your thoughts on Omega8 ( new SOS review came out)

[clusterchord]

A new, relatively unfavorable review came out in SOS for Studio Electronics OMEGA 8. somebody on KSS posted the conclusion part of it. i am re-posting it here - it would be interesting to hear what Keyboard Corner thinks about the synth, the review(er), etc

 

At KSS we already had a lively discussion here , if you're interested to read.

 

Epilogue

 

Studio Electronics describe the sound of the Omega 8 in different ways, usually variations on 'obese', 'phat', 'warm', and 'squelchy', the implication being that it has the depth and sound of classic American polysynths such as the Prophet 5, Oberheim OBX, and Memorymoog. But this was not what I experienced while using it.

 

I programmed a range of voices during my couple of months with it, including impressive pads, brass, organs, leads, basses, and many of the other classic 'analogue' sounds that I enjoy. I found that there's also wide scope for experimentation and ample opportunity for extreme noises. I particularly liked some of the shimmering, other-worldly sounds that the Omega 8 can produce. But none of these patches sounded like a Prophet, Oberheim, or Moog to me. To my ears, the closest thing to the Omega 8 in terms of look and feel, sound, features and, of course, being analogue is the Roland MKS80, with a bit of the MKS70 thrown in for good measure.

 

And another comparison occurred to me. The Omega 8 has a clean signal path, and a full-bandwidth frequency response, both of which are good things. In contrast, the Prophets, Oberheims and Moogs of previous years sound fat partly as a result of noisier signal paths and somewhat limited bandwidths that concentrate their sounds in the low and mid frequencies.

 

So ask yourself; what sounds like a vintage-analogue synth, but also sounds clean, bright, and has full bandwidth? The answer is... a virtual analogue synth! If pushed for a comparison, I would say that the underlying character of the Omega 8 shares some of the qualities of the Roland MKS80 and some of a modern VA. Of course, we're talking about subtle distinctions here. Blindfold me and play a single note of (as near as possible) the same sound produced on an MKS80, a Supernova II and the Omega 8, and I would be hard-pressed to tell which was which.

 

You may hate this comparison, and I fear that Studio Electronics may, but I intend it as no insult. Whereas my Prophets, Oberheims and Moogs tend to be wrapped in plastic sheets and put into storage at the back of my studio for lengthy periods of time, the flexibility and transparency of my MKS80 has ensured that it has remained plugged into my desk throughout the past two decades.

 

But this leaves us with a problem. Modern virtual-analogue synths are much cheaper than the Omega 8, and are more flexible, especially in terms of voices, multitimbral options, and effects (56, for example, as opposed to none). So, perhaps the most obvious use for the Omega 8 is as a colony of discrete, dual-oscillator monosynths. Given the facilities provided by each voice, and the flexibility of the MIDI control over each, it's not unreasonable to divide the price by eight, and think of it as eight instruments, each costing around £500 or thereabouts. If you have a need for so many simultaneous monosynths, and can afford the extra filter cards needed to give them diverse characters, the Omega 8 could then be a cost-effective solution. But not as a cost-effective polysynth unless, of course, you lust exclusively after analogue instruments like the Omega 8.

 

Consequently, I think that this synth is going to appeal most to wealthy musicians, as well as those who, although less likely to have the cash to buy one, don't like the sound of digital synths for whatever reason.

Top of page

 

To be honest, I have some sympathy for Studio Electronics. That they are enthusiasts is clear. They love their synths, and what they stand for. Furthermore, once you have made allowances for shipping, import duty, dealer margins and VAT, £4000 is probably a fair price for a machine of this construction and complexity.

 

But 2004 is not 1983, and although you once had to pay £4000 (or more!) to obtain an eight-voice polysynth with no effects and limited multitimbrality, this is no longer the case. I think it's fair to say that anyone deciding on the basis of price alone will pass up the Omega 8 and its ilk for a more modern synth. But that doesn't mean there isn't a potential market for it. Just as some people continue to champion vinyl over CDs, others still champion analogue synthesis over digital although I don't necessarily count myself among them. On that basis, I say good luck to them, and good luck to Studio Electronics. The Omega 8 is a noble effort, and one which when its current problems are resolved we should respect.

Published in SOS October 2004

[orangefunk]

sounds like a well written review to me... I've read the stuff that people wrote at KSS and its all rather typical I'm afraid.. lots of boys with too many toys...

