It’s amazing how close they sound, keep in mind that these presets on the behringer are “hand made recreations” of the original rom patches from the obxa, not digital transfer of the parameters but only “by ear” aproximation of them, there’s no screen on the original to see the exact value of params… congrats to the programmer, fantastic job!!
right, a lot of the 'differences' are just slighlty different parametrisation. Some have different vibrato/LFO, sterephonic distribution, release etc. For sure working on an UB patch for hours and weeks can bring it close to the OB (or the other way round :)) . thus said, there a dozent or so sounds which are de facto identical - and some preset 'interpretations' sound richer/sweeter on the UB ;)
The differences are very minimal and probably what you'd get from comparing two originals. Congratulations, sounds like everyone did a fine job. [edit] Having listened to some sounds again on proper speakers (which I initially didn't), there's some sounds that are admittedly pretty different, even though many are very close. It's when the filter resonance is brought into play that the Oberheim strides ahead. But anyway, still sounds good overall.
I guarantee the differences between two well-calibrated original OB-Xa’s would be a lot more subtle than what you hear in this video, it’s pretty drastic especially with regard to the filter
@@daddyzhoam Yes you're right, having listened again on proper speakers. At the 6 minute mark, the sweep comparison is a giveaway where the Behringer can't quite do it, but it's otherwise very well done for a £999 synth. I'd save up and get an OB-X8 if I was in the market, but that's not an option for many.
@AlexBallMusic Yes but the Behringer is mono/center Unison from what I hear at 6 minutes and the Obie has its voices always hardware panned as by it's pan settings on the circuit board potmeter... Also the Obie's resonance just seems to be a tad higher there ... Does the Behringer have only center unison?
Ain't subtle to me! Up to where I am now, 3:11, the OBxa is significantly brighter and more open sounding even on my phone speaker. I can pick these 2 out from each other all day long.
@@housebandthexenos2569 It's funny because I felt the UB-Xa had the brighter sound (in most instances) and is what I was commenting on. I felt the OB had a touch more warmth. Both sounded good.
@@housebandthexenos2569 Yes ... ONLY going up to that mark, I agree, the OB is brighter ... as a whole (listening to the full demo) the UB to me had brighter / more treble / presence which didn't make it better or worse, it was just a note.
The very best video, and I think the first video, showing these synths side by side. And with a recent Behringer Version and not an early prototype. Well done! Thanks!
Purists?? Smh.. lol! I own an OB-8 and the coolest thing about it, is to say I have one. It’s heavy, doesn’t always stay in tune, and fickle as all get out! You can’t tell me you’d know which was which on a record. Someone here said the Behringer sounds cheap…. Do you think you can’t get an OB-Xa to sound cheap?! You can, and it ain’t that hard. People don’t go to concerts to hear oscillators….. they go to hear music. To that end the Behringer sounds pretty fantastic to me. But what do I know… not enough I’m sure.
TGD did a concert in Melbourne 2016, Sorcerer OST live to audience whilst the movie was playing, they used 2 TR8s controlled by Ableton, you could not get any purer talent that simply proves, it's not the instrument, but the artist.
As soon as I saw this I grabbed some popcorn to watch all of the people who think they have ultra human hearing come on here and moan about how much better the original sounds lol. I wasn't disappointed.
After hearing this you should know that Beringer took the insides of the OBX and just change the outside and in a song you would not be able to tell the difference between these two keyboard sounds. Stop fooling yourself, the Oberheim coast too HEAVENLY much.
Rüdiger, you won the Internet today! That's a fine and accurate comparison of the two blue-striped. And I'm really stunned how similar they sound despite of all the negative comments in the forums. Seems like it was worth waiting the 6 years since it was announced (at least for those who don't want to spend the $$ for the Obie).
I have to note: I switched off the velocity and aftertouch plus switched off voices 9-16 for this video to get the same circumstances like on the Original. I also put the voices randomly for panning.
Not a big fan of the company, but still very impressive to see that it comes that close to the OB sound. There are however places where the OB sounds warmer and more alive due to some drifting and slight detuning of the voices. It's very evident at the 1:30 mark where the OB sounds so alive and lush whereas the UB sounds sterile in comparision. Thanks so much for making this vid, highly educational!!
@@Lamster66 ok yeah. True enough on the difference between analog synths. Also: it's a youtube video and you will never really hear what you need to in this format. That is why you need to be in the room and hear it yourself. It is also valuable for people to report what they hear when making videos.
Thanx for the video . Nice shot indeed mostly when you know that OB-Xa is more than 40 years old, meaning that circuitry & components had time to drift a bit :) . I guess that 2 OB-Xa may not sound now really the same ! Cheers
the OB is recorded a touch louder, so that's already going to influence. The OB is also doing a voice channel swap on all notes in a more pronounced way. The UB not as frequent swapping and in some patches not at all, so that's also contributing to a more more wideness and depth on the OB. Absolutely not hard to accommodate for though, and in a mix pretty much inconsequential.
Very impressive indeed. Given it comes with a poly AT 5 octave board at a small fraction of the price of an original - bargain to any of us who dreamed of owning one some day. Bring on the CS80 & JP8's!
To produce, I'll continue with the plugins, but I like having a real synthesizer to play, the experience, the speed to improvise, test ideas, create... in short, the fun part. behringer is making fun accessible for everyone!
Plus plug ins take up CPU processing which sometimes locks up my DAW computer - even with 64 GB RAM. These external hardware synths take workload off my CPU. Thanks Behringer!
Bearing in mind when this was shot, on the whole, to my ears the UB sounds a bit brighter, more harsh, but no less a synth for it. At the price it is, even just buying it as a Poly AT midi-controller alone would be sensible given the alternatives out there, especially if paired up to something like Omnisphere. The fact that there is a whole bi-timbral synth stuffed in there as well is a minor miracle (although I do feel that the routine £3,500-5000 figures we are seeing for new modern synths these days is a bit of a piss-take-band-wagon-because-we-can trend). Side-by-side on this and other more recent comparison videos, I prefer the character of the OB, but in isolation the UB objectively sounds really good, and would be completely indistinguishable to most people, especially in a mix. So yeah, a big well done to Behringer for providing access to the masses - think what you want of them, there's a market need and they fill it. If you don't like their ethics, vote with your wallet and either buy original hardware or a licensed soft-synth for even less originality. I'm on the lookout for my first and only poly synth to noodle about on. Seriously tempted by the UB, but the UDO Super Gemini just seems to have a much broader sonic palette. It also costs four times as much...that's the dilemma!
I have the Ub-Xa on pre-order. I'll buy fir exactly the reasons you stated so well. But, like you, I can't wait for the UDO SUPER GEMINI to come to the STATES. That synth is a no-brainer. I doubt seriously it needs to be priced so high, but regardless, that is going on the Rack. It will be in good company...
@@tommyg5095 I’ve spoken to George (UDO founder) at a synth convention in the UK. When you consider that they are a very small team, and the sheer amount of metal and custom hardware that’s gone into the Super Gemini, I can understand its cost - the price is defined by the parts and labour, and no corners have been cut. I’m sure the UB-Xa will serve you well, and would me too, but part of me likes the idea of supporting a smaller company who have built a unique synth with its own character.
Yes, this might be a use case, taking the UB as a master keyboard for a GrooveSynthesis 3rd Wave or similar. Other than that... no. I'm not convinced. Thin, heartless, uninspiring.
another thing to remember is that the ubxa is brand new and the obxa is 43 years old. it's perfectly normal for a brand new synth to sound brighter. this obxa unit probably sounded a lot brighter when it was new as well.
I mean for the price, its as close as it's getting can def tell the OG OB has a little more "Sheen" on the high end sounds a bit more big and bitey to my ears at least. The UB sounds Big as well but def does not have that sheen on the high end AS much as the OG OB. But honest no 2 analog pieces of gear are truly 1 to 1 in sound. Great Video man thanks for this!
Exellent video , i do think that the dynamic is better on the Og , the B sounds like a little compressed on some pacthes , we don't feel the contour as the OG , might be the enveloppes , don't k now , anyway ... B did a superb job , and the diff i hear could be the diff i hear between the OG and another high end unit .... Thks for taking the time !! I hope B released a desktop version as well ...
