Introducing UB-Xa

[CyberGene]

To be honest, I also kind of hear some difference between the real OB-Xa and the UB-Xa in that video, and I prefer the former (but I may be influenced by what I'm seeing). Maybe in a blind test I will fail. But before being accused of joining Jim's team, I think that the best software emulations nowadays can emulate the real thing pretty well, or maybe even better than the Behringer 😀 So, why bother with either a real OB or a Behringer. Just get a GForce, or whatever your flavor is, there are many of them now.

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, CyberGene said:

So, why bother with either a real OB or a Behringer. Just get a GForce, or whatever your flavor is, there are many of them now.

There are other differences between hardware and software. 😉😎

[analogholic]

6 hours ago, Jim Alfredson said:

... And the OB-X8 nails all three. 

No it doesn´t. It sounds netiher like an OB-X or OB-Xa. It sounds different, more "precise" or "sterile". But that was expected, as I hear this in most reissues, take SEM, KARP 2600 or whatever. Don´t know if it is the SMT design...Does it sound good? Yes indeed, but lacks that mojo the old ones have.

Noone would be happier than me if they had nailed the sound, for several reasons, one of them reliability.Will I get one? Most probably, as the X8 can do things the old ones can´t like having X type osc and filter with page 2 from the 8 and so on. Not to mention the different filter types from the SEM.

[analogholic]

On 11/26/2023 at 6:03 AM, Dr Mike Metlay said:

I wonder how they implemented the left-hand paddles? I never liked wheels except on keytars, hated PPC, was never all that comfortable with ribbons, and could just about fumble along decently well on the Roland wangbar, but I really learned to solo most fluidly on the Oberheim Xk and Matrix-12, as the paddle placement and movement axes were and are far more natural to me than anything else. It will be interesting to see how closely the ones on the UB-Xa hew to the original.

Yeah, except for that fact when you pull down the pitch goes up and VV.  Could never get used to that 😂 IIRC, virtuoso Jens Johansson turned that whole thing 180 degrees on his M12 back in the day. But that makes it more difficult to add modulation while you are bending.

[DroptopBroham]

Gotta say the Behringer in this one sounds really close,  the video says that no FX were used but the OB-Xa sounded like it had a little chorus action going. Maybe it's the drift in the oscillators but seems like you give the UB-Xa just a touch of chorus and you're there. The filter sweep was the only thing with an appreciable difference. I am starting to want the UB even though I have no real need for it and don't want to be bringing out Phillinganes and Cain level rigs to the dive bars we play just to have a legit synth for the handful of songs that I'd be using it on.

[JoJoB3]

29 minutes ago, DroptopBroham said:

 and don't want to be bringing out Phillinganes and Cain level rigs to the dive bars we play just to have a legit synth for the handful of songs that I'd be using it on.

Damn straight!

[ChazKeys]

I think analogholic makes an interesting observation about reissues when he says:

'It sounds different, more "precise" or "sterile". But that was expected, as I hear this in most reissues, take SEM, KARP 2600 or whatever. Don´t know if it is the SMT design..."

 

The difference between SMT and discrete components might have a subtle effect on the sound. Like Mylar capacitors in Hammonds? Not as huge as valves and transistors -  but how close to the original circuit designs are they. Not to mention the miniaturisation of those circuits. The tiny OB-6 voice cards were a bit cheeky as they had a SEM panel printed on them but they didn't even use and original SEM circuit - it was only "inspired by". The SVF was good but a different character to the SEM. But if there is one person who should be able to employ SMT to get the SEM filter right it's Tom O. That is the big draw for me with OB-X8 - just got to win the lottery first!

 

The Ub-Xa like OB-Xa uses Curtis chips so should be quite close - especially of you play around with the atrophy settings but the OBX is a different beast altogether. Will the UB-X get close - probably not. That's even if its ever released. 

 

Here's a link to a useful  SOS article from 1998 (check out the second hand prices at the end!) 

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/oberheim-obx-obxa-ob8

 

[David Emm]

On 12/7/2023 at 3:40 PM, Jim Alfredson said:

The always entertaining Alex Ball released a video on the original OB-X today. THIS is the Oberheim sound. I still don't hear it with the UB-Xa.
 