 

Originally posted by clusterchord:

A new, relatively unfavorable review came out in SOS for Studio Electronics OMEGA 8. somebody on KSS posted the conclusion part of it. i am re-posting it here - it would be interesting to hear what Keyboard Corner thinks about the synth, the review(er), etc

 

At KSS we already had a lively discussion here , if you're interested to read.

 

Epilogue

 

Studio Electronics describe the sound of the Omega 8 in different ways, usually variations on 'obese', 'phat', 'warm', and 'squelchy', the implication being that it has the depth and sound of classic American polysynths such as the Prophet 5, Oberheim OBX, and Memorymoog. But this was not what I experienced while using it.

 

I programmed a range of voices during my couple of months with it, including impressive pads, brass, organs, leads, basses, and many of the other classic 'analogue' sounds that I enjoy. I found that there's also wide scope for experimentation and ample opportunity for extreme noises. I particularly liked some of the shimmering, other-worldly sounds that the Omega 8 can produce. But none of these patches sounded like a Prophet, Oberheim, or Moog to me. To my ears, the closest thing to the Omega 8 in terms of look and feel, sound, features and, of course, being analogue is the Roland MKS80, with a bit of the MKS70 thrown in for good measure.

 

And another comparison occurred to me. The Omega 8 has a clean signal path, and a full-bandwidth frequency response, both of which are good things. In contrast, the Prophets, Oberheims and Moogs of previous years sound fat partly as a result of noisier signal paths and somewhat limited bandwidths that concentrate their sounds in the low and mid frequencies.

 

So ask yourself; what sounds like a vintage-analogue synth, but also sounds clean, bright, and has full bandwidth? The answer is... a virtual analogue synth! If pushed for a comparison, I would say that the underlying character of the Omega 8 shares some of the qualities of the Roland MKS80 and some of a modern VA. Of course, we're talking about subtle distinctions here. Blindfold me and play a single note of (as near as possible) the same sound produced on an MKS80, a Supernova II and the Omega 8, and I would be hard-pressed to tell which was which.

 

You may hate this comparison, and I fear that Studio Electronics may, but I intend it as no insult. Whereas my Prophets, Oberheims and Moogs tend to be wrapped in plastic sheets and put into storage at the back of my studio for lengthy periods of time, the flexibility and transparency of my MKS80 has ensured that it has remained plugged into my desk throughout the past two decades.

 

But this leaves us with a problem. Modern virtual-analogue synths are much cheaper than the Omega 8, and are more flexible, especially in terms of voices, multitimbral options, and effects (56, for example, as opposed to none). So, perhaps the most obvious use for the Omega 8 is as a colony of discrete, dual-oscillator monosynths. Given the facilities provided by each voice, and the flexibility of the MIDI control over each, it's not unreasonable to divide the price by eight, and think of it as eight instruments, each costing around £500 or thereabouts. If you have a need for so many simultaneous monosynths, and can afford the extra filter cards needed to give them diverse characters, the Omega 8 could then be a cost-effective solution. But not as a cost-effective polysynth unless, of course, you lust exclusively after analogue instruments like the Omega 8.

 

Consequently, I think that this synth is going to appeal most to wealthy musicians, as well as those who, although less likely to have the cash to buy one, don't like the sound of digital synths for whatever reason.

Top of page

 

To be honest, I have some sympathy for Studio Electronics. That they are enthusiasts is clear. They love their synths, and what they stand for. Furthermore, once you have made allowances for shipping, import duty, dealer margins and VAT, £4000 is probably a fair price for a machine of this construction and complexity.

 

But 2004 is not 1983, and although you once had to pay £4000 (or more!) to obtain an eight-voice polysynth with no effects and limited multitimbrality, this is no longer the case. I think it's fair to say that anyone deciding on the basis of price alone will pass up the Omega 8 and its ilk for a more modern synth. But that doesn't mean there isn't a potential market for it. Just as some people continue to champion vinyl over CDs, others still champion analogue synthesis over digital although I don't necessarily count myself among them. On that basis, I say good luck to them, and good luck to Studio Electronics. The Omega 8 is a noble effort, and one which when its current problems are resolved we should respect.

Published in SOS October 2004

[burningbusch]

As someone who owns an Omega8 I suppose I should comment.

 

First, the last paragraph of the review would apply to the Voyager, SE-1, ATC, Evolver, PolyEvolver, etc. every bit as much as it does to the Omega. He clearly does not hear a significant difference between analogs and VAs. From his point of view the advanced feature set of the VAs trumps the slight sonic advantage.