There's clearly a difference in either the enveloppes' curves or the voltage response of the filters, it's very noticeable on short percussive sounds. I think the only modern polyphonic synth that got this right so far is the prophet 5/10 rev 4...it really shines in that regard.
Exact , the Prophets have one of the best shaping feel , hard to explain , but still a great one imho , need to test it to really feel it and if it's ok or really something that can handicap .... giving the quality of sounds we heard , not sure , if we didn't had the og that we would be disturbed ...@@rebours
hard to be too critical when it costs £999.. which is insane, 16 voice poly for that price makes no sense I have no idea how they did it, great job behringer but the filter just doesnt seem right at all.. 3:56 is a good example of it missing a bit of something, the original has all that lovely mid range harmonic resonance going on and the behringer sounds a bit bland and not the same character, again at 7:00 maybe just slightly different settings on the knobs? regardless of it sounding exactly like the original or not, its an insane value for money in its own right as an analogue poly with that many voices, theyre going to sell a LOT of these
Thx the compare and the works... I absolutely hear the difference. But the two synths will rarely be heard at the same time.:-) It is the low harmonics that are different, the Behringer seems thinner OBx dirtier in a good sense.
Really nice comparison - thank you for this! The only big difference I noticed was at the 6:00 mark (Tom Sawyer patch?) The resonance harmonics were noticeably lacking in the UB-Xa.
Yeah, that was a massive difference. If i were paying $1200 anyway, i’d just save up the extra few hundred and get the real deal. Anyway if i can avoid it i don’t buy any new products from sweatshop-conditions manufacturer Behringer.
For all the wine connoisseurs who have started counting suspended particles, maybe do the same with 2 ob-xa, they don't sound the same. series scatter, aging, etc. I see it this way: you can buy a Focusrite clone for four times the price, it doesn't sound the same, or you can buy an OG for ten times the price. doesn't sound the same again :)
@@daddyzhoam Not really, unless it was recapped. especially capacitors age, a process that cannot be stopped. So that you understand, the loss factor increases and the value becomes smaller, which is why the frequency of the circuit shifts. A 71 Minimoog simply had a different sound 50 years ago. What's special about the ob-xa is that Tom used mica in the filter last time and never again after that. makes up part of the Oberheim sound.
How many 40 year old synths are still getting by on the original electrolytics? Most reconditioned ones have been largely recapped. And the silver mica caps to my understanding were only used in the OB-X.
@@daddyzhoam So my JP8 still has the original power supply :) and no, the ob-xa also had mica filter caps, take a look at the circuit diagrams. tom regressed after that, I got the marion mrs1 from him... far away from SEM- One aspect is the tolerance of the components, previously resistors were 10.5%, filter capacitors were 20%, today everything is much more precise. You can then try to adjust&/calibrate the synth, if the other one is too far away in terms of tolerance, no chance. especially affects the filters.
Not a Behringer fan, but from a strictly design and production standpoint I think they did a ended up with a pretty good product here, even if it took 6 years after the announcement. It's definitely not a perfect match sonically, especially with low brass, strings, pads, Tom Sawyer type sounds, but it sounds quite good considering the price point and extra features: 16 voice polyphony/PolyAT/Etc.
Two OB-Xas won't be a perfect match sonically. imho the matches that ARE impressive indicate that the unimpressive matches could be coaxed into place with enough time. The filters and oscillators seem pretty capable of doing what's important.
@swanofnutella4734 - If I had a dollar for the number of times I've heard this rhetoric... I actually have 2 OB-Xas (one early production, one late) and the variances are not nearly as significant as the ones between the UB-Xa and OB-Xa... Two OB-Xas still sound like OB-Xas - The UB-Xa clearly sounds like a different synthesizer. But again, it's close and Behringer should be commended. PS - I know a UB-Xa beta tester and they spent countless hours trying to match each preset (beta tester units were distributed almost 3 years ago) - this is as close as they can get them.
Nice comparison, thanks for sharing! Berhinger did a very nice job. Yes there is a difference for 2 main reasons: each OB-Xa sounds different and this original has old circuits more than 40 years old, which have lived and therefore which sound different from a model with a recent circuit, more "straight" (which has not, moreover, probably not the same quality of components either). But the rendering of the Behringer is very convincing! 👍
Both very similar, the ub-xa has a consistent slight brightness/harshness to it over the ob. It's possible this could mellow down with age. I doubt anyone would notice the difference once it's gone through a pre-amp and some effects/filters with a sound engineer, particularly in any sort of reasonable mix. A more apples for apples would be an ob straight out of the factory brand new in the 80s vs the ub now, time does some things to componenets. Behringer has done a great job at recreating a legend.
I'll add to this, I have an OB-6 which I think is just fantastic and because of it wouldn't buy an OB-8/Xa or UB, but if I didn't have it I'd be very happy with a ub-xa. Apart from pure nostalgia it would be pretty hard to justify an original OB over the UB for the price, reliability and availability. I say this staring at a bunch of 80's synths and drum machines in my collection, but most of them hadn't had a modern recreation when I bought them.
Sounding very good. I'm sure any differences in brightness/character could be further edited to match. The UB-Xa basically sounds like an OB-Xa in a box around half the size for a lot less money. I like it!
This recreation is a work of art and the fact the patches were recreated BY EAR (something many choose to overlook when wanting to give unfavourable opinions) gets my respect. Sad to see the hate some actual owners of the original are getting in the comments from people who don’t want to hear that they prefer the Behringer. Can’t wait to eventually get my hands on one, when I can afford it. Listening to this comparison I find half of the Behringer sounds slightly better and half of the oberheim sounds slightly better, but I’m not really interested in patches I’m interested in what sounds can be teased out of it. It is great to see someone when to the trouble of making this comparison video to inform buyers and allow actual owners to give their say, so thank to the video maker! I’ve never had the opportunity to own the original and likely never will, but thanks to Behringer it looks like after all these years of looking and listening to oberheims in awe I may finally get the opportunity to incorporate that sounds in to my stuff. I missed the limited run of oberheim eurorack modules and know any future products are going to be priced well out of my range so Uli is well appreciated here.
This is by far the best comment I got on this video and I am very pleased, that you post this. Fortunately, I don’t mind very much about any comments and haters out there, I know that the reworking all the patches and also all my work for beta testing was worth to help getting this synth for you and grateful musicians. For that, it was worth each hour to spend on this project.
@@vintagesynths I can imagine the time and effort it took to setup, record and edit this. So always appreciate seeing these kinds of video, even on things I know I won’t get. Many people view these videos and don’t realise how time consuming they can be, or just see them as an opportunity to bash or glorify a product. As a lover of synthesis for me the patches are a great gauge for the range of possibilities a synth can have… it’s quicker than looking at a spec sheet and reading a manual lol. I hope you also had fun making some of your own sounds on both of these keyboards too! As for the various comments regarding brand a vs brand b, my favourite has to be the one that starts of (something like) “the best thing about owning the original is being able to say I own the original.” This is true of many synths, and for varying reasons, but at the end of the day these things are supposed to be used not just adored. The existence of a clone or an alternative or approximation inspired by something that was once unique doesn’t diminish the original, it just given opportunities for new people to make use of that limited resource. I think there are people that care just as much about the status they perceive they give themselves by owning a certain product just as much or more than they care about the actual sound or capabilities that that product has to offer. Personally the brand badge is last on my list of priorities. The clone is still was out if my price range, but at least now it is with sight haha Thanks again for putting in the effort!
@@Instrumentals4Sale very wise words, I fully support this. Can’t say it better. To have the original is just to have a good feeling, but in fact, to make music, you don’t need it.
Simple blind test: I closed my eyes, pushed video forward to random location and i had no idea which was which. Plus the ub-xa does more, poly aftertouch, more sound design capabilities.
You are much closer UB to OBXa in comparison than i am getting out a comparing OB-X8 in Xa mode?The difference is very clear ,more drive/push and "roundness" in -X8,a more pleasant sound ,while the UB lacks some kind push and sounds little "sharper",but maybe a original OB-Xa and a OB-X8 in Xa mode won´t match each other close either?Good job done and thanks for being part of making the UB-Xa,and absolute love what you are doing!