 

 

Mmm mm, that's a nice sound, like the forbidden, delicious goo in Hostess Fruit pies. There's an obvious line between the digital recreations and that small bit of beautiful chaos with the hardware. I can hear it, but its gratifying to know that the margin is so small.  

 

[Synthaholic]

On 11/21/2023 at 1:03 AM, obxa said:

Unfortunately there aren't any good ones here in Atl.

Is Wizard Electronics closed down? They were one of the Southeast's go-to repair shops for decades, along with Mike Jay at Thoroughbred Music in Tampa.

[obxa]

9 hours ago, Synthaholic said:

On 11/21/2023 at 1:03 AM, obxa said:

 

Is Wizard Electronics closed down?

They moved. Not sure if it's back to original owner again. But I'd sooner take my keyboard to a Shaman or Witch Doctor before I let them touch anything.  😃

[obxa]

On 12/8/2023 at 7:20 AM, mobi said:

Sounds kinda similar, at least for me, in this test,

Most of those hit the mark.  Agree this is a much better 1:1 demo.   I'd consider a tabletop version  for grins.  But as mentioned before, probably reach for a favorite  plug (currently the Gforce) just for recall and sheer laziness. If I were in a Prince tribute band- this would be the ticket all day long. 

 

I have a really weird test. One of my  favorite OBXA patches  is that wierd sitar sound.   I think it was original preset AD 6 or something.  On this video he plays it at 12:36.  I'm so familiar with that sound (and many  variations  I've made and used  over the years) that it's become my test of how authentic a clone or VI is. Something about the Mod and filter interaction  is what always gives it away. Might be they didn't tweak it enough, but it doesn't sound right to me.   I also have an Ob1K, while it's DCO it's got most of the Xa presets and it nails it. 

 

There was an 80's band called New Musik. Big hit: "Straight lines". Featuring Tony Mansfield- also produced  the remake "Always something there to remind me."    All of their later albums were heavy Obxa.  Mostly super stock presets, including that aforementioned Sitar sound.  Textbook example of using an OBxa for every part on a track.

[Jim Alfredson]

23 hours ago, analogholic said:

No it doesn´t. It sounds netiher like an OB-X or OB-Xa. It sounds different, more "precise" or "sterile". But that was expected, as I hear this in most reissues, take SEM, KARP 2600 or whatever. Don´t know if it is the SMT design...Does it sound good? Yes indeed, but lacks that mojo the old ones have.

 

I disagree. Marcus Ryle's direct comparison between the two demonstrates that the OB-X8 sounds like all three. I also compared it directly to my friend's OB-Xa (which I restored) and my own OB8 and they are so close as to be almost identical.

Do you own an X8?
 

 

 

[Jim Alfredson]

18 hours ago, ChazKeys said:

I think analogholic makes an interesting observation about reissues when he says:

'It sounds different, more "precise" or "sterile". But that was expected, as I hear this in most reissues, take SEM, KARP 2600 or whatever. Don´t know if it is the SMT design..."

 

The difference between SMT and discrete components might have a subtle effect on the sound. Like Mylar capacitors in Hammonds? Not as huge as valves and transistors -  but how close to the original circuit designs are they. Not to mention the miniaturisation of those circuits. The tiny OB-6 voice cards were a bit cheeky as they had a SEM panel printed on them but they didn't even use and original SEM circuit - it was only "inspired by". The SVF was good but a different character to the SEM. But if there is one person who should be able to employ SMT to get the SEM filter right it's Tom O. That is the big draw for me with OB-X8 - just got to win the lottery first!

 

There is no difference between SMT components and through-hole components. Look up the datasheet of any chip that's offered in both packages. You'll find there's only ONE datasheet. That's because the electrical characteristics are the same between packages. If they weren't, they would have to publish another datasheet for each package.

It's been this way forever. Look up old transistors that were offered in both TO-92 packages and TO-72 packages, for example. Same thing; same datasheet. Because the electrical characteristics are the same.

 

The dyes are not really any smaller, just the package itself around the dye because we have better technology that can make smaller connections from the dye to the outside world.

Again, listen to Marcus Ryles' direct comparison of both the OB-X and OB-Xa to the OB-X8 (linked above) and tell me the X8 sounds more "sterile". In fact, don't watch them. Close your eyes and just listen to them. 