 

I maintain that the Omega8 is probably the best sounding poly synth I've ever heard. I love its sound. Yes it is more transparent and sounds more even across the frequency spectrum than the 1980s polys. It is a discrete polyphonic synth (quite rare), as opposed to the Curtis chipers. Dave Smith remarked that he feels the PolyEvolver is the best sounding synth he's ever made. Gosh, you can actually try to improve on the sound from twenty years ago? But there are those who will always champion the vintage synths, as if these instruments had achieved sonic perfection. I had a Prophet 5 in to compare to the Omega. I can't think of a single instance where I wouldn't use the Omega over the P5. To me it just flat out sounds better. It's easier to make something that's pure sound grungy than to make a grungy instrument sound pure. Analog does not necessarily equal warm/distorted. Analog can be made to sound pure/clean. Just because the Omega sounds more pure/clean than the vintage polys DOES NOT mean that it sounds digital. It does not in any way. That, I believe, is the reviewer's fundamental mis-characterization.

 

I don't have any hardware VAs to compare against my Omega. I got rid of them a few years back because I felt THEY ($2,000 - $4,000 VAs) were vastly overpriced and I didn't hear ANY sonic differences between them and software that cost 10% to 20% as much. I do have a Noah EX, V-Synth, and lots of software synths. None of them attack speakers in the same way the Omega does. The difference can be subtle, but most often not.

 

The reviewer disses the Omega because it doesn't have an FXs section like the Novation SuperNova. GIVE ME A BREAK. I used to own a SuperNova. The FXs are probably the worst ever attached to any synth. The reverbs are horrible. Attaching that FX section to the Omega would be criminal. It is a great sounding analog synth that doesn't need a digital FX section to make it sound presentable.

 

I first heard the Studio Electronic products at a NAMM show. I vividly remember walking past their booth thinking "damm their stuff sounds good." NAMM is a horrible enviroment for critical listening. Hardly anything sounds great. So for me the SE stuff really stood out as having some special qualities.

 

Some of the people on the other forum were lamenting the fact that the price of the Omega hasn't come down over the years. Realize that SE is truely a boutique synth maker. When you order an Omega (or anything else from them) they make it to order. They don't have Omegas and SE-1s boxed up and ready to go. They don't need to worry about clearing out inventories of old models, with next year's model in the wings. This is very good news for owners. The value of your investment remains high. Analog gear (as well as acoustic and electro-mechanical) has been proven to hold its value FAR better than digital. That needs to be factored in before catagorizing an analog piece as just TOO expensive. If I pay for $4,500 for an Omega8 and five years later can get $3,500 for it on ebay (a very realistic scenario), the cost of using that instrument for five years is $1,000. On the other hand, a digital VA selling for $2,000 could very easily be worth $1,000 or LESS after five years, especially given the fact that many manufacturers continue to sell the old model at drastically reduced prices. Just because something costs less up front doesn't mean it's going to cost less in the long run.

 

Also, SE has been around for something like 20 years. I have more faith that they will be around 5, 10 years from now than I do that the European VA makers will be.

 

Busch.

[clusterchord]

Originally posted by orangefunk:

sounds like a well written review to me... I've read the stuff that people wrote at KSS and its all rather typical I'm afraid.. lots of boys with too many toys...

hehehe. you're using a KS Novation synth, aren't you?

 

I guess you, like the reviever did, also claim that Novation is a standard for all other things to be measured. and that it can do all that real analog can and much more??

 

look, seriously, i know whe were dissing a UK mag, but c'mon the guy is in denial. he doesnt know the first thing about the origin of sound and 'fatness' in an analog synth. Novation is dead anyway, his 'patriotism' isn't going to help them by trashing other synths in reviews (like Andromeda and Omega).

 

burningbusch: i agree with just about everything you said. The revievers theory on limited bandwith being the sole reason for old US synths sounding fat, versus full bandwith that only VA can have, and therefore concluding Omega sounds like a VA was really streching it too far.

 

----> so, i guess i can go out and get me a nice stereo tube EQ and, put it on a digital synth, dial in some roll-off and tube saturation to 'limit my bandwith' ,and .. voila! i've got my self a Prophet5.

 

btw, do you have some music with Omega posted? or if you could post some demo? As you can see in my sig, i'm 'hosting' a synth demo thread back on KSS. To many people SE products are still a mystery, since their site isnt strong with demo material.

