Behringer UB-Xa vs Oberheim OB-Xa factory presets no FX

As a member of the beta testing team I reprogrammed all the 104 legendary factory presets on the UB-Xa. I shot this video in May 2022. This UB-Xa is one of the last revisions. There were some improvements. In this video we were not finished with the firmware. Based on our experience with the sound design, we have incorporated a few improvements that will now appear in the final version. Nevertheless, this video shows the UB-Xa in an almost finished state. We have gone into every detail to capture the character of the original as much as possible. The numerous parameters in the 8 mods made this possible. I made this video primarily to check my results. Due to the high demand for comparisons, I have decided to post this video and it is possible that a comparison of the latest version would be slightly different, just as even every OB-Xa is not exactly the same as another OB-Xa.
I switched off the velocity and aftertouch plus switched off voices 9-16 for this video to get the same circumstances like on the Original. I also put the voices randomly for panning.
Thanks for watching.

[@Rfx222]

It’s amazing how close they sound, keep in mind that these presets on the behringer are “hand made recreations” of the original rom patches from the obxa, not digital transfer of the parameters but only “by ear” aproximation of them, there’s no screen on the original to see the exact value of params… congrats to the programmer, fantastic job!!

[@higgy7762]

right, a lot of the 'differences' are just slighlty different parametrisation. Some have different vibrato/LFO, sterephonic distribution, release etc. For sure working on an UB patch for hours and weeks can bring it close to the OB (or the other way round :)) . thus said, there a dozent or so sounds which are de facto identical - and some preset 'interpretations' sound richer/sweeter on the UB ;)

[@MKJ2DAY]

Purists?? Smh.. lol! I own an OB-8 and the coolest thing about it, is to say I have one. It’s heavy, doesn’t always stay in tune, and fickle as all get out! You can’t tell me you’d know which was which on a record. Someone here said the Behringer sounds cheap…. Do you think you can’t get an OB-Xa to sound cheap?! You can, and it ain’t that hard. People don’t go to concerts to hear oscillators….. they go to hear music. To that end the Behringer sounds pretty fantastic to me. But what do I know… not enough I’m sure.

[@jd808]

Have your OB-8 serviced, it sounds you struggle a bit

[@MKJ2DAY]

@@jd808No struggle at all. With the number of boards I have there’s really no need. But it’s a cool synth no doubt. 👍🏾

[@MarkoDeLaVoota]

big ego is the problem ( I have real OBXA and you shouldn't ) because, ahh ahh....it's real and old and ahh...shut up it's cheap ah people 🙄

[@dankeplace]

TGD did a concert in Melbourne 2016, Sorcerer OST live to audience whilst the movie was playing, they used 2 TR8s controlled by Ableton, you could not get any purer talent that simply proves, it's not the instrument, but the artist.

[@nonideal]

@@MarkoDeLaVootayou sound fun at parties :P

[@bobmob-o1j]

For all the wine connoisseurs who have started counting suspended particles, maybe do the same with 2 ob-xa, they don't sound the same. series scatter, aging, etc. I see it this way: you can buy a Focusrite clone for four times the price, it doesn't sound the same, or you can buy an OG for ten times the price. doesn't sound the same again :)

[@Fallingoverbackwards]

Well said

[@daddyzhoam]

Yet somehow every well-calibrated OB, to this day, sounds exactly like the records they were used on when they were new.

[@bobmob-o1j]

@@daddyzhoam Not really, unless it was recapped. especially capacitors age, a process that cannot be stopped. So that you understand, the loss factor increases and the value becomes smaller, which is why the frequency of the circuit shifts. A 71 Minimoog simply had a different sound 50 years ago. What's special about the ob-xa is that Tom used mica in the filter last time and never again after that. makes up part of the Oberheim sound.

[@daddyzhoam]

How many 40 year old synths are still getting by on the original electrolytics? Most reconditioned ones have been largely recapped. And the silver mica caps to my understanding were only used in the OB-X.

[@bobmob-o1j]

@@daddyzhoam So my JP8 still has the original power supply :) and no, the ob-xa also had mica filter caps, take a look at the circuit diagrams. tom regressed after that, I got the marion mrs1 from him... far away from SEM- One aspect is the tolerance of the components, previously resistors were 10.5%, filter capacitors were 20%, today everything is much more precise. You can then try to adjust&/calibrate the synth, if the other one is too far away in terms of tolerance, no chance. especially affects the filters.

[@StudyYourTruthAlone]

Wow, thanks for making this comparison! Obviously there are some differences but over all yes Spot On! Keep in mind this is a brand new re-creation of an old legend, I'm very optimistic about this new Ub-xa from Behringer because I have their new pro-800 and after the firmware updates things have only gotten better with time, so judging by that this new synth could very be on the same road as well and will certainly get tweaks to make it even better, I'm all in! Got mine on order and anxiously awaiting it's arrival, Thank you Behringer!

[@gonzinigonz]

I wonder if they've contemplated remaking the Xpander in a more modern sized compact box. And a desktop version might be nice.

[@dancarter5595]

Behringer have done an incredible job, and the new features make this probably the best value synth of all time, but I now really appreciate how amazing the genuine Oberheim synths sound. No wonder you've kept yours 😎 I'll be able to buy a UB-Xa with the knowledge that it's as close to the original that most people would never know the difference.