[ChazKeys]

I agree Its not the IC - they are as you say the same. It’s about design around those chips. I would need to see the circuit diagrams but  Im not sure there are SMT equivalents of the transistors etc found in the original SEM. But as I said if anyone can coax that vibe with SMT it’s Tom. 

 

 I guess this is why Behringer have employed atrophy to make the tone more vintage The vintage update worked well on the P6. 

 

I’m not disputing the OB-X8 has the sound I am interested in seeing how close the UB-Xa gets to the original OB-Xa that it’s modelled on. 

[Jim Alfredson]

9 minutes ago, ChazKeys said:

I agree Its not the IC - they are as you say the same. It’s about design around those chips.

 

Right. There are certainly differences in SMT passives vs THT passives, but that can be mitigated if you have good engineers. But when it comes to chips, transistors, and such, the SMT version vs the THT version of the same vintage is going to be the same electronically. 

No, the original SEM didn't use SMT. It used TO-92 transistors (really basic, general purpose ones) and a shit ton of 741 opamps (about the cheapest you can buy). Funny, isn't it? THAT's the sound? The lowly 741 and some 2N5172 NPN and 2N3905 PNP general purpose transistors? Yep. It's about the engineering, not the components per se.

[ElmerJFudd]

I don’t know Lingham or how he comes in possession of a UB-Xa and OB-Xa within the last three days.  And this is only audio (YouTube audio). There is no video of the two synths side by side to confirm that’s what we are hearing. Is this the finished shipping UB-Xa or the earlier prototype? 
 

 

But, I expect a lot of these comparisons to start appearing soon enough.  
 

 

 

 

[Bill H.]

38 minutes ago, ElmerJFudd said:

 Is this the finished shipping UB-Xa or the earlier prototype? 
 

It's a prototype. The left hand control section is a little different, and it has the Oberheim logo and OB-Xa on the front panel. 

[analogholic]

5 hours ago, Jim Alfredson said:

I disagree. Marcus Ryle's direct comparison between the two demonstrates that the OB-X8 sounds like all three. I also compared it directly to my friend's OB-Xa (which I restored) and my own OB8 and they are so close as to be almost identical.

Do you own an X8

I´ve seen these videos .and yes .here they sound pretty similar and some of the patches less so, so already "nails it" is out of the question", and those short snippets don´t tell the "whole story".

I don´t own an X8 as you already know, and i don´t have to.... I could already tell from many demos...and it was even more evident when I tried it out in person for a couple of hours.

I do however own an OB-X and an OB-Xa...which is why I can tell.

Like I said, nobody would be happier than me if they indeed would have nailed the sound, as the X8 is way more "capable" than any of them and could have replaced both and then some. I also count on that the X8 is less "quirky" than the old ones.

I would have sold the vintage ones a long time ago and would gotten a shitload of money over after the purchase of an X8, but that ain´t gonna happen.

The loser here is unfortunately me...I´m far from the only one saying this...people who owns the old ones and the X8. And I have heard the opposite. I trust my own ears.

 

If you think they sound the same, more power to you...you are the winner and the lucky one here 👍

 

 

 

 

[The Real MC]

As an EE with a 35 year career in electronics and component engineering: drop the SMT vs through hole fallacy already.  

 

When designed right, SMT can sound as good as TH.  I got plenty of modern gear made from SMT that sound as good as the vintage deal they were derived from.

[The Real MC]

On 12/8/2023 at 1:07 PM, analogholic said:

No it doesn´t. It sounds netiher like an OB-X or OB-Xa.

 

Sorry but you're wrong; I own a vintage OB-X and OB-SX.  My OB-X8 can duplicate them easily.

[analogholic]

2 hours ago, Jim Alfredson said:

 

Yep. It's about the engineering, not the components per se.

I´m going to disagree here as well...It is reported that components back in the day had wider tolerances...aka were not as precise as today´s equivalents.
Like I said that I suspect that the SMT in combination with modern components affects the sound. What else would it be? I have not heard ONE reissue that sounds like a vintage one, not one. KARP Ody/2600, SEM, P5, MS-20 etc etc. Minimoog D is the closest I that I´ve heard. And it´s not about "yeah but compare two vintage ones and they will sound different too". Yes they will...but in the "ballpark" of that sound. I´m not an engineer, but I unfortunately hear it. And honestly, often I really wish I didn´t. Life would be easier in some regards.

