The Official Sequential/DSI Forum

OB-Xa

LPF83

  • ***
  • 468
Prophet 10, Prophet 6, OB-6, Prophet 12m, Prophet Rev2-16, Moog SlimPhatty, Korg Minilogue XDm, Roland SPD-30, Roland SPD-SX Special Edition, Roland KT-10, Maschine, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen + Octopre, Strymon Pedals, Cubase Pro 11.

A Thousand Eyes

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2021, 10:47:44 AM »
Reprehensible.

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2021, 12:55:32 PM »
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.

Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2021, 01:22:42 PM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

jok3r

  • ***
  • 274
Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2021, 01:33:17 PM »
Could someone explain this whole trademark/brandname stuff to me? I don't have any experiences with that, so it is absolutely incomprehensible for me how Tom Oberheim and Behringer can both have the rights to the Oberheim name according to this article and the trademark page linked in there?  :o :o :o
Prophet Rev2, Novation Peak, Arturia DrumBrute Impact, Korg Kronos 2 88, Kurzweil PC 361, Yamaha S90ES

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2021, 01:51:39 PM »
Sadly just because Tom applied for the OBXa trademark, it doesn't mean it's going to be ruled in his favor.

As shitty as this is, part of me sort of feels there's no point in hoarding a trademark if you aren't going to do anything with it. At least Behringer is producing something with the brand.

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2021, 01:54:47 PM »
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.

Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?

Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine.

The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2021, 01:59:30 PM »
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.

Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?

Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine.

The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".

That could be the case.  But doesn't the OB-XA seem like the more desirable of the two in this age of classic analog reissues, when neither size nor price seems to matter?
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

A Thousand Eyes

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2021, 03:14:48 PM »
As shitty as this is, part of me sort of feels there's no point in hoarding a trademark if you aren't going to do anything with it. At least Behringer is producing something with the brand.

Absurd. If there's no lineage, then there's no brand. One may say that brand names are taken over all the time, but if there are no dues paid and accepted by either the originator or their descendants, then it's merely a false front.

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2021, 04:03:02 PM »
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.

Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?

Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine.

The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".

That could be the case.  But doesn't the OB-XA seem like the more desirable of the two in this age of classic analog reissues, when neither size nor price seems to matter?

It does but again when people think of the Prophet 10 they think of the dual keyboard version. The OBXa is what people think of when they think classic Oberheim poly synth but Dave probably doesn't care enough.

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2021, 04:06:04 PM »
As shitty as this is, part of me sort of feels there's no point in hoarding a trademark if you aren't going to do anything with it. At least Behringer is producing something with the brand.

Absurd. If there's no lineage, then there's no brand. One may say that brand names are taken over all the time, but if there are no dues paid and accepted by either the originator or their descendants, then it's merely a false front.

Brand : a type of product manufactured by a particular company under a particular name.

Lineage means nothing if the originator or their descendants aren't manufacturing a product under that particular company name.

Sorry but after years of vaporware from Tom and his own brand, I'm not going to point the finger at Uli on this one. Tom had his chance with the ball and he fumbled it. Uli simply just picked it up and ran with it. It's 100% legal.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2021, 04:09:34 PM by LoboLives »

A Thousand Eyes

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2021, 04:12:28 PM »
I think Sacred Synthesis already summed it up perfectly in his first post on the matter. Your petty crusade against Tom has reached an all time low it seems.

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2021, 04:25:50 PM »
I think Sacred Synthesis already summed it up perfectly in his first post on the matter. Your petty crusade against Tom has reached an all time low it seems.

No crusade at all. I just don't feel bad about the situation.

LPF83

  • ***
  • 468
Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2021, 06:38:40 PM »
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.

Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?

Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine. The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".

The Prophet 10 in the same box as P5 with single keyboard is the design Dave originally wanted for the P10.  Back then it wouldn't work because of issues with heat dissipation, so the dual keyboard that puts the knobs into back-pain-bad-posture territory was a band-aid solution.  It's human nature to look at massive old objects and be amazed or see them as somehow more substantial, but the reality is the dual keyboard design was what's known as a "kludge" in engineering.

Personally I think a P5/P10 is approaching the maximum physical size for a synth, that is feasible for a consumer base large enough to justify the product production.  People might be willing to pay a fortune for a vintage 200lb Yamaha CS-80, but the reality is that if it were reissued today in original size and weight, the chance of reaching critical sales mass is non existent (and why nobody is dumb enough to try that).