[@mrdali67]

I really doubt anyone is able to hear a difference in a blind test in a mix. I do agree there IS a difference when comparing each patch directly against eachother sound per sound, but thats not how you will hear it in a mix, and the extra features especially on gear from before midi was introduced commonly there is mostly always many "quality of life" features in even recreated fully analog synths that makes the old instruments practically useless for touring with compared to a modern recreation.

[@GilbertCarrizales]

There is maybe a little more higher frequencies on the Behringer, but otherwise it's not a bad comparison to the OB-XA. Sounds almost identical.

[@TheStudeo74]

I wouldn’t be able to guess which is which… but, from the first preset to the last… even on my iPhone, I can tell you straight which one I wouldn’t buy If I had the choice. Now… the Beringher makes the « sounds » accessible and adds the possibility to play with many controls. So it’s a nicer option than owning and playing with a vst that will be unavailable in a few years and or if you change OS/DAW…

[@crazzylee]

OB is warm and full

[@TheCanadianDreamEvergreen]

The XA has a lot more character… sounds thicker and more fluent. Where the UB Xa sounds like a children’s toy 🧸

[@LentilsOverkill]

I prefer the behringer. Would cut through a mix better

[@vincentpellerin]

Pretty impressive! Nice programming too! I just bought an Ob-Xa, like a month before the UB-Xa was finally on the market(🤦‍♂️), but it was cheap. I would love to try the UBxa to feel the difference in front of me. To my ears, it sounds great, but I really can’t judge 100% unless I have the real thing, so I might get one!

[@AtheistCook]

considering that a real OBX-A costs about 11K on ebay, this is a good option

[@michaelwalston2438]

Yeah, and Tom Oberheim doesn't make any money if you buy a used one.

[@Ibantar]

WHEN IS IT ON SALE TO THE PUBLIC? (THAT IS ALL I NEED TO KNOW🤨‼️)

[@SoundmanCH]

Better an Underheim in my studio, than an Oberheim in my dreams 👍

[@vintagesynths]

Best comment ever

[@AlexBallMusic]

The differences are very minimal and probably what you'd get from comparing two originals. Congratulations, sounds like everyone did a fine job. [edit] Having listened to some sounds again on proper speakers (which I initially didn't), there's some sounds that are admittedly pretty different, even though many are very close. It's when the filter resonance is brought into play that the Oberheim strides ahead. But anyway, still sounds good overall.

[@mwl5]

Would love to see you do a video on this.

[@daddyzhoam]

I guarantee the differences between two well-calibrated original OB-Xa’s would be a lot more subtle than what you hear in this video, it’s pretty drastic especially with regard to the filter

[@AlexBallMusic]

@@daddyzhoam Yes you're right, having listened again on proper speakers. At the 6 minute mark, the sweep comparison is a giveaway where the Behringer can't quite do it, but it's otherwise very well done for a £999 synth. I'd save up and get an OB-X8 if I was in the market, but that's not an option for many.

[@daddyzhoam]

Yes, hard to argue with 16 VCOs at this price and it does sound good. But it deflates the dream a bit when you hear the original filter…

[@toonvandenplas]

@AlexBallMusic ​Yes but the Behringer is mono/center Unison from what I hear at 6 minutes and the Obie has its voices always hardware panned as by it's pan settings on the circuit board potmeter... Also the Obie's resonance just seems to be a tad higher there ... Does the Behringer have only center unison?

[@brobocop8293]

As soon as I saw this I grabbed some popcorn to watch all of the people who think they have ultra human hearing come on here and moan about how much better the original sounds lol. I wasn't disappointed.

[@EarCandy-kg6di]

I love that noobs think you need "ultra human hearing" to hear the difference between these two keyboards, lol....

[@mirkomarkovic3438]

They clearly sound different 😂

[@John-lv6uj]

After hearing this you should know that Beringer took the insides of the OBX and just change the outside and in a song you would not be able to tell the difference between these two keyboard sounds. Stop fooling yourself, the Oberheim coast too HEAVENLY much.

[@mirkomarkovic3438]

@@John-lv6uj no they didn't. They reverse engineered it and it doesn't bring the same qualities the oberheim brings in a mix.

[@henri-fillipbauer6579]

It’s ok for the price but I’d much rather buy the real one 😂

[@lovejazzloverap]

I can't tell ant difference with my eyes closed, feels like I'm listening to the same audio twice

[@vintagesynths]

I have to note: I switched off the velocity and aftertouch plus switched off voices 9-16 for this video to get the same circumstances like on the Original. I also put the voices randomly for panning.

[@uwe_bike]

Hi Rüdiger! Fantastic job on a fantastic synth!!! One question - which Vintage mode did you use?

[@vintagesynths]

@@uwe_bike​​⁠thanks, I used the UB-Xa mode, so the first plus I set the voices in panorama like on the original

[@Chrispy01a]

Very impressive indeed. Given it comes with a poly AT 5 octave board at a small fraction of the price of an original - bargain to any of us who dreamed of owning one some day. Bring on the CS80 & JP8's!

