimental system? Buy a 4-voice and bring out all the inner cinnections to patchpoints. Want a very similar sound with programmability, but many interesting features sacrificed: Buy an OB-X. Want a classical Polysynth with all comfort and decent amount of features: OB-Xa. Want a lot more features (frequency modulated LFO's, invertable modulation routings, and much more), and still a totally analogue synth engine, go for the OB-8. >From that point on, things became worse. Xpander and Matrix 12 boast with an increadible amount of features, but most of these (including the envelopes) are implemented in software. And no more dedicated knobs. Still analogue VCO's and VCFs, though. I never cared much for what came after that. (Matrix 6, 1000, ...) DCO's .... says it all. OB-Xa and OB-8 were the highlights of the Oberheim evolution, IMO. Hard to say which one is better. JH.