Dave's cost of implementing dual-timbrality or more LFOs isn't a significant factor.  He's mentioned that the Rev2 is one of his lowest-cost to produce products.

I don't have an answer about Dave re-issueing the OB-X vs the OB-Xa except to say:

1)  At this point, the reissue of the OB-X or OB-Xa from Sequential is pure speculation, as no announcement has been made.  We only know Sequential registered OB-X, which seems to nod in that direction.
2)  If the OB-X is in fact coming and not the OB-Xa, it could be for any number of reasons.  There is a general sense (maybe rumor) that older Oberheim models were generally more desirable than their successor products, so maybe he feels that the target buying audience would be more interested in the OB-X.  Or maybe his decision was made based on what he already sees Uli doing, and he wanted to do something different.
Prophet 10, Prophet 6, OB-6, Prophet 12m, Prophet Rev2-16, Moog SlimPhatty, Korg Minilogue XDm, Roland SPD-30, Roland SPD-SX Special Edition, Roland KT-10, Maschine, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen + Octopre, Strymon Pedals, Cubase Pro 11.

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2021, 06:58:34 PM »
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.

Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?

Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine. The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".

The Prophet 10 in the same box as P5 with single keyboard is the design Dave originally wanted for the P10.  Back then it wouldn't work because of issues with heat dissipation, so the dual keyboard that puts the knobs into back-pain-bad-posture territory was a band-aid solution.  It's human nature to look at massive old objects and be amazed or see them as somehow more substantial, but the reality is the dual keyboard design was what's known as a "kludge" in engineering.

Personally I think a P5/P10 is approaching the maximum physical size for a synth, that is feasible for a consumer base large enough to justify the product production.  People might be willing to pay a fortune for a vintage 200lb Yamaha CS-80, but the reality is that if it were reissued today in original size and weight, the chance of reaching critical sales mass is non existent (and why nobody is dumb enough to try that).

Dave's cost of implementing dual-timbrality or more LFOs isn't a significant factor.  He's mentioned that the Rev2 is one of his lowest-cost to produce products.

I don't have an answer about Dave re-issueing the OB-X vs the OB-Xa except to say:

1)  At this point, the reissue of the OB-X or OB-Xa from Sequential is pure speculation, as no announcement has been made.  We only know Sequential registered OB-X, which seems to nod in that direction.
2)  If the OB-X is in fact coming and not the OB-Xa, it could be for any number of reasons.  There is a general sense (maybe rumor) that older Oberheim models were generally more desirable than their successor products, so maybe he feels that the target buying audience would be more interested in the OB-X.  Or maybe his decision was made based on what he already sees Uli doing, and he wanted to do something different.

I mean the Moog One is larger than the P5/10 and they don't seem to have any issues selling those. Not to mention monster workstations from Korg or Kurzweil. I really don't think the size or weight had anything to do with it. It was just do to implementation.

The REV2 is DCO based not VCO based. Sequential has yet to produce a bi timbral VCO based synth. The Moog One is tri-timbral and VCO based...and look how much that costs.

I honestly just think it comes down to Dave just wanting to do what's easiest to implement which also makes sense from a maintenance point of view. Had he made the P/10 Bi Timbral, it may very well have been more cumbersome to implement and maintain.

A Thousand Eyes

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2021, 07:41:04 PM »
No crusade at all. I just don't feel bad about the situation.


At this point Iím not sure youíre aware of your own internal logic or if there is any at all... You rally against reissues when the TVP you wanted so badly is essentially in the same boat as what Sequential did with the P5. Then you quit over it, yet pretty much your first post back days later is how youíre going to put down on two Odyssey modules...

There are flat out good practices and bad practices. Itís no mystery why a certain company is consistently caught up in drama. Itís plain as day to reason.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2021, 07:42:51 PM by A Thousand Eyes »

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2021, 08:20:42 PM »
No crusade at all. I just don't feel bad about the situation.


At this point Iím not sure youíre aware of your own internal logic or if there is any at all... You rally against reissues when the TVP you wanted so badly is essentially in the same boat as what Sequential did with the P5. Then you quit over it, yet pretty much your first post back days later is how youíre going to put down on two Odyssey modules...

There are flat out good practices and bad practices. Itís no mystery why a certain company is consistently caught up in drama. Itís plain as day to reason.

Well the Two Voice Pro was of interest to me mainly because of the sequencer and the ability to control both SEMs in a variety of ways which is far different than simply adding after touch, velocity and a few other things to a Prophet 5. I don't consider a Two Voice Pro a reissue, I consider it a successor. The REV 4 I wouldn't consider a successor to the Prophet 5 personally, I'd give that title to the Prophet 6.