[@bigmanlizard7326]

hard to be too critical when it costs £999.. which is insane, 16 voice poly for that price makes no sense I have no idea how they did it, great job behringer but the filter just doesnt seem right at all.. 3:56 is a good example of it missing a bit of something, the original has all that lovely mid range harmonic resonance going on and the behringer sounds a bit bland and not the same character, again at 7:00 maybe just slightly different settings on the knobs? regardless of it sounding exactly like the original or not, its an insane value for money in its own right as an analogue poly with that many voices, theyre going to sell a LOT of these

[@thecylonsmusic]

£899 At Andertons, uk

[@user-qf4zs6qj4c]

@@thecylonsmusic They changed the price last Sunday. It's 999 now.

[@robman80808]

Definitely sound different in headphones due to the significant stereo panning from the OB. That seems to give it more life. Can the UB be set up to do this?

[@vintagesynths]

Of course. The panning is possible to adjust individually for each of all 16 voices

[@vintagesynths]

I also panned the voices in the UB, maybe in the OG it was stronger

[@robman80808]

@@vintagesynths Yeah it seems like a harder pan, and maybe even bounces around a bit more? Anyway, thanks for the great demo!

[@jdmjesus6103]

Damn, the purists are out in this thread aren't they? You know it has vintage modes if you want it to sound unstable and worn out, right?

[@ElectroPanPipes]

If it’s a clone, it should be a clone. Deflect anyway you please, but it’s a claim they made, not the purists.

[@jdmjesus6103]

@@ElectroPanPipes it is a clone though, what's your point?

[@LoveMeBack]

Couldn’t tell which was which while reading the comments.

[@Rareos]

the OB is recorded a touch louder, so that's already going to influence. The OB is also doing a voice channel swap on all notes in a more pronounced way. The UB not as frequent swapping and in some patches not at all, so that's also contributing to a more more wideness and depth on the OB. Absolutely not hard to accommodate for though, and in a mix pretty much inconsequential.

[@John-lv6uj]

After hearing this you should know that Behringer took the insides of the OBX and just change the outside and in a song you would not be able to tell the difference between these two keyboard sounds. Stop fooling yourself, the Oberheim coast too HEAVENLY much.

[@Eyepatchfilms]

Good enough for me. Getting one of these along with keeping my 6 voice OBSX

[@daveo3348]

UB-Xa is Definitely worth $1100.

[@raymond_lazer]

Thanx for the video . Nice shot indeed mostly when you know that OB-Xa is more than 40 years old, meaning that circuitry & components had time to drift a bit :) . I guess that 2 OB-Xa may not sound now really the same ! Cheers

[@jd808]

Its more the Coolaudio filter is lacking nothing about drift

[@csabakerekes3848]

No one will differentiate them in a mix.....Uli finally made an OB-Xa for the peasants......;)

[@davids.688]

To anyone who says the UB sounds "thin, heartless, uninspiring" ... your eyes and bias are doing the listening. In a blind taste test, you’d be batting .100. An exact match? No, of course not - for that matter, neither is the OB-X8. But near-indistinguishable for 99.9999 percent of listeners (including yourself) - yup, it admirably accomplishes what it set out to do (and there’s probably no “page 2” b.s. to deal with). Cheers!

[@harveyspecter1653]

I probably won't be able to tell them apart on every sound but there are some sounds where the OB-XA does sound noticably better. I do believe though in a record you would not notice. It's more like the Behringer sounds more like a plugin version of the hardware but a really good plug in then. Not wanting to downplay it; For the money it's a damn good thing.

[@checkitout611]

Awesome! There are subtle differences (mainly in brightness / presence). Looking forward to getting my UB-Xa for sure.

[@housebandthexenos2569]

Ain't subtle to me! Up to where I am now, 3:11, the OBxa is significantly brighter and more open sounding even on my phone speaker. I can pick these 2 out from each other all day long.

[@checkitout611]

@@housebandthexenos2569 It's funny because I felt the UB-Xa had the brighter sound (in most instances) and is what I was commenting on. I felt the OB had a touch more warmth. Both sounded good.

[@housebandthexenos2569]

@@checkitout611 I was only going up to 3:11. Listen again it's obvious

[@checkitout611]

@@housebandthexenos2569 Yes ... ONLY going up to that mark, I agree, the OB is brighter ... as a whole (listening to the full demo) the UB to me had brighter / more treble / presence which didn't make it better or worse, it was just a note.

[@samprock]

Do I hear it right, OB has much more interesting voice spread and stereo, while UB is “sometimes” and more like no stereo. No happy little accidents? I seems can tell them apart easily, after random scroll, blind listen.