To anyone who says the UB sounds "thin, heartless, uninspiring" ... your eyes and bias are doing the listening. In a blind taste test, you’d be batting .100. An exact match? No, of course not - for that matter, neither is the OB-X8. But near-indistinguishable for 99.9999 percent of listeners (including yourself) - yup, it admirably accomplishes what it set out to do (and there’s probably no “page 2” b.s. to deal with). Cheers!
I probably won't be able to tell them apart on every sound but there are some sounds where the OB-XA does sound noticably better. I do believe though in a record you would not notice. It's more like the Behringer sounds more like a plugin version of the hardware but a really good plug in then. Not wanting to downplay it; For the money it's a damn good thing.
Wow, thanks for making this comparison! Obviously there are some differences but over all yes Spot On! Keep in mind this is a brand new re-creation of an old legend, I'm very optimistic about this new Ub-xa from Behringer because I have their new pro-800 and after the firmware updates things have only gotten better with time, so judging by that this new synth could very be on the same road as well and will certainly get tweaks to make it even better, I'm all in! Got mine on order and anxiously awaiting it's arrival, Thank you Behringer!
UB sounds pretty nice and very close on some patches where the filter is wide open, definitely worth the price imo, even if most if not all of these basic patches would be just as close with a software comparison. Where the UB falls flat on its face though is the filter, unfortunately. That beautiful high resonance of the original is just missing completely on the UB, at least in these demos, so it could be that it wasn't dialled in well.
Yes, the Behringer sounds close but a bit one-dimensional against the Oberheim. The Oberheim presents each sound with a distinctive roundness and inner liveliness. It sounds more 3D and physically solid. The Behringer flattens the sound out. Not bad, but not as exciting.
Exactly. Behringer is an awesome company doing great things for musicians. Premium companies need to provide worthwhile advanced in order to charge a premium. It's ridiculous that people didn't realize that competition breeds improvement.
Definitely sound different in headphones due to the significant stereo panning from the OB. That seems to give it more life. Can the UB be set up to do this?
I couldn't differentiate between the two in a majority of the patches, but there are some glaring differences in filter behavior when the resonance is cranked. Overall it's very impressive when considering the OB commands 10x the price!
Yes, 6 minutes in there is a bass sound where you can hear the original have it's filters spread with multiple resonance points (lovely) but the Behringer's filter has all filters at the same peak in frequency. Interesting.
Good video! I'd like to hear two OB-Xas compared - probably a similar amount of variation between them (especially if they've got very different life histories). People are too used to digital instruments sounding identical.
for me, honestly, absolutely incomparable. The vintage one.. full, "brassy", there is energy, there is soul & ghost, it is "moving", the velvetness in it ... the new one is just "another squeeky synth". It is not about matching patches, they are truly nicely crafted, or similar to the original. But I am not talking about the patches, but the energy in it. The vintage ober is just a killer synth, omg,,... so so good. I wish to have one.
its amazing, so glad to have the opportunity to own one! in my opinion, almost all those sound exactly the same, (none of them better or worse) only like some mentioned the "tom sawyer" patch there sounds way different. but i think thats just different parameters.
As you know I had them all here. I really was thinking make a contest of all three but was afraid of dissing. Both the OB-X8 and UB-Xa come very close to the OG, but both have some small gap to the OG.
I find this comparison business between original and reproduced synths quite amusing. I’ve owned many “classic” synths over the last 40 years and in my experience they all fundamentally sound exactly the same, especially if, like most demos I’ve ever heard, they are used to make generic bread n butter sounds. Sure, if you are an extreme audiophile with a hearing range that of a bat, or maybe you just like to pretend you have, you can pick out some subtle differences… but these differences are so subtle that they are completely lost in a mix or when performed live. And if you think some now “classic” is superior to a brand new reproduction, either in hardware or in software, because of how the original sounded on some old recording then you are probably not taking into account all the external processing that was used when it was recorded, EQ, compression, tape saturation, the “sound” of the mixing board it was put through, reverb, delays and other FX etc etc… And if you think that because our music heroes used these particular synths then they must be the best, just remember that back in the day there wasn’t much other choice… if you needed/wanted an 8voice 2-oscillator programmable polysynth back in the late 70s/early 80s then your options were extremely limited to what we now call “classic” synths… they were your only options, it was either them or trying to make an organ, string machine or piano sound like something other than an organ, string machine or piano. Now I’m not being critical of the lucky few (since I am one of those lucky b@stardz) who currently own an original yama-ober-arp cs80xa or sequenti-moog-poly pro8Tx or anyone firmly believing that because something new made with modern higher quality components doesn’t sound the same as or as good as an original synth made with old, poorer quality components (because that’s all they had to work with) with 40 years of component degradation, then whatever floats your boat… but i remember a time when synths were about making new, never heard of sounds, where synth manufacturers were striving to give us instruments that could push the boundaries… and definitely not sound like something that had gone before it. I’m a behringer fan, i own and use their “cloned” synths all the time because they actually make these synths that i want to own and use. I’m also a fan of moog, oberheim, arp, sequential, the list goes on… but these companies stopped making the synths that i wanted or could afford years ago.
I guess you could argue every piano sounds the same too. Why would someone buy a expensive Steinway 9 foot grand if they can get ‘fundamentally’ the same sound from a cheap Yamaha upright piano, right? I bet if it’s buried in a mix and you listen to it on your phone speaker, you can’t tell the difference. So this is great for you I guess, that your ears are this undiscerning. You can just use a bunch of free plug-ins and tell yourself it all sounds the same! 😂👍
@@jdmjesus6103 Is it? Please explain to me how the argument 'Every synthesizer sounds fundamentally the same" is different from saying "Every piano sounds fundamentally the same"? Because they do! A piano can be recognized as a piano by everybody with working ears. They produce 'fundamentally' the same sound. However if details matter to you, there are big differences between them. The same goes for analog synthesizer, for many enthousiasts. Therefore 'every synthesizer sounds the same' is a poor argument for anybody that can tell the differences! These differences might not matter to him or you, but they do to synth enthousiasts like me!
thanks for your job! at first I thought OBXa is way deeper and full but then (around 10:00) the OBXa sounds thicker. I think is just a matter of the presets and the new components. I have an OB8 but almost unusuable (repared many times) and Ill definitely buy the UBXa as a substitute.
To be a bit nitpicky, it sounds like a perfect clone of a body but without the soul. Still an unbelievably good synth for the price. If I wasn't so obsessed with modular these days I'd definitely pick one up.
11:19 The resonance is lacking excitement on the UB. They’re close but if you’re already paying 1,200… i’d just save up the extra money and get the real thing for the juicier resonance.
Behringer have done an incredible job, and the new features make this probably the best value synth of all time, but I now really appreciate how amazing the genuine Oberheim synths sound. No wonder you've kept yours 😎 I'll be able to buy a UB-Xa with the knowledge that it's as close to the original that most people would never know the difference.
I really doubt anyone is able to hear a difference in a blind test in a mix. I do agree there IS a difference when comparing each patch directly against eachother sound per sound, but thats not how you will hear it in a mix, and the extra features especially on gear from before midi was introduced commonly there is mostly always many "quality of life" features in even recreated fully analog synths that makes the old instruments practically useless for touring with compared to a modern recreation.
Good to hear these factory patches again, it's too bad that the first patch, A1 is not correct, listen at 0:55 and notice that the OB-Xa has a slower attack setting on the filter envelope, and the UB-Xa just fades in with the filter wide open. All of the factory patches were documented in the OB-Xa manual, and it would be a shame if it was not possibly to reproduce them by matching the physical knob positions. Listening further - patch A3 has the wrong LFO rates - listen at 1:28 . I imagine the internet will light up about "component values" or "aging" but it just takes a few tweaks (I'd hope!!) to get those patches right.