 

peace.

[marino]

Thanks a lot for your perspective, busch - I have an SE-1, and if its sound is of any indication of the Omega sound, this reviewer must have listened to too much heavy metal in his life (read: ear damage ). I've played the Supernova II, and while it can have an interesting sound of its own, you can *not* compare its 'basic' sound with the SE sound for bigness - the comparison is just laughable, to my ears at least. I can hear the difference between something like the SE and a VA very, very well.

If the matter is one of mere 'thickness' of sound, you can stack 45 oscillators and 12 reverbs on *any* combination of synths, and obtain the equivalent of the Mighty Wurlitzer sonic mud, only much worse. But if the point is sound quality, smoothness, roundness, and a sense of satisfying fullness, digital is not there yet.

I really would love an Omega... or better yet, an SE-6, the six-voice version of the SE-1 with three oscs per voice which they never finalized. Repeat with me, all together: "An analog poly should have three oscillators per voice. An analog poly.... " Who knows, someone could listen. (Well, someone did listen, actually...)

 

I'm more worried about the malfunctions in multitimbral mode. Busch, are you familiar with them? Could you tell us what they are?

[mildbill]

....... smoothness, roundness, and a sense of satisfying fullness,......

marino: i'm not trying to be too much of a wise ass, but it really bugs me when people use these type of adjectives.

you could just as well be talking about a type of coffee or a brand of cigarettes - sounds like typical marketing hype.

 

now if you said, for example:,

 

"'the fundamental is prominent, with no extraneous frequencies appearing on either side.

as the filter is opened, those frequencies which do appear, do so gradually, with no jarring abruptness.

the amplitudes of those frequencies increase in direct proportion with the opening of the filter.

the end result, is what could be described as a sort of 'smoothness'":,

 

then someone reading your comments could assess them somewhat objectively.

in other words, 'what' is happening inside this synth that would cause someone to call it 'smooth'; and 'why' would someone call it 'smooth' as opposed to 'harsh, scattered, or any other adjective'?

 

the way it stands, you may as well just say, 'i like it because it's smooth'.

it's a subjective, emotional statement and one that's most certainly important to you on a personal level.

i really enjoy reading your 'analog adventures' posts, as well as all of your other input, however, i always read it as fiction that's lacking objective details.

 

sorry if this comes off as 'harsh', i really mean it to 'be smooth, round, and result in a sense of satisfying fullness'.

 

you can take a joke, can't you marino?

[orangefunk]

Originally posted by clusterchord:

Originally posted by orangefunk:

sounds like a well written review to me... I've read the stuff that people wrote at KSS and its all rather typical I'm afraid.. lots of boys with too many toys...

hehehe. you're using a KS Novation synth, aren't you?

 

I guess you, like the reviever did, also claim that Novation is a standard for all other things to be measured. and that it can do all that real analog can and much more?? .

Hmm.. ok HSS gear collecting guy .. I own a KS4, have been *very* critical of them in the past adn think its now (finally after the bug fixes were done in the new OS!) a cool synth.. however I don't think its particulalry authentic analogue but it does do what I want it to do... i.e. it helps me to "create" music... just like my 1976 rhodes (which to you you would be a heap of crap because its not from 1972) helps me to create music..

 

The bottom line is, all my gear helps me to create music, its not there because its got nice LEDs blinking at me or that when viewed under an osilloscope at x1000000 the waveform doesn't step.. or so I can spend hours and hours comparing a patch in isolation on a moog v a digital for harmonic content... I have little time as it is!

 

I think all this talk of analogue v whatever is pointless if you are *really* into the music making process... something either works or it doesn't and there are so many solutions nowadays.. its not like its 1985 anymore and we're all looking at Fairlights and Synclaviers to be the ansers to all our poblems... our problems are our own, whether borne out of laziness or lack of creativity or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I can be as lazy as the next man but I'm at least honest enough not blame my gear and the fact its not all analogue...

 

Peace

Orangefunk

[mildbill]

marino: i'm glad to see that we can banter back and forth in a civilized manner - your points are well taken.

 

as to the article: i should say up front, i have no experience with SE products, and somewhat limited experience with the other manufacturers listed, but i thought the article was well done and am not sure what the objections are.