[@Tutorius]

I know that Behringer-haters will tell everyone that the sound is not the same, but it is almost the same... Have wathced a comparison-video of Minimoog Model D compared to Behringer Model-D, and ist was also almost the same, and the producer made a snapshot from some comments from the internet. Oh my god, this Behringer-hate is p*** me off. (geht mir auf den Geist)... :)

[@AdamMann-fz3md]

For a synth costing a fraction of the price of an original its much closer than I expected maybe a little too close. I wonder who would score 100% in a blindfold comparison 😂

[@Kung_Fu_Jesus]

I’d go as far to say the Benringer has more presence which I find appealing

[@joecandy6490]

I find this comparison business between original and reproduced synths quite amusing. I’ve owned many “classic” synths over the last 40 years and in my experience they all fundamentally sound exactly the same, especially if, like most demos I’ve ever heard, they are used to make generic bread n butter sounds. Sure, if you are an extreme audiophile with a hearing range that of a bat, or maybe you just like to pretend you have, you can pick out some subtle differences… but these differences are so subtle that they are completely lost in a mix or when performed live. And if you think some now “classic” is superior to a brand new reproduction, either in hardware or in software, because of how the original sounded on some old recording then you are probably not taking into account all the external processing that was used when it was recorded, EQ, compression, tape saturation, the “sound” of the mixing board it was put through, reverb, delays and other FX etc etc… And if you think that because our music heroes used these particular synths then they must be the best, just remember that back in the day there wasn’t much other choice… if you needed/wanted an 8voice 2-oscillator programmable polysynth back in the late 70s/early 80s then your options were extremely limited to what we now call “classic” synths… they were your only options, it was either them or trying to make an organ, string machine or piano sound like something other than an organ, string machine or piano. Now I’m not being critical of the lucky few (since I am one of those lucky b@stardz) who currently own an original yama-ober-arp cs80xa or sequenti-moog-poly pro8Tx or anyone firmly believing that because something new made with modern higher quality components doesn’t sound the same as or as good as an original synth made with old, poorer quality components (because that’s all they had to work with) with 40 years of component degradation, then whatever floats your boat… but i remember a time when synths were about making new, never heard of sounds, where synth manufacturers were striving to give us instruments that could push the boundaries… and definitely not sound like something that had gone before it. I’m a behringer fan, i own and use their “cloned” synths all the time because they actually make these synths that i want to own and use. I’m also a fan of moog, oberheim, arp, sequential, the list goes on… but these companies stopped making the synths that i wanted or could afford years ago.

[@kamelhamlaoui9983]

Great comment

[@MacXpert74]

I guess you could argue every piano sounds the same too. Why would someone buy a expensive Steinway 9 foot grand if they can get ‘fundamentally’ the same sound from a cheap Yamaha upright piano, right? I bet if it’s buried in a mix and you listen to it on your phone speaker, you can’t tell the difference. So this is great for you I guess, that your ears are this undiscerning. You can just use a bunch of free plug-ins and tell yourself it all sounds the same! 😂👍

[@jdmjesus6103]

​@@MacXpert74that's a strawman, the op speaks sense.

[@outlier5844]

​@@MacXpert74False equivocal

[@MacXpert74]

​@@jdmjesus6103 Is it? Please explain to me how the argument 'Every synthesizer sounds fundamentally the same" is different from saying "Every piano sounds fundamentally the same"? Because they do! A piano can be recognized as a piano by everybody with working ears. They produce 'fundamentally' the same sound. However if details matter to you, there are big differences between them. The same goes for analog synthesizer, for many enthousiasts. Therefore 'every synthesizer sounds the same' is a poor argument for anybody that can tell the differences! These differences might not matter to him or you, but they do to synth enthousiasts like me!

[@T-H-X]

90% of all sounds from Oberheim sound identical on the Behringer. The remaining 10 only have small details missing. The extra cost wouldn't be worth it if it was just about the sound.

[@kris_lx]

The filter sweep at around 6:00 is missing a lot of the self resonance on the UB-XA.

[@Bernd_Bruening]

Oberheim OB-Xa filters do not self resonate

[@jemkeystv5717]

We all know the difference in price, but any difference in sound is negligible

[@harveyspecter1653]

While I feel the OB XA does have a little more bite and color overal I'd say the Behringer is pretty close. Also note that the recent recreation OB-X8 by Oberheim himself doesn't sound the same as the original unit demonstrated here. So I believe the UB XA holds itself extremely well against the >5k OB-X8. It's insane, the profit margins Oberheim take these days. Just like Moog and DSI. Good stuff for sure but way overpriced.

[@GlitchWolf]

Not a big fan of the company, but still very impressive to see that it comes that close to the OB sound. There are however places where the OB sounds warmer and more alive due to some drifting and slight detuning of the voices. It's very evident at the 1:30 mark where the OB sounds so alive and lush whereas the UB sounds sterile in comparision. Thanks so much for making this vid, highly educational!!

[@tonyhill2318]

I am a fan of the company, but I agree with you . Still, amazing sounding recreation.

[@ScottLSimon]

yeah...there is a difference.

[@Lamster66]

@@ScottLSimon I wonder how much that difference really is?. Back in the Day I had several Analogue synths ( couldn't afford an OBXa or OB8) but had more than one of several synths and even the same model synths sounded different when A/B together. Often with more difference than between these two. That Said the Filters Sound Slightly Different at resonance and to my ears the basic waveforms sound different. But I think once you add Eq and some effects there isn't £10k of difference.between them or £5K between the Behringer and the re-released Oberheim version

[@ScottLSimon]

@@Lamster66 ok yeah. True enough on the difference between analog synths. Also: it's a youtube video and you will never really hear what you need to in this format. That is why you need to be in the room and hear it yourself. It is also valuable for people to report what they hear when making videos.