[analogholic]

25 minutes ago, The Real MC said:

 

Sorry but you're wrong; I own a vintage OB-X and OB-SX.  My OB-X8 can duplicate them easily.

Good for you! 👍 I do hear it though. Honestly I don´t understand why this is so upsetting? I guess we have to agree on disagreeing as they say 🙂

[Jim Alfredson]

6 hours ago, analogholic said:

I´m going to disagree here as well...It is reported that components back in the day had wider tolerances...aka were not as precise as today´s equivalents.
Like I said that I suspect that the SMT in combination with modern components affects the sound. What else would it be?

Yes, modern components certainly benefit from better manufacturing techniques leading to tighter tolerances. That said, good electronics engineers can account for that. Oberheim obviously didn't just rebuild an OB-Xa from the original schematic using modern parts, clapped their hands, and declared "Good enough!" They went through and meticulously reworked the circuit so it would sound like the old ones but using modern components, which means they most likely measured the critical components in the signal path of the vintage ones and accounted for the tolerances and drift. Marcus Ryle ain't no dummy.

What else could it be? Well, with a all due respect, it could be confirmation bias, selective perception, or any other number of cognitive biases that we all have as humans. Have you done any double-blind ABX tests? That would really be the only way to accurately determine if you can tell a difference or not. You can tell yourself you do but if you already know which one you're listening to, then you've already colored your perception.

I've caught so many people, including myself, in double-blind tests; people I admire and respect who claimed they could hear a difference between this and that. It's pretty revealing once you remove your own biases and don't know what is what.

It's worth mentioning as well that our auditory memory is significantly short; like measured in milliseconds. Meaning comparing an OB-X8 that you played in a store to your own at home, miles and many minutes away, is moot.

I don't have access to an OB-X but I can borrow my friend's OB-Xa and create a double blind ABX test, where A is one synth, B is another, and X is either / or. If anyone can reliably tell which is which (meaning significantly above chance or 50% correct), then I'll concede my position. 

 

[RABid]

Different people have different ears. So EVERYONE can drop the attitude of "what I hear is what it is for everyone." Some people can listen to a Prophet 5, a Jupiter 8, and a MemoryMoog and almost immediately tell you which is which. (This used to be me.) Some people can listen to a Prophet 5 Rev 1, Rev 2 and Rev 3 and tell you which is which. (This was never me.) I don't really need comparisons. What I want is some well recorded patch examples to see if any of them invoke that "Oh baby, that's it" reaction to a filter fall, a resonance sweep, a bass patch. If it does, great. If not, time to move on. I've never gotten that feeling from anything with a DCO. Never. Recently I have gotten it from some software. (GForce Oberheim, Roland Jupiter 8 ACB, some U-He instruments.) Life is good. Enjoy the things you like. Ignore the rest. Stop wasting your time trying to change other people. ... What was that quote DB used to have in his signature about a pig?

[SteveCoscia]

50 minutes ago, RABid said:

Life is good. Enjoy the things you like. Ignore the rest. Stop wasting your time trying to change other people.

 

Enough said. Thank you.

[analogholic]

8 hours ago, Jim Alfredson said:

Yes, modern components certainly benefit from better manufacturing techniques leading to tighter tolerances. That said, good electronics engineers can account for that. Oberheim obviously didn't just rebuild an OB-Xa from the original schematic using modern parts, clapped their hands, and declared "Good enough!" They went through and meticulously reworked the circuit so it would sound like the old ones but using modern components, which means they most likely measured the critical components in the signal path of the vintage ones and accounted for the tolerances and drift. Marcus Ryle ain't no dummy.

What else could it be? Well, with a all due respect, it could be confirmation bias, selective perception, or any other number of cognitive biases that we all have as humans. Have you done any double-blind ABX tests? That would really be the only way to accurately determine if you can tell a difference or not. You can tell yourself you do but if you already know which one you're listening to, then you've already colored your perception.

I've caught so many people, including myself, in double-blind tests; people I admire and respect who claimed they could hear a difference between this and that. It's pretty revealing once you remove your own biases and don't know what is what.