The same thing happened to me and I totally agree with you! I had a UB-XA during about 3 weeks, and I didn’t find a way to program it the way I wanted. I found its interface to be very unintuitive. That is to say, I've had many modern analog synths for the purpose of making sound banks ( KORG Minilogue, Monologue, SE-1X of Studio Electronics, Moog Minitaur, Little Phatty, Bass Station II, Sequential Rev. 2, etc ) and I have now Sequential Take 5 y Oberheim Teo 5, and I’m complete love them. Of all these synths, the UB-XA has been one of the most difficult to program. Besides, the factory presets are too basic and do not offer anything. Without a doubt, the Moog and Sequential synths have superior sound design than the others
For a synth costing a fraction of the price of an original its much closer than I expected maybe a little too close. I wonder who would score 100% in a blindfold comparison 😂
Please keep in mind these are dry built in patches. The real power is what you do as a programmer so we shouldn't just look at patch comparisons for synths of this caliber. If one sounds a bit different than the other, so what? That's what tweaking is for! I cannot wait to start digging into this thing. I pre-ordered and cannot wait. Let's be honest there are maybe a several hundred people in the WORLD that can definitively tell the different on an A/B in patches. And in a mix? The difference between $1,000 and $5,000 becomes a blur.
For a mix even 1k is too much. You can use plugins. The point is to possess the real thing or the fake. This is the cheap fake for the kids. If you want Oberheim why don't you get Oberheim? It's like wearing glass instead of diamonds. Or sleep with a sex doll.))) "It's so cool, alomst like the original, blablabla..." But what for?
@@slavamakarkin2528 I do use plugins 95%. Between Diva, Spire, Pigments and others I really do not need hardware. I have only two hardware synths, one for piano/controller, classical/jazz and the other a MODX7+ for playing out/synth action controller. All compositions are done with plugins. I agree with you. A recent article by a major VST designer for Cherry Audio spoke with Anthony Marinelli and even Marinelli has turned the corner towards VST's.
Very hard to match settings, the chorus/ filter(?) settings were the most off? That being said, I would prefer the Bhoberheim for it's stability. That is super-close.
Hmm just listening with my phone speaker I can hear more difference than I expected.😢 the original sounds much more alive to me. I remember the model D vs Mini Moog comparison and I was blown away how similar those tow sound. So my expectations where high sadly to high? I hope the pro16 will be closer to the original.
Do I hear it right, OB has much more interesting voice spread and stereo, while UB is “sometimes” and more like no stereo. No happy little accidents? I seems can tell them apart easily, after random scroll, blind listen.
Love this reissue, but have to admit on many of the presets, the OG has a bit more depth and livliness. The behringer still sounds goddamn amazing though. I didn't expect it to be so close in sound!
Congratulations! You win the award for best synth demo by letting us hear two synthesizers and what they really sound like without the crutch of outboard effects. I wish every demo did this and that folks stop doing "unboxing" videos. It's like watching people you don't know open Christmas gifts. Patiently waiting for my UB-XA pre-order here in the U.S. Maybe I'll do an unboxing video and play it through a $500 reverb..,. Nope. Thank you for the demo.
They almost nailed it ! It will sell like crazy as there is not much alternative to get this sound in hardware at his price. The tone is a bit stiff and bit brighter (I guess the best that can be achieved with modern components like opamps). Most difference I hear is on long sustained pads/ strings type of sounds and it's more evident when switching chords. Also, almost like another extra layer of osc phasing of some random sort on, and filter sweep is more biting on OB. No problems on most of the short sounds.
@@pickyyeeter What I meant to say was that the older op amp IC ( 40 years ago) were of lesser quality than what we have today. That has an impact with the tone coloring, THD, noise, etc. With today precise manufacturing technology we can't replicate this degraded IC anymore as there is no market for such things or perhaps is simply impossible
The Behringer seems deficient in the low and low mid frequencies. The high frequencies seem very accurate. I am not sure if the Behringer can be tweaked to get more push in the lower frequencies, but if it could, I would be interested in getting one.
The Behringer definitely has less low end oomph. Seems like an audible hump in the very low freqs of the Ober, which I like. Also maybe the his are rolled off a bit on the Ober as they seem more present on the Behringer. Good job matching the patches, it's a very difficult exercise!
Can someone explain how Behringer is able to copy so many classic synths, like this and the Minimoog without getting sued for copyright infringement? Do they have expired copyrights?
Sounds great! Excellent demo! Any differences in timbre that people are mentioning should just be considered part of the analog patch programming process, not the quality of the UB-Xa. Minor differences in volume, or any other setting would be a more likely cause of any difference in sound. I'd like to get a UB-Xa for sure after hearing this!
It’s amazing how close they sound, keep in mind that these presets on the behringer are “hand made recreations” of the original rom patches from the obxa, not digital transfer of the parameters but only “by ear” aproximation of them, there’s no screen on the original to see the exact value of params… congrats to the programmer, fantastic job!!
right, a lot of the 'differences' are just slighlty different parametrisation. Some have different vibrato/LFO, sterephonic distribution, release etc. For sure working on an UB patch for hours and weeks can bring it close to the OB (or the other way round :)) . thus said, there a dozent or so sounds which are de facto identical - and some preset 'interpretations' sound richer/sweeter on the UB ;)
The differences are very minimal and probably what you'd get from comparing two originals.
Congratulations, sounds like everyone did a fine job.
[edit] Having listened to some sounds again on proper speakers (which I initially didn't), there's some sounds that are admittedly pretty different, even though many are very close. It's when the filter resonance is brought into play that the Oberheim strides ahead. But anyway, still sounds good overall.
Would love to see you do a video on this.
I guarantee the differences between two well-calibrated original OB-Xa’s would be a lot more subtle than what you hear in this video, it’s pretty drastic especially with regard to the filter
@@daddyzhoam Yes you're right, having listened again on proper speakers. At the 6 minute mark, the sweep comparison is a giveaway where the Behringer can't quite do it, but it's otherwise very well done for a £999 synth. I'd save up and get an OB-X8 if I was in the market, but that's not an option for many.
Yes, hard to argue with 16 VCOs at this price and it does sound good. But it deflates the dream a bit when you hear the original filter…
@AlexBallMusic Yes but the Behringer is mono/center Unison from what I hear at 6 minutes and the Obie has its voices always hardware panned as by it's pan settings on the circuit board potmeter... Also the Obie's resonance just seems to be a tad higher there ... Does the Behringer have only center unison?
Awesome! There are subtle differences (mainly in brightness / presence). Looking forward to getting my UB-Xa for sure.
Ain't subtle to me! Up to where I am now, 3:11, the OBxa is significantly brighter and more open sounding even on my phone speaker. I can pick these 2 out from each other all day long.
@@housebandthexenos2569 It's funny because I felt the UB-Xa had the brighter sound (in most instances) and is what I was commenting on. I felt the OB had a touch more warmth. Both sounded good.
@@checkitout611 I was only going up to 3:11. Listen again it's obvious
@@housebandthexenos2569 Yes ... ONLY going up to that mark, I agree, the OB is brighter ... as a whole (listening to the full demo) the UB to me had brighter / more treble / presence which didn't make it better or worse, it was just a note.
The very best video, and I think the first video, showing these synths side by side. And with a recent Behringer Version and not an early prototype. Well done! Thanks!
Better an Underheim in my studio, than an Oberheim in my dreams 👍
Best comment ever
Very convincing as a clone, bravo all the team who worked on this, you’ve built a formidable synth here.
Good enough for me. Getting one of these along with keeping my 6 voice OBSX
Purists?? Smh.. lol! I own an OB-8 and the coolest thing about it, is to say I have one. It’s heavy, doesn’t always stay in tune, and fickle as all get out! You can’t tell me you’d know which was which on a record. Someone here said the Behringer sounds cheap…. Do you think you can’t get an OB-Xa to sound cheap?! You can, and it ain’t that hard. People don’t go to concerts to hear oscillators….. they go to hear music. To that end the Behringer sounds pretty fantastic to me. But what do I know… not enough I’m sure.