[@Lamster66]

@@ScottLSimon I will certainly go and try one out at the local music shop. I know what I like about the Oberheim sound and know how that should sound. It comes down to perception at the end of the day and whether it does what you expect it to do. I bought the ModelD the Pro one and a deepmind12 module. And have to say the pro one sounds like the SC Pro1 I had years ago and The modelD sound as close to a minimoog as makes no difference. The only gripe with the Deepmind is there is a character to the sound that seems to be there whatever the sound. And whilst that was true for virtually all 70s and 80s analogue synths the deepminds character isn't that great.

[@Reg-Edit]

I think if you own a synthesiser you don’t need to buy this, as the sounds it makes are just basic and can be made on pretty much any synthesiser that is polyphonic I do like what Beringer is doing though, making classics affordable The TD3 was a great example 🖐❤️

[@thomaskolb8785]

It is partially true. The Korg Prologue (or the Minilogue XD) has almost identical glassy, slick, slightly nasal and smooth sound, but the resonance of the Oberheim is dreamy and quite easily recognizable.

[@lfomelody756]

To produce, I'll continue with the plugins, but I like having a real synthesizer to play, the experience, the speed to improvise, test ideas, create... in short, the fun part. behringer is making fun accessible for everyone!

[@ChristineLeeMusic]

Plus plug ins take up CPU processing which sometimes locks up my DAW computer - even with 64 GB RAM. These external hardware synths take workload off my CPU. Thanks Behringer!

[@danielcolfer4671]

Behringer actually sounds better.

[@titoutiti418]

What a mistake to draw hasty conclusions by taking shortcuts just from a simple video comparing preset sounds 😁😱😅 and this beta tester's machine will surely have a very different musical behavior from another OBXa and fortunately because it is purely analog design. These 2 beautiful machines have their own settings and if you are looking to obtain similar sounds, you should already put this on standard settings (just the difference between 8 voices and 16 voices can be heard, the brilliance clarity configured on the UBXa, the envelopes on the sounds are different... but I am convinced that we can obtain the same similar sounds but here, it is obvious 👂 the adjustments are still to be made 😉✌️). First thing when you want to compare these types of instruments, you have to remove all the effects, just compare the color of the oscillators without effect, test the filters in 12db, 24 db, the resonances without processing... and no one does it 😁and yet it is the basis 🙄. I won't tell you afterwards when you add effects specific to each machine, plus vintage modes, you can quickly deviate from the original sounds you're looking for. So yes, each machine depending on its technical characteristics can greatly imitate another but perhaps not the other way around 😉. 2 very beautiful machines which fortunately have their own musical signature ✌️. However, thank you to the beta testers for sharing the fruit of their work and in partnership with Behringer for this project 👌👍.

[@vintagesynths]

Thanks! I switched off the second voice board 9-16 to achieve similar conditions

[@sub-jec-tiv]

11:19 The resonance is lacking excitement on the UB. They’re close but if you’re already paying 1,200… i’d just save up the extra money and get the real thing for the juicier resonance.

[@penishead_official]

The Original has more life in it´s sounds. There is more movement in the sounds of the original. the behringer sound a little bit more static.

[@jeffbecker4882]

Detuning on the part of the OB-xa has a lot to do with the sonic differences.

[@Fallingoverbackwards]

Simple blind test: I closed my eyes, pushed video forward to random location and i had no idea which was which. Plus the ub-xa does more, poly aftertouch, more sound design capabilities.

[@andivax]

And more noise unfortunately

[@MJDAWOLF]

Lol that will never be heard in a mix …..you’re all wankers!

[@nofretzDW]

If you only had a Jupiter 8 sitting on top of a CP-70 you’d have it made.

[@poison7512]

Theres no way that OB sounds like it did when it was brand new. Components age. ACTUALLY if you want to hear what it probably sounded like brand new just play the UB. 😁

[@Sturzi]

Rüdiger, you won the Internet today! That's a fine and accurate comparison of the two blue-striped. And I'm really stunned how similar they sound despite of all the negative comments in the forums. Seems like it was worth waiting the 6 years since it was announced (at least for those who don't want to spend the $$ for the Obie).

[@TiberianFiend]

Some differences, but a 16 voice flagship analog synth for $1200 is an incredible deal. I hope it shakes up the market.

[@joesayle2213]

I can hear a big difference with the filters and the resonance !

[@tutoriais5266]

The resonance filter of the Behringer sounds like a cheap vst

[@robertferris5584]

You can hear that the OBX-a is much fatter. But, the tones are very close. I hate the smaller key size,m but that's just me.

[@Kung_Fu_Jesus]

Very convincing as a clone, bravo all the team who worked on this, you’ve built a formidable synth here.

[@stateazure]

UB sounds pretty nice and very close on some patches where the filter is wide open, definitely worth the price imo, even if most if not all of these basic patches would be just as close with a software comparison. Where the UB falls flat on its face though is the filter, unfortunately. That beautiful high resonance of the original is just missing completely on the UB, at least in these demos, so it could be that it wasn't dialled in well.

[@jd808]

THIS

[@richc848]

Yes, the Behringer sounds close but a bit one-dimensional against the Oberheim. The Oberheim presents each sound with a distinctive roundness and inner liveliness. It sounds more 3D and physically solid. The Behringer flattens the sound out. Not bad, but not as exciting.