It's worth mentioning as well that our auditory memory is significantly short; like measured in milliseconds. Meaning comparing an OB-X8 that you played in a store to your own at home, miles and many minutes away, is moot.

I don't have access to an OB-X but I can borrow my friend's OB-Xa and create a double blind ABX test, where A is one synth, B is another, and X is either / or. If anyone can reliably tell which is which (meaning significantly above chance or 50% correct), then I'll concede my position. 

 

 

Marcus Ryle is definitely no dummy. I respect and like the man big time. Same goes for Dave Smith and Bob Moog. However, Sequential stated when rev 3 P5 came out that it had the "same sound" as the SSM versions. A lot of people don't hear any difference even today. I do and it´s not by a small margin. When Moog released the improved oscillator board Minimmoog, it "sounded the same". when in fact musicians thought the opposite. Is my favourite of them all, maestro Tom Oberheim "a dummy"? Of course not. Yet, the SEM reissue didn´t sound like the old one.

 

Confirmation bias. Yes that surely exists. In my case, like I said numerous times, I didn't have any. On the contrary as I was so glad when they released X8 and thought that I finally could replace my old ones. So, should I then say with the same "argument" that there is no difference between the OB-Xa and the UB-Xa? That you are just "imagining" any sound difference and that it´s only because of "bias"? They way you speak about Behringer is definitely biased. So who is the biased one here? 

And regarding bias, is there more to the story here maybe in your case? You have stated yourself that you have an "artist relation with Sequential". Who would you say have a bigger reason for bias between the two of us? And to "defend" the product?

 

When the P5 rev 4 was released I thought they were joking when I heard it and many with me, while the new "first time" owners were ecstatic. Owners who actually had or at least had played a vintage P5 started reporting to Sequential and asking about what the hell is going on, The thing sounded as you had put wool over the speakers. Sequential replied that "they are imagining things". "Nice". Of course the people with ears didn´t imagine anything. Those first batches were faulty and Sequential had to correct it. Talk about bias. Even after the correction it still doesn't sound the same, Why do you think there is a "vintage knob" on these new versions?

 

It was quite interesting how I was flamed when I said the OB-6 oscillators are dead stiff, when people said "it sounds just like an OB-X" and "It even says SEM on the voice cards" and "Tom O should know better" and "you just want show off with your vintage gear and the best one of of them all, "you seem to like out of tune synths" etc. They just didn't get it. It was quite interesting to notice what reactions this little statement created. All from owners of course. I even got some "funny" answers by a DSI rep when asking about what´s the story about the stiff sound. One of the replies was "this is the sound that people want". Then came the "vintage knob" What for then? Apparently more people than me had noticed. One of them were Matt Johnson of Jamiroquai. The vintage knob didn't of course solve anything about the oscillators which behave almost like DCO´s, but least loosened up the envelopes and induced a little random tuning etc. Why do I mention these things? Because obviously people hear things VERY differently.

 

You wrote :"It's worth mentioning as well that our auditory memory is significantly short; like measured in milliseconds. Meaning comparing an OB-X8 that you played in a store to your own at home, miles and many minutes away, is moot."

 

Yes I agree...but there is another dimension here and that's what I call SOUL reaction. That is not about "ear-memory" anymore. It´s something else. It´s when you play something and you almost laugh out loud. You don't control that. The thing that happens when you sit down and play a B3 with a Leslie? Doesn´t matter if they all sound a little different. 

 

Blind tests. Over at ex gearslutz. now gearspace, SWAN made a blind test between his OB-8 and his custom patches for soft synth U-HE DIVA Most people got it wrong. Sit down yourself with both and you wil hear and more importantly FEEL the difference. 

 

As I said before, Listen to those Ryle tests one more time, and tell me that ALL of those patches sound the same. They don't. So the "nailed it" argument is already dead here.

Then go and listen to Anthony Marinelli´s test of his vintage 2600 and the Korg one, made with same parts and supervised by no dummy ex ARP employees. A couple of   very respectable guys told me "it sounds the same".  

 

So, does this all matter at all in the end? Will the music be any better? Will you hear it in a mix? No...that will in many cases even apply for hardware vs software as well.

People I know with better ears than me learned the lesson and gave up commenting on things like this, because the result is the same every single time. 