 

an example:

 

And another comparison occurred to me. The Omega 8 has a clean signal path, and a full-bandwidth frequency response, both of which are good things. In contrast, the Prophets, Oberheims and Moogs of previous years sound fat partly as a result of noisier signal paths and somewhat limited bandwidths that concentrate their sounds in the low and mid frequencies.

a clean signal path: should be fairly easy to verify (in comparison to the others listed).

 

a full bandwidth frequency response: should also be verifiable.

 

Prophet, Oberheim and Moog 'concentrate their sounds in the low and mid frequencies: shouldn't really need too much equipment to check this out.

 

i suspect the most objectionable statement he makes for the analog purists is this:

 

So ask yourself; what sounds like a vintage-analogue synth, but also sounds clean, bright, and has full bandwidth? The answer is... a virtual analogue synth!

of course, if you don't agree with this statement, you would tend to dismiss everything else along with it.

 

but i think there may be some good points in the article. for instance, is it reasonable to assume that digital technology has made tremendous progress in the last 20 years and that analog technology has made no progress?

i think probably not.

 

if analog technology has made any progress, what would it consist of?

maybe a 'cleaner signal path' and 'a fuller frequency response'?

i really can't say, but it seems reasonable to me.

 

i don't really know where i'm going with this, but i just want to say that i love the full, rich flavor, and tantalizing aroma of my VA's.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by mildbill:

i just want to say that i love the full, rich flavor, and tantalizing aroma of my VA's.

So that's what that smell is that's coming from my Ion...

 

dB

[marino]

Originally posted by mildbill:

marino: i'm glad to see that we can banter back and forth in a civilized manner - your points are well taken.

 

as to the article: i should say up front, i have no experience with SE products, and somewhat limited experience with the other manufacturers listed, but i thought the article was well done and am not sure what the objections are.

 

 

This could be the main point - maybe you just need to make those experiences....

 

 

an example:

 

And another comparison occurred to me. The Omega 8 has a clean signal path, and a full-bandwidth frequency response, both of which are good things. In contrast, the Prophets, Oberheims and Moogs of previous years sound fat partly as a result of noisier signal paths and somewhat limited bandwidths that concentrate their sounds in the low and mid frequencies.

a clean signal path: should be fairly easy to verify (in comparison to the others listed).

 

a full bandwidth frequency response: should also be verifiable.

 

Prophet, Oberheim and Moog 'concentrate their sounds in the low and mid frequencies: shouldn't really need too much equipment to check this out.

 

 

Here, the reviewer start with a partial assumption ("the Prophets, Oberheims and Moogs of previous years sound fat partly as a result of noisier signal paths and somewhat limited bandwidths that concentrate their sounds in the low and mid frequencies"), which I would question even by itself, and draws arbitrary conclusions from that. To say that you can distinguish a real analog from a VA just by looking at their frequency response and noise level makes me laugh. It is one component in such a comparison, but not the most important one, not by a long shot.

 

 

i suspect the most objectionable statement he makes for the analog purists is this:

 

So ask yourself; what sounds like a vintage-analogue synth, but also sounds clean, bright, and has full bandwidth? The answer is... a virtual analogue synth!

of course, if you don't agree with this statement, you would tend to dismiss everything else along with it.

 

 

Here, the reviewer's point is even clearer, and completely wrong. I have a real analog synth with "full bandwidth"; it's the SE-1 (very close to the Minimoog), it goes up there, and it sounds 'fat, full and warm' like no VA ever did. I can tell the SE sound from a VA, from the next room. It does not take an 'analog purist' to hear that, just a pair of ears.

 

 

but i think there may be some good points in the article. for instance, is it reasonable to assume that digital technology has made tremendous progress in the last 20 years and that analog technology has made no progress?

i think probably not.

 

if analog technology has made any progress, what would it consist of?

maybe a 'cleaner signal path' and 'a fuller frequency response'?

i really can't say, but it seems reasonable to me.

 

i don't really know where i'm going with this, but i just want to say that i love the full, rich flavor, and tantalizing aroma of my VA's.

OK mildbill - I don't want to go forever with this; it could very well be that you really don't hear much difference between a VA and a RA. I know I hear it, and no, I'm *not* an 'analog purist', just an analog fan. I urge you to play a few 'good' analog synths. They might leave you cold, but you will hear the difference. I like VAs in their own right. But basing a review of the Omega on a comparison with the Supernova like this guy is doing is a bit off mark to me.

 

[orangefunk]

Originally posted by marino:

But basing a review of the Omega on a comparison with the Supernova like this guy is doing is a bit off mark to me.