[@ZozillaThaGreat]

Exellent video , i do think that the dynamic is better on the Og , the B sounds like a little compressed on some pacthes , we don't feel the contour as the OG , might be the enveloppes , don't k now , anyway ... B did a superb job , and the diff i hear could be the diff i hear between the OG and another high end unit .... Thks for taking the time !! I hope B released a desktop version as well ...

[@rebours]

There's clearly a difference in either the enveloppes' curves or the voltage response of the filters, it's very noticeable on short percussive sounds. I think the only modern polyphonic synth that got this right so far is the prophet 5/10 rev 4...it really shines in that regard.

[@ZozillaThaGreat]

Exact , the Prophets have one of the best shaping feel , hard to explain , but still a great one imho , need to test it to really feel it and if it's ok or really something that can handicap .... giving the quality of sounds we heard , not sure , if we didn't had the og that we would be disturbed ...@@rebours

[@julientrez]

That's really impressive. BUT, does it Love Like Blood? 👀

[@tommyg5095]

I have one on pre order, was told around February for that to hit the distributor,,,, that place being where the water is sweet😮😮😮

[@X22GJP]

Guitar Center?

[@tommyg5095]

@@X22GJP GUITAR WHO ???

[@SacSynths_Jack_Z]

Not a Behringer fan, but from a strictly design and production standpoint I think they did a ended up with a pretty good product here, even if it took 6 years after the announcement. It's definitely not a perfect match sonically, especially with low brass, strings, pads, Tom Sawyer type sounds, but it sounds quite good considering the price point and extra features: 16 voice polyphony/PolyAT/Etc.

[@swanofnutella4734]

Two OB-Xas won't be a perfect match sonically. imho the matches that ARE impressive indicate that the unimpressive matches could be coaxed into place with enough time. The filters and oscillators seem pretty capable of doing what's important.

[@Fallingoverbackwards]

They seem really close, there should be some differences as they are both analog which is the appeal.

[@SacSynths_Jack_Z]

@swanofnutella4734 - If I had a dollar for the number of times I've heard this rhetoric... I actually have 2 OB-Xas (one early production, one late) and the variances are not nearly as significant as the ones between the UB-Xa and OB-Xa... Two OB-Xas still sound like OB-Xas - The UB-Xa clearly sounds like a different synthesizer. But again, it's close and Behringer should be commended. PS - I know a UB-Xa beta tester and they spent countless hours trying to match each preset (beta tester units were distributed almost 3 years ago) - this is as close as they can get them.

[@swanofnutella4734]

@@SacSynths_Jack_Z If I had a dollar for every time I've heard somebody comport filter positions with ability I'd own an OBX8 and a Nina by now.

[@Projacked1]

Very hard to match settings, the chorus/ filter(?) settings were the most off? That being said, I would prefer the Bhoberheim for it's stability. That is super-close.

[@odmusicman]

Please keep in mind these are dry built in patches. The real power is what you do as a programmer so we shouldn't just look at patch comparisons for synths of this caliber. If one sounds a bit different than the other, so what? That's what tweaking is for! I cannot wait to start digging into this thing. I pre-ordered and cannot wait. Let's be honest there are maybe a several hundred people in the WORLD that can definitively tell the different on an A/B in patches. And in a mix? The difference between $1,000 and $5,000 becomes a blur.

[@slavamakarkin2528]

For a mix even 1k is too much. You can use plugins. The point is to possess the real thing or the fake. This is the cheap fake for the kids. If you want Oberheim why don't you get Oberheim? It's like wearing glass instead of diamonds. Or sleep with a sex doll.))) "It's so cool, alomst like the original, blablabla..." But what for?

[@odmusicman]

@@slavamakarkin2528 I do use plugins 95%. Between Diva, Spire, Pigments and others I really do not need hardware. I have only two hardware synths, one for piano/controller, classical/jazz and the other a MODX7+ for playing out/synth action controller. All compositions are done with plugins. I agree with you. A recent article by a major VST designer for Cherry Audio spoke with Anthony Marinelli and even Marinelli has turned the corner towards VST's.

[@leonnaffin]

Hmm just listening with my phone speaker I can hear more difference than I expected.😢 the original sounds much more alive to me. I remember the model D vs Mini Moog comparison and I was blown away how similar those tow sound. So my expectations where high sadly to high? I hope the pro16 will be closer to the original.

[@illcritikz]

Both very similar, the ub-xa has a consistent slight brightness/harshness to it over the ob. It's possible this could mellow down with age. I doubt anyone would notice the difference once it's gone through a pre-amp and some effects/filters with a sound engineer, particularly in any sort of reasonable mix. A more apples for apples would be an ob straight out of the factory brand new in the 80s vs the ub now, time does some things to componenets. Behringer has done a great job at recreating a legend.

[@illcritikz]

I'll add to this, I have an OB-6 which I think is just fantastic and because of it wouldn't buy an OB-8/Xa or UB, but if I didn't have it I'd be very happy with a ub-xa. Apart from pure nostalgia it would be pretty hard to justify an original OB over the UB for the price, reliability and availability. I say this staring at a bunch of 80's synths and drum machines in my collection, but most of them hadn't had a modern recreation when I bought them.