Have your OB-8 serviced, it sounds you struggle a bit
@@jd808No struggle at all. With the number of boards I have there’s really no need. But it’s a cool synth no doubt. 👍🏾
big ego is the problem ( I have real OBXA and you shouldn't )
because, ahh ahh....it's real and old and ahh...shut up it's cheap
ah people 🙄
TGD did a concert in Melbourne 2016, Sorcerer OST live to audience whilst the movie was playing, they used 2 TR8s controlled by Ableton, you could not get any purer talent that simply proves, it's not the instrument, but the artist.
@@MarkoDeLaVootayou sound fun at parties :P
That's impressive!! Thank you very much for taking the time to post this!! Sounds like a winner for sure!! Wow!!
As soon as I saw this I grabbed some popcorn to watch all of the people who think they have ultra human hearing come on here and moan about how much better the original sounds lol. I wasn't disappointed.
I love that noobs think you need "ultra human hearing" to hear the difference between these two keyboards, lol....
They clearly sound different 😂
After hearing this you should know that Beringer took the insides of the OBX and just change the outside and in a song you would not be able to tell the difference between these two keyboard sounds. Stop fooling yourself, the Oberheim coast too HEAVENLY much.
@@John-lv6uj no they didn't. They reverse engineered it and it doesn't bring the same qualities the oberheim brings in a mix.
It’s ok for the price but I’d much rather buy the real one 😂
Rüdiger, you won the Internet today! That's a fine and accurate comparison of the two blue-striped. And I'm really stunned how similar they sound despite of all the negative comments in the forums. Seems like it was worth waiting the 6 years since it was announced (at least for those who don't want to spend the $$ for the Obie).
I have to note: I switched off the velocity and aftertouch plus switched off voices 9-16 for this video to get the same circumstances like on the Original. I also put the voices randomly for panning.
Hi Rüdiger! Fantastic job on a fantastic synth!!! One question - which Vintage mode did you use?
@@uwe_bikethanks, I used the UB-Xa mode, so the first plus I set the voices in panorama like on the original
That’s spot on! They both sound like the brown noise to me.
Not a big fan of the company, but still very impressive to see that it comes that close to the OB sound. There are however places where the OB sounds warmer and more alive due to some drifting and slight detuning of the voices. It's very evident at the 1:30 mark where the OB sounds so alive and lush whereas the UB sounds sterile in comparision.
Thanks so much for making this vid, highly educational!!
I am a fan of the company, but I agree with you . Still, amazing sounding recreation.
yeah...there is a difference.
@@Lamster66 ok yeah. True enough on the difference between analog synths. Also: it's a youtube video and you will never really hear what you need to in this format. That is why you need to be in the room and hear it yourself. It is also valuable for people to report what they hear when making videos.
@@Lamster66 lol...."deepminds character isn't that great."...yeah.
You can adjust the atrophy ie drifting of the UB-Xa to age the synth to your liking
Thanx for the video . Nice shot indeed mostly when you know that OB-Xa is more than 40 years old, meaning that circuitry & components had time to drift a bit :) . I guess that 2 OB-Xa may not sound now really the same ! Cheers
Its more the Coolaudio filter is lacking nothing about drift
the OB is recorded a touch louder, so that's already going to influence. The OB is also doing a voice channel swap on all notes in a more pronounced way. The UB not as frequent swapping and in some patches not at all, so that's also contributing to a more more wideness and depth on the OB. Absolutely not hard to accommodate for though, and in a mix pretty much inconsequential.
Very impressive indeed.
Given it comes with a poly AT 5 octave board at a small fraction of the price of an original - bargain to any of us who dreamed of owning one some day.
Bring on the CS80 & JP8's!
Thank you for this video! Pre-ordered mine! 😁
To produce, I'll continue with the plugins, but I like having a real synthesizer to play, the experience, the speed to improvise, test ideas, create... in short, the fun part. behringer is making fun accessible for everyone!
Plus plug ins take up CPU processing which sometimes locks up my DAW computer - even with 64 GB RAM. These external hardware synths take workload off my CPU. Thanks Behringer!
Good comparison. Honestly though, I wish we could hear the IDENTICAL MIDI going into them.
Nice job on the presets. You can definitely hear the difference in the filter but the oscillators sound spot on. Well done and thanks for the demo.
👍🏻 owner of an OBX-8 and 2 SEM’s. Now I ‘am waiting for the OBX behringer + the SEM!!!
But why?
@@bengsynthmusic like a back up… we never know. And I guess I am a fetishiste!?😂
The filter sweep at around 6:00 is missing a lot of the self resonance on the UB-XA.
Oberheim OB-Xa filters do not self resonate
Bearing in mind when this was shot, on the whole, to my ears the UB sounds a bit brighter, more harsh, but no less a synth for it. At the price it is, even just buying it as a Poly AT midi-controller alone would be sensible given the alternatives out there, especially if paired up to something like Omnisphere. The fact that there is a whole bi-timbral synth stuffed in there as well is a minor miracle (although I do feel that the routine £3,500-5000 figures we are seeing for new modern synths these days is a bit of a piss-take-band-wagon-because-we-can trend). Side-by-side on this and other more recent comparison videos, I prefer the character of the OB, but in isolation the UB objectively sounds really good, and would be completely indistinguishable to most people, especially in a mix. So yeah, a big well done to Behringer for providing access to the masses - think what you want of them, there's a market need and they fill it. If you don't like their ethics, vote with your wallet and either buy original hardware or a licensed soft-synth for even less originality.
I'm on the lookout for my first and only poly synth to noodle about on. Seriously tempted by the UB, but the UDO Super Gemini just seems to have a much broader sonic palette. It also costs four times as much...that's the dilemma!
I have the Ub-Xa on pre-order. I'll buy fir exactly the reasons you stated so well. But, like you, I can't wait for the UDO SUPER GEMINI to come to the STATES. That synth is a no-brainer. I doubt seriously it needs to be priced so high, but regardless, that is going on the Rack. It will be in good company...
@@tommyg5095 I’ve spoken to George (UDO founder) at a synth convention in the UK. When you consider that they are a very small team, and the sheer amount of metal and custom hardware that’s gone into the Super Gemini, I can understand its cost - the price is defined by the parts and labour, and no corners have been cut. I’m sure the UB-Xa will serve you well, and would me too, but part of me likes the idea of supporting a smaller company who have built a unique synth with its own character.
@@X22GJP
I am definitely sending my cash to George at UDO. CAN'T WAIT....
Yes, this might be a use case, taking the UB as a master keyboard for a GrooveSynthesis 3rd Wave or similar. Other than that... no. I'm not convinced. Thin, heartless, uninspiring.
another thing to remember is that the ubxa is brand new and the obxa is 43 years old. it's perfectly normal for a brand new synth to sound brighter. this obxa unit probably sounded a lot brighter when it was new as well.
I mean for the price, its as close as it's getting can def tell the OG OB has a little more "Sheen" on the high end sounds a bit more big and bitey to my ears at least. The UB sounds Big as well but def does not have that sheen on the high end AS much as the OG OB. But honest no 2 analog pieces of gear are truly 1 to 1 in sound. Great Video man thanks for this!
Thanks for this comparison ❤
Kudos. I was looking for exactly this comparison (which is excellent by the way).
Couldn’t tell which was which while reading the comments.
I definitely get the impression that the UB-Xa definitely would be worth having as the perfect alternative to the 1981 classic.
Exellent video , i do think that the dynamic is better on the Og , the B sounds like a little compressed on some pacthes , we don't feel the contour as the OG , might be the enveloppes , don't k now , anyway ... B did a superb job , and the diff i hear could be the diff i hear between the OG and another high end unit ....
Thks for taking the time !!
I hope B released a desktop version as well ...
There's clearly a difference in either the enveloppes' curves or the voltage response of the filters, it's very noticeable on short percussive sounds. I think the only modern polyphonic synth that got this right so far is the prophet 5/10 rev 4...it really shines in that regard.