 

You stated your right to say what you hear about the UB-Xa, I just did the same regarding the X8. 

 

I guess we have to agree on disagreeing about this one. No big deal is it?

 

Peace

 

 

 

[analogholic]

2 hours ago, RABid said:

Different people have different ears. Stop wasting your time trying to change other people.

Agreed! and lesson learned 🙂👍🙏

[Jim Alfredson]

10 hours ago, analogholic said:

 

Marcus Ryle is definitely no dummy. I respect and like the man big time. Same goes for Dave Smith and Bob Moog. However, Sequential stated when rev 3 P5 came out that it had the "same sound" as the SSM versions. A lot of people don't hear any difference even today. I do and it´s not by a small margin. When Moog released the improved oscillator board Minimmoog, it "sounded the same". when in fact musicians thought the opposite. Is my favourite of them all, maestro Tom Oberheim "a dummy"? Of course not. Yet, the SEM reissue didn´t sound like the old one.

 

All well and good but we're not talking about the Minimoog or SEM here. 

 

 

10 hours ago, analogholic said:

 

Confirmation bias. Yes that surely exists. In my case, like I said numerous times, I didn't have any. On the contrary as I was so glad when they released X8 and thought that I finally could replace my old ones. So, should I then say with the same "argument" that there is no difference between the OB-Xa and the UB-Xa? That you are just "imagining" any sound difference and that it´s only because of "bias"? They way you speak about Behringer is definitely biased. So who is the biased one here? 

And regarding bias, is there more to the story here maybe in your case? You have stated yourself that you have an "artist relation with Sequential". Who would you say have a bigger reason for bias between the two of us? And to "defend" the product?

 

We ALL have biases. To state that you don't have any is just being dishonest with yourself. I've already admitted I am biased against B**hringer. Could that be affecting how I perceive the UB-Xa? Hell yes. The only true test is a double-blind ABX. I think we all try to be as objective as we can but as someone who is fascinated by human cognition, let me tell you... there is absolutely no true objectivity in our senses. That's why we have developed the scientific method and tools to accurately test things.

 

 

10 hours ago, analogholic said:

When the P5 rev 4 was released I thought they were joking when I heard it and many with me, while the new "first time" owners were ecstatic. Owners who actually had or at least had played a vintage P5 started reporting to Sequential and asking about what the hell is going on, The thing sounded as you had put wool over the speakers. Sequential replied that "they are imagining things". "Nice". Of course the people with ears didn´t imagine anything. Those first batches were faulty and Sequential had to correct it. Talk about bias. Even after the correction it still doesn't sound the same, Why do you think there is a "vintage knob" on these new versions?

 

Again, nice but we're not talking about the Prophet rev 4. But in using these examples you are illustrating your own bias, ie that no reissue or recreation of a vintage synth will ever sound 'correct'. 

Do you not think it's possible that the Sequential / Oberheim team learned something with the released of the Prophet rev 4 that they then applied to the OB-X8?

 

 

10 hours ago, analogholic said:

You wrote :"It's worth mentioning as well that our auditory memory is significantly short; like measured in milliseconds. Meaning comparing an OB-X8 that you played in a store to your own at home, miles and many minutes away, is moot."

 

Yes I agree...but there is another dimension here and that's what I call SOUL reaction. That is not about "ear-memory" anymore. It´s something else. It´s when you play something and you almost laugh out loud. You don't control that. The thing that happens when you sit down and play a B3 with a Leslie? Doesn´t matter if they all sound a little different. 

 

Again, another example of subjectivity and frankly kind of a cop-out. "I just feel it in my SOUL man". Uh. Okay. What does that even mean? 

 

 

10 hours ago, analogholic said:

 

Blind tests. Over at ex gearslutz. now gearspace, SWAN made a blind test between his OB-8 and his custom patches for soft synth U-HE DIVA Most people got it wrong. Sit down yourself with both and you wil hear and more importantly FEEL the difference. 

 

Did you participate? I'd love to read your answers if you posted them before the reveal.

 

Regardless, I hate to be a broken record here but again... we're not talking about plugins. We're talking about the OB-X8 versus the other hardware vintage synths in the OB family.

 

 

10 hours ago, analogholic said:

 

As I said before, Listen to those Ryle tests one more time, and tell me that ALL of those patches sound the same. They don't. So the "nailed it" argument is already dead here.