[@xntricity6446]

Thanks for this comparison ❤

[@keyboardtek]

Can someone explain how Behringer is able to copy so many classic synths, like this and the Minimoog without getting sued for copyright infringement? Do they have expired copyrights?

[@keymusic]

I’ve always wondered the same thing.

[@braincoral9866]

small differences in the envelopes and filters maybe, but pretty spot-on

[@seanwayland]

I have an ob6 and I think the filter mellowed after a while. Maybe the Behringer one will get a bit less nasty over time. If a voice died on a behringer would you be able to replace one voice chip ? The snarky guy in me says both of these sound dreadfull horribly out of tune no wonder the dx7 put the company out of business.

[@neolepic]

The Ob sounds much softer.

[@X22GJP]

Bearing in mind when this was shot, on the whole, to my ears the UB sounds a bit brighter, more harsh, but no less a synth for it. At the price it is, even just buying it as a Poly AT midi-controller alone would be sensible given the alternatives out there, especially if paired up to something like Omnisphere. The fact that there is a whole bi-timbral synth stuffed in there as well is a minor miracle (although I do feel that the routine £3,500-5000 figures we are seeing for new modern synths these days is a bit of a piss-take-band-wagon-because-we-can trend). Side-by-side on this and other more recent comparison videos, I prefer the character of the OB, but in isolation the UB objectively sounds really good, and would be completely indistinguishable to most people, especially in a mix. So yeah, a big well done to Behringer for providing access to the masses - think what you want of them, there's a market need and they fill it. If you don't like their ethics, vote with your wallet and either buy original hardware or a licensed soft-synth for even less originality. I'm on the lookout for my first and only poly synth to noodle about on. Seriously tempted by the UB, but the UDO Super Gemini just seems to have a much broader sonic palette. It also costs four times as much...that's the dilemma!

[@tommyg5095]

I have the Ub-Xa on pre-order. I'll buy fir exactly the reasons you stated so well. But, like you, I can't wait for the UDO SUPER GEMINI to come to the STATES. That synth is a no-brainer. I doubt seriously it needs to be priced so high, but regardless, that is going on the Rack. It will be in good company...

[@X22GJP]

@@tommyg5095 I’ve spoken to George (UDO founder) at a synth convention in the UK. When you consider that they are a very small team, and the sheer amount of metal and custom hardware that’s gone into the Super Gemini, I can understand its cost - the price is defined by the parts and labour, and no corners have been cut. I’m sure the UB-Xa will serve you well, and would me too, but part of me likes the idea of supporting a smaller company who have built a unique synth with its own character.

[@tommyg5095]

@@X22GJP I am definitely sending my cash to George at UDO. CAN'T WAIT....

[@MFASonic]

Yes, this might be a use case, taking the UB as a master keyboard for a GrooveSynthesis 3rd Wave or similar. Other than that... no. I'm not convinced. Thin, heartless, uninspiring.

[@loreleiofthemist]

another thing to remember is that the ubxa is brand new and the obxa is 43 years old. it's perfectly normal for a brand new synth to sound brighter. this obxa unit probably sounded a lot brighter when it was new as well.

[@realqwave]

The very best video, and I think the first video, showing these synths side by side. And with a recent Behringer Version and not an early prototype. Well done! Thanks!

[@SynthsStories]

Nice comparison, thanks for sharing! Berhinger did a very nice job. Yes there is a difference for 2 main reasons: each OB-Xa sounds different and this original has old circuits more than 40 years old, which have lived and therefore which sound different from a model with a recent circuit, more "straight" (which has not, moreover, probably not the same quality of components either). But the rendering of the Behringer is very convincing! 👍

[@MiloCarrete]

There is more prestige on having an Oberheim.

[@tonyhill2318]

No duh.

[@harveyspecter1653]

5k for a synth that costs them 200 dollars to build while the Behringer is just as good..... Good luck with your prestige; Make sure you always put a picture of the real one on your album cover 😀

[@JaroAtry]

The truth is that synth nerds think there’s prestige, but actually, no one cares.

[@harveyspecter1653]

No there isn't. In fact, someone paying 5 grand for an old design, added with some new features which cost a couple of 100 in parts, while you can get 99% the same sound a lot less expensive? Prestige is not the word I'd use. No offense. It's ok if you can afford it and want to waste the money. Nothing wrong with that. And agreed, Tom Oberheim deserves respect for his achievements; It's just 5K isn't remotely justifiable these days where electronics cost almost nothing.

[@AdamsOlympia]

@@harveyspecter1653 It cost way more than 200 to build a keyboard analog poly., . They don't benefit from economy of scale like the Behringers of the world and good parts don't come cheap. Look up the price breakdown of a legit Buchla module ...more than 200 and thats a MODULE!

[@kaiwetronic]

Well, like usually happens with all kind of human driven devices, all I can say is: 'Not the car, but the driver'

[@SenecaMeyer]

Definitely falls into 'close enough' territory ... I hear the most variation on patches with a lot of audible LFO modulation. Otherwise, sounds great!

[@pdmcrew80]

Behringer sounds better to me, its like a refined OBxa.