Exact , the Prophets have one of the best shaping feel , hard to explain , but still a great one imho , need to test it to really feel it and if it's ok or really something that can handicap .... giving the quality of sounds we heard , not sure , if we didn't had the og that we would be disturbed ...@@rebours
hard to be too critical when it costs £999.. which is insane, 16 voice poly for that price makes no sense I have no idea how they did it, great job behringer
but the filter just doesnt seem right at all.. 3:56 is a good example of it missing a bit of something, the original has all that lovely mid range harmonic resonance going on and the behringer sounds a bit bland and not the same character, again at 7:00
maybe just slightly different settings on the knobs?
regardless of it sounding exactly like the original or not, its an insane value for money in its own right as an analogue poly with that many voices, theyre going to sell a LOT of these
£899 At Andertons, uk
@@thecylonsmusic They changed the price last Sunday. It's 999 now.
Subtle differences in sound, very impressive considering the price of the UB-Xa. They really knocked it out of the park with this synth.
Thx the compare and the works...
I absolutely hear the difference.
But the two synths will rarely be heard at the same time.:-)
It is the low harmonics that are different, the Behringer seems thinner OBx dirtier in a good sense.
That's the way I hear it too. Something missing in the low mids on the Behringer. Still a decent synth though and well worth it for the price.
I can hear a big difference with the filters and the resonance !
The resonance filter of the Behringer sounds like a cheap vst
Really nice comparison - thank you for this! The only big difference I noticed was at the 6:00 mark (Tom Sawyer patch?) The resonance harmonics were noticeably lacking in the UB-Xa.
Yeah, that was a massive difference. If i were paying $1200 anyway, i’d just save up the extra few hundred and get the real deal. Anyway if i can avoid it i don’t buy any new products from sweatshop-conditions manufacturer Behringer.
For all the wine connoisseurs who have started counting suspended particles, maybe do the same with 2 ob-xa, they don't sound the same. series scatter, aging, etc.
I see it this way: you can buy a Focusrite clone for four times the price, it doesn't sound the same, or you can buy an OG for ten times the price. doesn't sound the same again :)
Well said
Yet somehow every well-calibrated OB, to this day, sounds exactly like the records they were used on when they were new.
@@daddyzhoam Not really, unless it was recapped.
especially capacitors age,
a process that cannot be stopped.
So that you understand, the loss factor increases and the value becomes smaller, which is why the frequency of the circuit shifts.
A 71 Minimoog simply had a different sound 50 years ago.
What's special about the ob-xa is that Tom used mica in the filter last time and never again after that.
makes up part of the Oberheim sound.
How many 40 year old synths are still getting by on the original electrolytics? Most reconditioned ones have been largely recapped. And the silver mica caps to my understanding were only used in the OB-X.
@@daddyzhoam So my JP8 still has the original power supply :)
and no, the ob-xa also had mica filter caps, take a look at the circuit diagrams.
tom regressed after that, I got the marion mrs1 from him... far away from SEM-
One aspect is the tolerance of the components, previously resistors were 10.5%, filter capacitors were 20%, today everything is much more precise.
You can then try to adjust&/calibrate the synth, if the other one is too far away in terms of tolerance, no chance. especially affects the filters.
Not the same, obviously (‘Because Physics.’), but for the price (and with some notable extra features) … Excellent job!
@@kierenmoore3236 You’re absolutely right
Ok, nice to hear. Did not expect it to be such a clear difference. Feels like the UBX needs a little more detuning and drift and some more bass.
Not a Behringer fan, but from a strictly design and production standpoint I think they did a ended up with a pretty good product here, even if it took 6 years after the announcement. It's definitely not a perfect match sonically, especially with low brass, strings, pads, Tom Sawyer type sounds, but it sounds quite good considering the price point and extra features: 16 voice polyphony/PolyAT/Etc.
Two OB-Xas won't be a perfect match sonically. imho the matches that ARE impressive indicate that the unimpressive matches could be coaxed into place with enough time. The filters and oscillators seem pretty capable of doing what's important.
They seem really close, there should be some differences as they are both analog which is the appeal.
@swanofnutella4734 - If I had a dollar for the number of times I've heard this rhetoric... I actually have 2 OB-Xas (one early production, one late) and the variances are not nearly as significant as the ones between the UB-Xa and OB-Xa... Two OB-Xas still sound like OB-Xas - The UB-Xa clearly sounds like a different synthesizer. But again, it's close and Behringer should be commended.
PS - I know a UB-Xa beta tester and they spent countless hours trying to match each preset (beta tester units were distributed almost 3 years ago) - this is as close as they can get them.
@@SacSynths_Jack_Z If I had a dollar for every time I've heard somebody comport filter positions with ability I'd own an OBX8 and a Nina by now.
Nice comparison, thanks for sharing! Berhinger did a very nice job. Yes there is a difference for 2 main reasons: each OB-Xa sounds different and this original has old circuits more than 40 years old, which have lived and therefore which sound different from a model with a recent circuit, more "straight" (which has not, moreover, probably not the same quality of components either).
But the rendering of the Behringer is very convincing! 👍
close… very close… really good work from Behringer
Both very similar, the ub-xa has a consistent slight brightness/harshness to it over the ob. It's possible this could mellow down with age. I doubt anyone would notice the difference once it's gone through a pre-amp and some effects/filters with a sound engineer, particularly in any sort of reasonable mix. A more apples for apples would be an ob straight out of the factory brand new in the 80s vs the ub now, time does some things to componenets.
Behringer has done a great job at recreating a legend.
I'll add to this, I have an OB-6 which I think is just fantastic and because of it wouldn't buy an OB-8/Xa or UB, but if I didn't have it I'd be very happy with a ub-xa. Apart from pure nostalgia it would be pretty hard to justify an original OB over the UB for the price, reliability and availability. I say this staring at a bunch of 80's synths and drum machines in my collection, but most of them hadn't had a modern recreation when I bought them.
Sounding very good. I'm sure any differences in brightness/character could be further edited to match. The UB-Xa basically sounds like an OB-Xa in a box around half the size for a lot less money. I like it!
This recreation is a work of art and the fact the patches were recreated BY EAR (something many choose to overlook when wanting to give unfavourable opinions) gets my respect.
Sad to see the hate some actual owners of the original are getting in the comments from people who don’t want to hear that they prefer the Behringer.
Can’t wait to eventually get my hands on one, when I can afford it.
Listening to this comparison I find half of the Behringer sounds slightly better and half of the oberheim sounds slightly better, but I’m not really interested in patches I’m interested in what sounds can be teased out of it. It is great to see someone when to the trouble of making this comparison video to inform buyers and allow actual owners to give their say, so thank to the video maker!
I’ve never had the opportunity to own the original and likely never will, but thanks to Behringer it looks like after all these years of looking and listening to oberheims in awe I may finally get the opportunity to incorporate that sounds in to my stuff.
I missed the limited run of oberheim eurorack modules and know any future products are going to be priced well out of my range so Uli is well appreciated here.
This is by far the best comment I got on this video and I am very pleased, that you post this. Fortunately, I don’t mind very much about any comments and haters out there, I know that the reworking all the patches and also all my work for beta testing was worth to help getting this synth for you and grateful musicians. For that, it was worth each hour to spend on this project.
@@vintagesynths
I can imagine the time and effort it took to setup, record and edit this. So always appreciate seeing these kinds of video, even on things I know I won’t get.
Many people view these videos and don’t realise how time consuming they can be, or just see them as an opportunity to bash or glorify a product.
As a lover of synthesis for me the patches are a great gauge for the range of possibilities a synth can have… it’s quicker than looking at a spec sheet and reading a manual lol.
I hope you also had fun making some of your own sounds on both of these keyboards too!
As for the various comments regarding brand a vs brand b, my favourite has to be the one that starts of (something like) “the best thing about owning the original is being able to say I own the original.”
This is true of many synths, and for varying reasons, but at the end of the day these things are supposed to be used not just adored. The existence of a clone or an alternative or approximation inspired by something that was once unique doesn’t diminish the original, it just given opportunities for new people to make use of that limited resource.
I think there are people that care just as much about the status they perceive they give themselves by owning a certain product just as much or more than they care about the actual sound or capabilities that that product has to offer. Personally the brand badge is last on my list of priorities.
The clone is still was out if my price range, but at least now it is with sight haha
Thanks again for putting in the effort!
@@Instrumentals4Sale very wise words, I fully support this. Can’t say it better. To have the original is just to have a good feeling, but in fact, to make music, you don’t need it.