I have no issue with reissues if they are going to take the concept of the original and expand on it. The Prophet 5/10 Rev 4 to me is a step backwards compared to the Prophet 6. That's my logic. Take it or leave it. I couldn't care less.


In either case, it's not like Dave has never done a cutthroat business maneuver in his life. Dave Rossum spoke about this. They obviously buried the hatchet but it happened.

At the end of the day Tom went to NAMM every year and said he was going to do a SonOf4Voice, Eurorack versions of his SEMs, a standalone sequencer from the TVS, a Phaser Shifter and Ring Modulator modules and nothing came of it. Let's just say Tom did get the name back....what does it matter if nothing is produced with the name?

Is it shady for Uli to do? Sure but maybe that's what it takes to get an Oberheim product announced at NAMM that isn't vaporware. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2021, 08:28:33 PM by LoboLives »

A Thousand Eyes

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2021, 09:14:52 PM »
Having two different filters in the P5 (or the option for double the polyphony plus the vintage knob & the other things you mentioned) is a bigger improvement than what the TVP offered as far as I'm concerned. Either way, there's no way you can call one a reissue (or not a reissue), but not the other.

"I have no issue with reissues if they are going to take the concept of the original and expand on it."
How does Korg's Odyssey square with this philosophy? 

Yes, we all know what Rossum has said. Mistakes are bound to happen and can be forgiven; however, making a business model out of it cannot.

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2021, 09:32:06 PM »
Having two different filters in the P5 (or the option for double the polyphony plus the vintage knob & the other things you mentioned) is a bigger improvement than what the TVP offered as far as I'm concerned. Either way, there's no way you can call one a reissue (or not a reissue), but not the other.

"I have no issue with reissues if they are going to take the concept of the original and expand on it."
How does Korg's Odyssey square with this philosophy? 

Yes, we all know what Rossum has said. Mistakes are bound to happen and can be forgiven; however, making a business model out of it cannot.

I suppose it doesn't. I guess I'm a hypocrite. You win. Happy?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2021, 09:45:07 PM by LoboLives »

LPF83

  • ***
  • 468
Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2021, 07:40:20 AM »
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.

Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?

Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine. The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".

The Prophet 10 in the same box as P5 with single keyboard is the design Dave originally wanted for the P10.  Back then it wouldn't work because of issues with heat dissipation, so the dual keyboard that puts the knobs into back-pain-bad-posture territory was a band-aid solution.  It's human nature to look at massive old objects and be amazed or see them as somehow more substantial, but the reality is the dual keyboard design was what's known as a "kludge" in engineering.

Personally I think a P5/P10 is approaching the maximum physical size for a synth, that is feasible for a consumer base large enough to justify the product production.  People might be willing to pay a fortune for a vintage 200lb Yamaha CS-80, but the reality is that if it were reissued today in original size and weight, the chance of reaching critical sales mass is non existent (and why nobody is dumb enough to try that).

Dave's cost of implementing dual-timbrality or more LFOs isn't a significant factor.  He's mentioned that the Rev2 is one of his lowest-cost to produce products.

I don't have an answer about Dave re-issueing the OB-X vs the OB-Xa except to say:

1)  At this point, the reissue of the OB-X or OB-Xa from Sequential is pure speculation, as no announcement has been made.  We only know Sequential registered OB-X, which seems to nod in that direction.
2)  If the OB-X is in fact coming and not the OB-Xa, it could be for any number of reasons.  There is a general sense (maybe rumor) that older Oberheim models were generally more desirable than their successor products, so maybe he feels that the target buying audience would be more interested in the OB-X.  Or maybe his decision was made based on what he already sees Uli doing, and he wanted to do something different.

I mean the Moog One is larger than the P5/10 and they don't seem to have any issues selling those. Not to mention monster workstations from Korg or Kurzweil. I really don't think the size or weight had anything to do with it. It was just do to implementation.

The REV2 is DCO based not VCO based. Sequential has yet to produce a bi timbral VCO based synth. The Moog One is tri-timbral and VCO based...and look how much that costs.

I honestly just think it comes down to Dave just wanting to do what's easiest to implement which also makes sense from a maintenance point of view. Had he made the P/10 Bi Timbral, it may very well have been more cumbersome to implement and maintain.