 

[/QB]

 

But he isn't... or at least not wholly, he bases it on the MKS80 too.. what hes basically saying is that some of the sounds he has gotten out of the Omega remind him of the Supernova...

 

I mean I have sounds on my lowly KS4 and even SH09 that put me in mind of Prophets and Moogs...

 

I still can't see what the fuss is all about really... If a person has £3-4k to spend and think that they need it then go ahead

[Analogaddict]

Originally posted by orangefunk:

But he isn't... or at least not wholly, he bases it on the MKS80 too.. what hes basically saying is that some of the sounds he has gotten out of the Omega remind him of the Supernova...

I´d like to see the Supernova that can make the sounds my MKS80 makes..!

[orangefunk]

Originally posted by Analogaddict:

Originally posted by orangefunk:

But he isn't... or at least not wholly, he bases it on the MKS80 too.. what hes basically saying is that some of the sounds he has gotten out of the Omega remind him of the Supernova...

I´d like to see the Supernova that can make the sounds my MKS80 makes..!

Well.. again hes not saying that... why is it so hard for you guys to understand? I can't help but think you're all being rather needlessly negative looking into something that isn't actually there...

[Analogaddict]

Originally posted by orangefunk:

Originally posted by Analogaddict:

Originally posted by orangefunk:

But he isn't... or at least not wholly, he bases it on the MKS80 too.. what hes basically saying is that some of the sounds he has gotten out of the Omega remind him of the Supernova...

I´d like to see the Supernova that can make the sounds my MKS80 makes..!

Well.. again hes not saying that... why is it so hard for you guys to understand? I can't help but think you're all being rather needlessly negative looking into something that isn't actually there...

Am I really? It´s just that when he writes that the Omega reminds him of the Supernova, that implies - to me - that he doesn´t think there´s that big a difference between the two. If I were to say that 'my Supernova can sound just like my MKS-80', I´d also mean that the MKS can´t take stuff all that much farther sonically speaking. Of course I´m sure that if you set up similar patches on all three aforementioned synths it might be hard to tell which is which, but that doesn´t mean there´s no difference in an actual musical situation. Maybe - like stated in another thread - for the leighman who listens to and buys the albums, there´s no difference, but I believe there is for us musicians, hobbyist and pro alike. I just don´t like generalisations like this one. Or maybe i´m being too hard. Anyhow, the fact that I feel this way about it means it´s likely that others feel this way too... It just does not seem like an informed opinion, I expect someone who reviews synths for a living to be a little more objective.

[orangefunk]

Originally posted by Analogaddict:

Am I really? It´s just that when he writes that the Omega reminds him of the Supernova, that implies - to me - that he doesn´t think there´s that big a difference between the two. QB]

it doesn't mean that... just as if I said my KS4 puts me in mind of my old JX8P from 1987 doesn't imply I think the KS4 sounds exactly the same as a JX8P (it doesn't!).. thing is a lot of the patches on my KS4 remind me of a lot of synths... Arp Odyssey, Prophets, JX10, etc... doesn't mean its the same or that it can cover every base... In 1986 I remember reviews in EMM comparing the JX10 with PPGs... mainly because some of the patches had that kind flavour.. doesn't mean it *is* a PPG.

 

My Z1 demo had a lot of people here talking about Moogs and Solinas.. did it sound exactly the same... no... is my Z1 as good as a Moog? Probably not... did it sound like a moog...?? I dunno and quite frankly I didn't care... as long as I had a nice soloing sound... I based the sound on a Dieter Reith synth solo I heard from 1975 on Peter Herbolzheimers "Onkel Po" LP.. I think I got close to it... thats all I care about..

 

The reviwer doesn't even compare the Novation with the MKS80 anyway... so I fail to see your point.

 

I can imagine a lot of modern synths sounding like the Novation actually, so entirely can see the reviewers point... I don't see it as being a bad thing either... The KS isn't particularly fat but it does have a certain smoothness in its sound which I like..

[Analogaddict]

Originally posted by orangefunk:

is my Z1 as good as a Moog? Probably not... did it sound like a moog...?? I dunno and quite frankly I didn't care... as long as I had a nice soloing sound...

Hey, that´s what it´s all about, right? If it works for you, all is good!

 

Originally posted by orangefunk:

The reviwer doesn't even compare the Novation with the MKS80 anyway... so I fail to see your point.