Simple blind test: I closed my eyes, pushed video forward to random location and i had no idea which was which.
Plus the ub-xa does more, poly aftertouch, more sound design capabilities.
And more noise unfortunately
Lol that will never be heard in a mix …..you’re all wankers!
You are much closer UB to OBXa in comparison than i am getting out a comparing OB-X8 in Xa mode?The difference is very clear ,more drive/push and "roundness" in -X8,a more pleasant sound ,while the UB lacks some kind push and sounds little "sharper",but maybe a original OB-Xa and a OB-X8 in Xa mode won´t match each other close either?Good job done and thanks for being part of making the UB-Xa,and absolute love what you are doing!
Wonderful comparison video, thank you
To anyone who says the UB sounds "thin, heartless, uninspiring" ... your eyes and bias are doing the listening. In a blind taste test, you’d be batting .100. An exact match? No, of course not - for that matter, neither is the OB-X8. But near-indistinguishable for 99.9999 percent of listeners (including yourself) - yup, it admirably accomplishes what it set out to do (and there’s probably no “page 2” b.s. to deal with). Cheers!
I probably won't be able to tell them apart on every sound but there are some sounds where the OB-XA does sound noticably better. I do believe though in a record you would not notice. It's more like the Behringer sounds more like a plugin version of the hardware but a really good plug in then. Not wanting to downplay it; For the money it's a damn good thing.
Wow, thanks for making this comparison! Obviously there are some differences but over all yes Spot On! Keep in mind this is a brand new re-creation of an old legend, I'm very optimistic about this new Ub-xa from Behringer because I have their new pro-800 and after the firmware updates things have only gotten better with time, so judging by that this new synth could very be on the same road as well and will certainly get tweaks to make it even better, I'm all in! Got mine on order and anxiously awaiting it's arrival, Thank you Behringer!
Well, that sounds great. Once I move to a bigger place I'll be able to fit one in I'm sure!
I can't tell ant difference with my eyes closed, feels like I'm listening to the same audio twice
UB sounds pretty nice and very close on some patches where the filter is wide open, definitely worth the price imo, even if most if not all of these basic patches would be just as close with a software comparison. Where the UB falls flat on its face though is the filter, unfortunately. That beautiful high resonance of the original is just missing completely on the UB, at least in these demos, so it could be that it wasn't dialled in well.
THIS
Yes, the Behringer sounds close but a bit one-dimensional against the Oberheim. The Oberheim presents each sound with a distinctive roundness and inner liveliness. It sounds more 3D and physically solid. The Behringer flattens the sound out. Not bad, but not as exciting.
It sounds good. I liked it, as much identical to the original as expected of a good clone I would say.
Behringer thanks for making this. As a former OB-Xa owner; thank you for letting me get this back without having to spend $10,000 🙏
Exactly. Behringer is an awesome company doing great things for musicians. Premium companies need to provide worthwhile advanced in order to charge a premium. It's ridiculous that people didn't realize that competition breeds improvement.
Great video man. Thank you for doing this dry.
small differences in the envelopes and filters maybe, but pretty spot-on
Definitely sound different in headphones due to the significant stereo panning from the OB. That seems to give it more life. Can the UB be set up to do this?
Of course. The panning is possible to adjust individually for each of all 16 voices
I also panned the voices in the UB, maybe in the OG it was stronger
@@vintagesynths Yeah it seems like a harder pan, and maybe even bounces around a bit more? Anyway, thanks for the great demo!
I couldn't differentiate between the two in a majority of the patches, but there are some glaring differences in filter behavior when the resonance is cranked. Overall it's very impressive when considering the OB commands 10x the price!
Yes, 6 minutes in there is a bass sound where you can hear the original have it's filters spread with multiple resonance points (lovely) but the Behringer's filter has all filters at the same peak in frequency.
Interesting.
@@jlindborg1105 Curious to see if this is configurable using the atrophy calibration setting, maybe its a programming thing
Sounds like the filter key tracking is way off on the Behringer patch.
Fair comparison with dry sounds!! The quality is here - This is an awesome result with very close presets!
Good video! I'd like to hear two OB-Xas compared - probably a similar amount of variation between them (especially if they've got very different life histories). People are too used to digital instruments sounding identical.
for me, honestly, absolutely incomparable. The vintage one.. full, "brassy", there is energy, there is soul & ghost, it is "moving", the velvetness in it ... the new one is just "another squeeky synth". It is not about matching patches, they are truly nicely crafted, or similar to the original. But I am not talking about the patches, but the energy in it. The vintage ober is just a killer synth, omg,,... so so good. I wish to have one.
Couldn't have said it better.
@@performtransformmake music and wear a more musical dress instead of your right wing blue suit.
I have one on pre order, was told around February for that to hit the distributor,,,, that place being where the water is sweet😮😮😮
Guitar Center?
@@X22GJP
GUITAR WHO ???
Well now! Nice demo, thanks
Very nice 👍🙂 spot on cheers
its amazing, so glad to have the opportunity to own one! in my opinion, almost all those sound exactly the same, (none of them better or worse) only like some mentioned the "tom sawyer" patch there sounds way different. but i think thats just different parameters.
Sounds great! I could hear small differences in the Oberheim OBX8 vs OBX demos too. Imagine how inexpensive the desktop is going to be!
As you know I had them all here. I really was thinking make a contest of all three but was afraid of dissing. Both the OB-X8 and UB-Xa come very close to the OG, but both have some small gap to the OG.
I find this comparison business between original and reproduced synths quite amusing. I’ve owned many “classic” synths over the last 40 years and in my experience they all fundamentally sound exactly the same, especially if, like most demos I’ve ever heard, they are used to make generic bread n butter sounds. Sure, if you are an extreme audiophile with a hearing range that of a bat, or maybe you just like to pretend you have, you can pick out some subtle differences… but these differences are so subtle that they are completely lost in a mix or when performed live. And if you think some now “classic” is superior to a brand new reproduction, either in hardware or in software, because of how the original sounded on some old recording then you are probably not taking into account all the external processing that was used when it was recorded, EQ, compression, tape saturation, the “sound” of the mixing board it was put through, reverb, delays and other FX etc etc… And if you think that because our music heroes used these particular synths then they must be the best, just remember that back in the day there wasn’t much other choice… if you needed/wanted an 8voice 2-oscillator programmable polysynth back in the late 70s/early 80s then your options were extremely limited to what we now call “classic” synths… they were your only options, it was either them or trying to make an organ, string machine or piano sound like something other than an organ, string machine or piano. Now I’m not being critical of the lucky few (since I am one of those lucky b@stardz) who currently own an original yama-ober-arp cs80xa or sequenti-moog-poly pro8Tx or anyone firmly believing that because something new made with modern higher quality components doesn’t sound the same as or as good as an original synth made with old, poorer quality components (because that’s all they had to work with) with 40 years of component degradation, then whatever floats your boat… but i remember a time when synths were about making new, never heard of sounds, where synth manufacturers were striving to give us instruments that could push the boundaries… and definitely not sound like something that had gone before it. I’m a behringer fan, i own and use their “cloned” synths all the time because they actually make these synths that i want to own and use. I’m also a fan of moog, oberheim, arp, sequential, the list goes on… but these companies stopped making the synths that i wanted or could afford years ago.
Great comment
I guess you could argue every piano sounds the same too. Why would someone buy a expensive Steinway 9 foot grand if they can get ‘fundamentally’ the same sound from a cheap Yamaha upright piano, right? I bet if it’s buried in a mix and you listen to it on your phone speaker, you can’t tell the difference. So this is great for you I guess, that your ears are this undiscerning. You can just use a bunch of free plug-ins and tell yourself it all sounds the same! 😂👍
@@MacXpert74that's a strawman, the op speaks sense.
@@MacXpert74False equivocal
@@jdmjesus6103 Is it? Please explain to me how the argument 'Every synthesizer sounds fundamentally the same" is different from saying "Every piano sounds fundamentally the same"?
Because they do! A piano can be recognized as a piano by everybody with working ears. They produce 'fundamentally' the same sound. However if details matter to you, there are big differences between them. The same goes for analog synthesizer, for many enthousiasts.