Is there some factor that makes implementing dual timbrality on VCOs harder than on DCOs?  I would think everything about the tuning implementation would be the same regardless... then again I've never created a hardware synth so maybe I'm wrong.

I believe that the Rev4 had one primary design goal -- recreate the sound / look / feel of the original P5, adding only a handful of must-have features.  Dual synth layers on a P5 make no sense because of 5 voices total and it would represent an even bigger design departure from the original than the P6 already is.  I believe the current P10 design, doubling the voices for a relatively small cost increase was closer to the original (1978) vision Dave had for the P10.  I seem to recall reading the P10 Rev3 only had a single LFO for both patches when used as 2 5 voice synths?
Prophet 10, Prophet 6, OB-6, Prophet 12m, Prophet Rev2-16, Moog SlimPhatty, Korg Minilogue XDm, Roland SPD-30, Roland SPD-SX Special Edition, Roland KT-10, Maschine, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen + Octopre, Strymon Pedals, Cubase Pro 11.

Re: OB-Xa
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2021, 04:08:53 PM »
To state the obvious: something can be legal but immoral.

Is this the reason that Sequential has chosen to reproduce the OBX?

Same reason he decided to go with the single keyboard version of the Prophet 10 and not the more well known double keyboard/dual engine. The OBX is also likely easier to implement. It's monotimbral and has 1 LFO. The OBXa is bi timbral and has three LFOs. Dave likely wanted to just "keep it simple".

The Prophet 10 in the same box as P5 with single keyboard is the design Dave originally wanted for the P10.  Back then it wouldn't work because of issues with heat dissipation, so the dual keyboard that puts the knobs into back-pain-bad-posture territory was a band-aid solution.  It's human nature to look at massive old objects and be amazed or see them as somehow more substantial, but the reality is the dual keyboard design was what's known as a "kludge" in engineering.

Personally I think a P5/P10 is approaching the maximum physical size for a synth, that is feasible for a consumer base large enough to justify the product production.  People might be willing to pay a fortune for a vintage 200lb Yamaha CS-80, but the reality is that if it were reissued today in original size and weight, the chance of reaching critical sales mass is non existent (and why nobody is dumb enough to try that).

Dave's cost of implementing dual-timbrality or more LFOs isn't a significant factor.  He's mentioned that the Rev2 is one of his lowest-cost to produce products.

I don't have an answer about Dave re-issueing the OB-X vs the OB-Xa except to say:

1)  At this point, the reissue of the OB-X or OB-Xa from Sequential is pure speculation, as no announcement has been made.  We only know Sequential registered OB-X, which seems to nod in that direction.
2)  If the OB-X is in fact coming and not the OB-Xa, it could be for any number of reasons.  There is a general sense (maybe rumor) that older Oberheim models were generally more desirable than their successor products, so maybe he feels that the target buying audience would be more interested in the OB-X.  Or maybe his decision was made based on what he already sees Uli doing, and he wanted to do something different.

I mean the Moog One is larger than the P5/10 and they don't seem to have any issues selling those. Not to mention monster workstations from Korg or Kurzweil. I really don't think the size or weight had anything to do with it. It was just do to implementation.

The REV2 is DCO based not VCO based. Sequential has yet to produce a bi timbral VCO based synth. The Moog One is tri-timbral and VCO based...and look how much that costs.

I honestly just think it comes down to Dave just wanting to do what's easiest to implement which also makes sense from a maintenance point of view. Had he made the P/10 Bi Timbral, it may very well have been more cumbersome to implement and maintain.

Is there some factor that makes implementing dual timbrality on VCOs harder than on DCOs?  I would think everything about the tuning implementation would be the same regardless... then again I've never created a hardware synth so maybe I'm wrong.

I believe that the Rev4 had one primary design goal -- recreate the sound / look / feel of the original P5, adding only a handful of must-have features.  Dual synth layers on a P5 make no sense because of 5 voices total and it would represent an even bigger design departure from the original than the P6 already is.  I believe the current P10 design, doubling the voices for a relatively small cost increase was closer to the original (1978) vision Dave had for the P10.  I seem to recall reading the P10 Rev3 only had a single LFO for both patches when used as 2 5 voice synths?

VCOs are trickier to deal with from my understanding. Probably why the REV2 is upgradable with a voice expansion card while things like the Prophet 5/10, Moog One and Korg Prologue you need to buy one or the other and aren't expandable.

That's why I said make the P/10 bi timbral, not the P5
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 04:10:55 PM by LoboLives »