No, not directly. He did compare the Omega8 with the Supernova and the MKS80 though, maybe I read too much into that.

 

Originally posted by orangefunk:

I can imagine a lot of modern synths sounding like the Novation actually, so entirely can see the reviewers point...

I probably would not have reacted if not a lot of articles in SOS mentioned the Novation stuff as equally good or even better than the featured product. Maybe I haven´t been reading it enough to get a balanced view!

[Jeebus]

I can't comment on the Omega 8 specifically, but I will agree that a couple of the reviewers at SOS must be smoking crack when they review their synths. To say that the Virus sounds 'equally as good' as the Supernova is the understatement of this century. The KS4 review was a little full of it too, if you ask me.

 

They seem to use Novation synths as the standard by which all others are measured, EVEN the true analogs.. I know that Novation is their homeland's pride and joy, but come on...

[marino]

Yeah - it's a bit like an Italian reviewer would refer every synth to, say, the Synthex or the Equinox - or (god forbid) the OB-12...

 

Also: (and I apologize to everybody for the OT; it will be short and will not be repeated.)

Jeebus, thanks a lot for the link that you put in your signature. I've being curious about those statistics for a while, but *nobody* in the European media is talking about that. I invite everybody to check that site.

[burningbusch]

clusterchord.

 

Sorry I don't have anything that showcases the Omega. That sounds like a good challenge though and will keep that in mind for a future piece.

 

Carlo:

 

There are a few bugs that I've run into with the Omega. If you scroll through presets quickly using the Q knob some times you will loose a voice. I have not seen this when calling up a patch via MIDI prog change. So for my use, either live or studio, this is not an issue as I can easily use prog change to change presets.

 

I've also noticed that in multi mode, with certain presets, if you exceed polyphony the notes will get stuck. Again, with a sequencer this is not a real problem as you can precisely control polyphony. In live use I would have to avoid using those presets.

 

--------------

 

The reviewer is strongly implying that there is no sonic difference between the Omega, MKS-80 and Supernova when he suggests that blind folded, he couldn't tell them apart.

 

I noticed that his first review (2000) was more positive"

"Sonically, the Omega 8 is clearly a powerful analogue synth, and it can sound excellent. Nevertheless, I was surprised by my first impressions of its character. I was expecting something raucous in the style of a Memorymoog, an Oberheim OBX, or even a Rev 1 Prophet 5, but I found it to be clean and precise, much more like a Roland Jupiter 8. Indeed, with its velocity- and pressure-sensitivity, I could on occasions have mistaken it for a Prophet T8. Perhaps this is not surprising, because the T8 is another instrument with analogue oscillators and analogue filters coupled to digitally generated everything else. But hey...! Who's going to complain if their synth is compared favourably against a Jupe or a T8? Nobody, I hope.

 

Further playing and programming showed that my first impressions did the Omega 8 a mild disservice. It is capable of clean and sparkling sounds, but a bit more experimentation revealed a darker character that I liked very much. I also discovered just how fast the envelopes can be. In stark contrast to the sluggish software-generated envelopes on the Prophets, these give the Omega 8 a great deal of dynamic 'snap'. This meant that, by the time that I had to hand back the preview instrument, I had emulated many of my favourite analogue synths -- including, I was delighted to discover, the Yamaha CS80."

 

What follows is, I believe, the crux of his beliefs. He feels that between 2000 and today, VAs have improved so much that there is zero sonic difference between them and analogs.

 

"Since then, though, the gap between DSP-driven 'virtual-analogue' synths (VAs) and genuine analogue synths has narrowed considerably, and the latest VAs, both hardware and software, are now producing sounds that are indistinguishable from those generated by the real thing for most people. "

 

I guess I must have been asleep during that period. I do recognize that VAs have improved somewhat. Aliasing is less of an issue and there have been gains in other areas. But is seems that the improvements are quite minor. If anything, I think soft synths have had greater sonic improvements as they aren't limited by DSP power. But you have to remember that how an analog and VA go about generating their sound is 100% different. There is no commonality.

 

I sensed the whole Novation/UK-pride thing but thought I would be stretching a bit to mention it in my earlier post.

 

Busch.

[orangefunk]

You see I dont sense that at all... I mean I like my KS4 but I know its not all the be and end all... for one thing I think it lacks a bottom end and suffers from aliasing but it does have a certain *plasticky* sound which I think is appealing... I hear PPG, CZ, Junos and my JX in there to varying degrees...