Therefore 'every synthesizer sounds the same' is a poor argument for anybody that can tell the differences!
These differences might not matter to him or you, but they do to synth enthousiasts like me!
I definitely hear the potential to get one or two usuable sounds out of that synth
thanks for your job! at first I thought OBXa is way deeper and full but then (around 10:00) the OBXa sounds thicker. I think is just a matter of the presets and the new components. I have an OB8 but almost unusuable (repared many times) and Ill definitely buy the UBXa as a substitute.
The more UB-Xa Demos the better!
I wonder if they've contemplated remaking the Xpander in a more modern sized compact box.
And a desktop version might be nice.
To be a bit nitpicky, it sounds like a perfect clone of a body but without the soul. Still an unbelievably good synth for the price. If I wasn't so obsessed with modular these days I'd definitely pick one up.
11:19 The resonance is lacking excitement on the UB. They’re close but if you’re already paying 1,200… i’d just save up the extra money and get the real thing for the juicier resonance.
I really hope the ramp up in reviews means they're about to bring the dog on things to market!
Behringer have done an incredible job, and the new features make this probably the best value synth of all time, but I now really appreciate how amazing the genuine Oberheim synths sound. No wonder you've kept yours 😎
I'll be able to buy a UB-Xa with the knowledge that it's as close to the original that most people would never know the difference.
I really doubt anyone is able to hear a difference in a blind test in a mix. I do agree there IS a difference when comparing each patch directly against eachother sound per sound, but thats not how you will hear it in a mix, and the extra features especially on gear from before midi was introduced commonly there is mostly always many "quality of life" features in even recreated fully analog synths that makes the old instruments practically useless for touring with compared to a modern recreation.
I think this will be fun (and useful) synth. I like that it's bitimbral. 👍
Great job on the programming !
Good to hear these factory patches again, it's too bad that the first patch, A1 is not correct, listen at 0:55 and notice that the OB-Xa has a slower attack setting on the filter envelope, and the UB-Xa just fades in with the filter wide open. All of the factory patches were documented in the OB-Xa manual, and it would be a shame if it was not possibly to reproduce them by matching the physical knob positions. Listening further - patch A3 has the wrong LFO rates - listen at 1:28 . I imagine the internet will light up about "component values" or "aging" but it just takes a few tweaks (I'd hope!!) to get those patches right.
Wow, really a magical piece of musical history. It's like someone made more stratovariuses.
No doubt in my mind UB-Xa sounds thinner. I sent mine back and bought a TEO-5 (didn’t need 16 voices anyway).
The same thing happened to me and I totally agree with you! I had a UB-XA during about 3 weeks, and I didn’t find a way to program it the way I wanted. I found its interface to be very unintuitive. That is to say, I've had many modern analog synths for the purpose of making sound banks ( KORG Minilogue, Monologue, SE-1X of Studio Electronics, Moog Minitaur, Little Phatty, Bass Station II, Sequential Rev. 2, etc ) and I have now Sequential Take 5 y Oberheim Teo 5, and I’m complete love them. Of all these synths, the UB-XA has been one of the most difficult to program. Besides, the factory presets are too basic and do not offer anything. Without a doubt, the Moog and Sequential synths have superior sound design than the others
For a synth costing a fraction of the price of an original its much closer than I expected maybe a little too close.
I wonder who would score 100% in a blindfold comparison 😂
I’d go as far to say the Benringer has more presence which I find appealing
Please keep in mind these are dry built in patches. The real power is what you do as a programmer so we shouldn't just look at patch comparisons for synths of this caliber. If one sounds a bit different than the other, so what? That's what tweaking is for! I cannot wait to start digging into this thing. I pre-ordered and cannot wait. Let's be honest there are maybe a several hundred people in the WORLD that can definitively tell the different on an A/B in patches. And in a mix? The difference between $1,000 and $5,000 becomes a blur.
For a mix even 1k is too much. You can use plugins. The point is to possess the real thing or the fake. This is the cheap fake for the kids. If you want Oberheim why don't you get Oberheim? It's like wearing glass instead of diamonds. Or sleep with a sex doll.))) "It's so cool, alomst like the original, blablabla..." But what for?
@@slavamakarkin2528 I do use plugins 95%. Between Diva, Spire, Pigments and others I really do not need hardware. I have only two hardware synths, one for piano/controller, classical/jazz and the other a MODX7+ for playing out/synth action controller. All compositions are done with plugins. I agree with you. A recent article by a major VST designer for Cherry Audio spoke with Anthony Marinelli and even Marinelli has turned the corner towards VST's.
Very hard to match settings, the chorus/ filter(?) settings were the most off?
That being said, I would prefer the Bhoberheim for it's stability. That is super-close.
Some differences, but a 16 voice flagship analog synth for $1200 is an incredible deal. I hope it shakes up the market.
only in a direct comparison do you notice very slight nuances of difference, but without images and in a mix you wouldn't notice anything🎼👌
THANK YOU! 😎
Hmm just listening with my phone speaker I can hear more difference than I expected.😢 the original sounds much more alive to me. I remember the model D vs Mini Moog comparison and I was blown away how similar those tow sound. So my expectations where high sadly to high? I hope the pro16 will be closer to the original.
Thank you for compering , filters sounds very different. And LFO as well
Excellent work
Do I hear it right, OB has much more interesting voice spread and stereo, while UB is “sometimes” and more like no stereo.
No happy little accidents? I seems can tell them apart easily, after random scroll, blind listen.
You can hear that the OBX-a is much fatter. But, the tones are very close. I hate the smaller key size,m but that's just me.
There is maybe a little more higher frequencies on the Behringer, but otherwise it's not a bad comparison to the OB-XA. Sounds almost identical.
Love this reissue, but have to admit on many of the presets, the OG has a bit more depth and livliness. The behringer still sounds goddamn amazing though. I didn't expect it to be so close in sound!
Congratulations! You win the award for best synth demo by letting us hear two synthesizers and what they really sound like without the crutch of outboard effects. I wish every demo did this and that folks stop doing "unboxing" videos. It's like watching people you don't know open Christmas gifts. Patiently waiting for my UB-XA pre-order here in the U.S. Maybe I'll do an unboxing video and play it through a $500 reverb..,. Nope. Thank you for the demo.
Thanks a lot. I appreciate it very much and it motivates to improve my channel and content
They almost nailed it ! It will sell like crazy as there is not much alternative to get this sound in hardware at his price. The tone is a bit stiff and bit brighter (I guess the best that can be achieved with modern components like opamps). Most difference I hear is on long sustained pads/ strings type of sounds and it's more evident when switching chords. Also, almost like another extra layer of osc phasing of some random sort on, and filter sweep is more biting on OB. No problems on most of the short sounds.
Op amps aren't exactly a modern component. They've been used synths for at least 50 years
@@pickyyeeter What I meant to say was that the older op amp IC ( 40 years ago) were of lesser quality than what we have today. That has an impact with the tone coloring, THD, noise, etc.
With today precise manufacturing technology we can't replicate this degraded IC anymore as there is no market for such things or perhaps is simply impossible
@@Sonikbytes okay, gotcha. sorry for the misunderstanding
The Behringer seems deficient in the low and low mid frequencies. The high frequencies seem very accurate. I am not sure if the Behringer can be tweaked to get more push in the lower frequencies, but if it could, I would be interested in getting one.
The Behringer definitely has less low end oomph. Seems like an audible hump in the very low freqs of the Ober, which I like. Also maybe the his are rolled off a bit on the Ober as they seem more present on the Behringer. Good job matching the patches, it's a very difficult exercise!
Can someone explain how Behringer is able to copy so many classic synths, like this and the Minimoog without getting sued for copyright infringement? Do they have expired copyrights?
I’ve always wondered the same thing.
Sounds great! Excellent demo! Any differences in timbre that people are mentioning should just be considered part of the analog patch programming process, not the quality of the UB-Xa. Minor differences in volume, or any other setting would be a more likely cause of any difference in sound. I'd like to get a UB-Xa for sure after hearing this!
That's really impressive.
BUT, does it Love Like Blood? 👀