[@AndyBondo]

Not convinced

[@KeyboardPonderings]

The UB-Xa sounds better to me in general. On certain patches the OB-Xa sounded a bit more out of tune. Also, the OB-Xa seems to have a more pronounced resonance on on patches that use it. Not saying one is better than the other. For the most part, they sound identical. Kudos to Behringer! For the price, the UB-Xa is a steal. The UB-Xa D an even better deal! Thanks for the comparison!

[@kamelhamlaoui9983]

👍🏻 owner of an OBX-8 and 2 SEM’s. Now I ‘am waiting for the OBX behringer + the SEM!!!

[@bengsynthmusic]

But why?

[@kamelhamlaoui9983]

@@bengsynthmusic like a back up… we never know. And I guess I am a fetishiste!?😂

[@soundmechanicssd]

Sounding very good. I'm sure any differences in brightness/character could be further edited to match. The UB-Xa basically sounds like an OB-Xa in a box around half the size for a lot less money. I like it!

[@stefan2796]

With some presets the Oberheim sounds a bit "thicker" (a little bit more low end?). Anyway, good to hear them both.

[@mthomas1091]

Good comparison. Honestly though, I wish we could hear the IDENTICAL MIDI going into them.

[@csilt]

Original Oberheim OB-Xa sounded better to me in most cases. It sounded fatter and more organic. The Behringer sounded pretty thin in comparison. Listening on HD-650 headphones

[@DarrenGlen]

its all puppies and ice cream until you get to big open oscillator sounds like at 6.01 and then it all falls apart...the UBXa has top end limitation where that sizzle is just missing....those two big open bass sounds at 6.01 expose the crucial difference

[@UniQueWerkx]

That's impressive!! Thank you very much for taking the time to post this!! Sounds like a winner for sure!! Wow!!

[@TheGuitaristChannel]

Thank you for this video! Pre-ordered mine! 😁

[@stu9000]

The original sounds so good, the remake also sounds good but without quite the presence in some patches. A lot of it seems to do with the attack. The OB has a faster snap to the envelope maybe? Still I know which one I would buy.

[@Donetur]

It sounds good. I liked it, as much identical to the original as expected of a good clone I would say.

[@leelek4720]

Behringer sounds brighter. OB sounds warm and more layer. But it is hard to get an original one and hard to keep it working,too

[@AboveTheTrees00]

first firmware, and for how much ? $1200 a...yeah you must be nuts to say this is not a sweet deal

[@vladsandu9713]

If you can afford it you should still get the Sequential built model.

[@michaelwalston2438]

Why?

[@RubenGugis]

The more UB-Xa Demos the better!

[@Sycokay]

The UB-XA is missing something. I can't put my finger on it, but I have listened to a lot of UB-XA demos, and so far none of them wow-ed me. Waiting for the Jupiter clone.

[@kujumz806]

B’s attempt at 6:00…ouch

[@jd808]

big ouch

[@daddyzhoam]

6 years and 3.5 mil in r&d to hit a target that’s been standing still for 40 years… and this is what the filter sounds like? Are they joking?

[@N4505]

There are a lot of weird stuff happening at that particular Ob-xa unison patch that don't at the Ub-xa. For a example there is at least one voice that isn't affected by the filter at all

[@kujumz806]

@@N4505 the first problem is the resonance response is not the same at all. then theres the envelope spread which is part of that sound. unfortunately the former is probably an insurmountable problem.

[@ET2carbon]

So I'm listening in an ATMOS environment with crisp Magnapan speakers and overheads the works bass galore. Listen, they are very very close. But the vintage vibe still ain't quite there

[@carlosheredia2219]

just received the ubxa Behringer 4 banks of presets A B C D - not sure if this was a used item or what but im missing some factory presets- ive seen the bank letter and the number of the patch on different you tube videos (I CROSS REFRENCED) and when i go to the bank DIAL THE PATCH takes me to what it says PRESET WITH ONE WAVE- BASICALLY MISSING THE ENTIRE PATCH- CALLING SWEET WATR TOMORROW- I DID THE SYSTEM UPDATE AND STATES ITS CURRENT - $1200.00 AND MISSING PATCHES- OMG

[@pixelwash9707]

Was originally very excited about this synth, but to my ears the new one sounds like a very good plugin, it's got a digital edge to the sound I just don't like. Similar difference between a real Roland Jupiter and the plugins. Just not as "smooth", enough for me not want either this new synth or the Jupiter plugins.

[@HOLODECK-MUSIC-PROJECT]

imho the Behringer sounds flatter, lifeless at some presets, but still similar. But, considering analog synths show off its full power in the lower frequencies, I think it's a shame that he plays in the upper octave regions here.

[@uhoh007]

I don’t trust you…..so I pre-ordered ;)

[@AdamsOlympia]

It's immediately obvious when listening on a good 2.1 hifi system. The original has loads of character, unpredictable noise and sizzle , sounds more alive and almost 3D. The clone sounds lifeless in comparison. It's like the difference between a legit Roland Tape echo and their digital pedal emulation. (Boss) It doesn't have the magic. Of course the average music fan isn't going to tell a difference in the context of a song, but pro musicians with a discerning ear will certainly know.