 

I have a better idea. If I have time in the next couple of days, I'm going to download that video and re-order the examples, black-out the actual video, and only put "A", "B", or "X" over the various samples. If you can reliably tell which is which without knowing what synth he's playing, I'll concede that you have no bias and are gifted with super-ears us mere mortals do not have. Deal?

 

I'll end this very long post with a story that I will try to make as short as possible, but one that revealed to me how our cognitive biases affect everything we perceive and believe.

My mentor in everything audio is a brilliant, Grammy award winning engineer that lives here in my hometown. He not only records, mixes, and masters music to an exacting degree, he also designs studios as an acoustician, builds his own outboard gear as an electronics engineer, builds his own monitor speakers, maintains his own tape machines, etc. He's also a synthesizer nut and owns some really nice pieces including an original Buchla CM100 system. The word 'genius' is overused these days but this guy fits the bill. And he's a sweetheart as well, always willing to share his knowledge and expertise.

 

A few years ago we were mixing my progressive rock project THEO together. We needed to make 96kHz masters because that's what some people wanted. Don't get me started on high sample rate audio as a final delivery medium. That's a whole 'nuther can of worms. Anyway, we needed to resample the finished masters. So we decided to test three methods. The first was using ProTools' internal resampling algorithm. The second was using Cubase's internal resampling method. The third was going into the analog domain and recapturing the mixes with my friend's $14,000 high-end Prism converters. 

My friend was convinced that the Prism was going to sound the best. How could it not? It's $14,000!!! This is an example of the price value bias. If something costs more, it has to be better.

So we performed each conversion. We both agreed the ProTools one sounded the worst. The high-end got weirdly affected, it sounded flat... just not good. We both agreed the Cubase one sounded really good. And then we played the Prism one. Honestly, I could not hear a difference between that and the Cubase one. My friend claimed it was deeper, better soundstage, better highs, etc. I'm sitting there going, "Man... I just don't hear it. Are my ears just bad?" He was adamant that the difference was night and day. We went back and forth between them and I just got more confused.

That night I took both files and aligned them in Cubase, sample accurate. The next day with fresh ears, I performed a double blind test on my friend. I could switch between the Prism conversion and the Cubase conversion with no audible delineation between the switch (no pop, no noise at all). We started the test and I asked him to tell me which was which. After a minute or so he said, "When are you going to switch?" I said, "I have been... every 10 seconds." "Oh, you have to tell me when you're switching." All right. So I said "A". And then "B". And wrote down his answers as to which was which.

He got about 50% right and 50% wrong. No better than chance.

I tell this story not to diss my friend. I respect and love him to the end of the world. He is the reason I know anything about audio engineering, mics, mixing, even electronics. He's a true friend and genius. I tell this story because it illustrates that we all have biases. None of us are immune to them. The only way reliable to determine if you can hear the difference between two things in the audio world is double-blind testing. Otherwise it's just opinion that can be safely dismissed.

[The Real MC]

I don't need any "bias" lectures about a company that is a known chronic plagiarist who sues their critics and floods discussion groups with "I got mine" "sounds just like vintage" and teaser announcement posts. When you see the similar patterns of posts across different groups it is very obvious they are ads disguised as "user reports" and "news" propagated by marketing trolls. Anyone who dares to object is demonized as "haters".  I will not submit to Alinsky manipulation tactics.

[RABid]

1 hour ago, The Real MC said:

When you see the similar patterns of posts across different groups it is very obvious they are ads disguised as "user reports"

I used to be aggravated by YouTube videos of instruments that hd no talking, only the sound of the instrument. This would be magnified if they had a lot of text you are supposed to read while trying to listen. I would just think "Why don't they just say what they want to say?" But over the years I got to recognize patterns. People who were always singing the praises and presenting every item as the must have product of the year. There are several that I will no longer watch. The worst is someone who has a history of producing a sponsored video from companies like Mutable Instruments or Moog, then a year later taking money from copy companies to praise their product over the originals. The worst was a video where he kept saying "They sound exactly the same" over and over throughout the video. There was no mention of build quality, tuning stability, etc... Just how the copied product sounds exactly like the Mother 32 it ripped off. I no longer watch his videos.