Quantcast
JP-8 vs OBX vs P5 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
JP-8 vs OBX vs P5
Old 2nd February 2009
  #1
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
JP-8 vs OBX vs P5

For my first vintage synth, can't decide between these. Looking for large sweeping ambient strings/pads first and foremost. Bright Brass and raw rock/pop stabs etc are not too important. Left out OBXa for that reason. The OBX appears to have the deepest, warmest sound and organic too, what do you think? Could anybody comment on the sound differences between these three? Is it just me, or does the JP-8 sound brighter and buzzier than the oberheims?

If I get a JP-8/OBX without midi, how difficult is it to find somwone to do the work and how costly?

Thx
Aq
Old 2nd February 2009
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
P5 is one of the most versatile synths i've ever heard. whenever i need a sound that i dont want to necessarily "sound like a synthesizer", the P5 has become my go-to unit.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #3
Lives for gear
 
analogbass's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
They're all good but i'd put the Prophet and Oberheim a little higher. My personal opinion is that all Rolands while sounding good, lack a few extras that separate some of the American vintage synths-warmth and punchiness being two things. The JP-8 sounds good, but those others are still better, and ya i agree about the brighter sound. Now of course there are all sorts who love the Rolands, but they're not my favorite if i have to choose. Even amongst Japanese synths they wouldn't be my first choice.

An OB-8 would be good because it's not only reliable/less problematic than an Xa including the midi issue, it's also warm. Not as warm as an Xa but still plenty warm. Plus it provides the option to layer, creating greater possibilites. The Prophet's got the high quality sound coupled with poly-mod that ups the options. Between those two, you'd have to try them yourself, listen to youtube samples or just try one or the other, knowing you can always sell it later. Neither would disappoint though.
Old 3rd February 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 
clusterchord's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablu8 ➑️
For my first vintage synth, can't decide between these. Looking for large sweeping ambient strings/pads first and foremost. Bright Brass and raw rock/pop stabs etc are not too important. Left out OBXa for that reason. The OBX appears to have the deepest, warmest sound and organic too, what do you think? Could anybody comment on the sound differences between these three?

If I get a JP-8/OBX without midi, how difficult is it to find somwone to do the work and how costly?

Thx
Aq
Welcome to Encore Electronics round $300 for a (great) midi kit. real simple to install. any local tech can do it, if not a total moron. ive got encore in three polyphonics, my obxa, obx and jp8. it works.


didnt u post a similar thread a week ago , or so ? i thought we covered your ambinet pad question to an extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablu8 ➑️
Is it just me, or does the JP-8 sound brighter and buzzier than the oberheims?
indeed jup8 might appear brighter than oberheims, having wider bandwith in the upper region. but lower highs in obxa sound more agressive, almost hyped so they can cut well. if jup is hi-fi, xa is the brute.

as for buzziness, OB8 and OBXa are Curtis VCO based, and when you open their filters to the max they are most definetely buzzier than a Jup8, which sounds more smooth, almost glassy, and OBX is more round n well.. fat. buzziness of VCOs is Curtis trademark. but we all have different interpretations for some of these adjectives, so ymmv.


buy one already. heh
Old 3rd February 2009
  #5
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Having all four, I can speak somewhat without bias. You may want to consider the filter options in each of these (12db and 24db)...

Prophet 5 has just the 24db filter
OBX has just the 12db filter (and is rare)
Jupiter 8 has both filters (and is expensive)

The OBXa has both filters, is more obtainable, does sweeping ambient pads better than you think, and has as much "fame" as any of them. Not saying it's better than the others, just offering this perspective...
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #6
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks...

I''m also interested in either the OB-8 or the Xpander....xpander seems rather similar in sound to the OB8, but I can't judge from the demos. If anyone can point out the differences i would appreciate it. I see no point in getting both. I would rather an earlier (OBX) + Xpander/OB8. Xpander seems much more flexible and good for pads/strings....OB-8 sounds similar to me with open filters (buzzy/smooth), but I can't judge...thanks.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #7
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by clusterchord ➑️
Welcome to Encore Electronics round $300 for a (great) midi kit. real simple to install. any local tech can do it, if not a total moron. ive got encore in three polyphonics, my obxa, obx and jp8. it works.


didnt u post a similar thread a week ago , or so ? i thought we covered your ambinet pad question to an extent.



indeed jup8 might appear brighter than oberheims, having wider bandwith in the upper region. but lower highs in obxa sound more agressive, almost hyped so they can cut well. if jup is hi-fi, xa is the brute.

as for buzziness, OB8 and OBXa are Curtis VCO based, and when you open their filters to the max they are most definetely buzzier than a Jup8, which sounds more smooth, almost glassy, and OBX is more round n well.. fat. buzziness of VCOs is Curtis trademark. but we all have different interpretations for some of these adjectives, so ymmv.


buy one already. heh
Can the JP-8 approach those rising sawtooth strings made famous by the CS80 and Vangelis?
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Space Station's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablu8 ➑️
Thanks...

I''m also interested in either the OB-8 or the Xpander....xpander seems rather similar in sound to the OB8, but I can't judge from the demos. If anyone can point out the differences i would appreciate it. I see no point in getting both. I would rather an earlier (OBX) + Xpander/OB8. Xpander seems much more flexible and good for pads/strings....OB-8 sounds similar to me with open filters (buzzy/smooth), but I can't judge...thanks.
Theres an ocean of difference between the two..far too many to list..but here's three to start; the Xpander has 15 different filters, a comprehesive modulation matrix and seperate outs and midi channels for every voice of which can have a different patch assigned.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #9
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
thx -- im just interested in the basic sound differences -- i.e, saw open filter, strings, pads, etc..can't judge from youtube or other demos--appear rather similar to me :(
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Carey M's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablu8 ➑️
Can the JP-8 approach those rising sawtooth strings made famous by the CS80 and Vangelis?
You mean those rising strings made famous by the Roland VP330 and Vangelis?

- CM
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Mike6581's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
It's all a matter of taste, I think the Jupiter 8 can have an incredibly warm, dark sound if you use it properly. It can also do bright and brassy, but it's up to you if you want that. Yes you can get searing sawtooth sounds, but nothing like a CS-80 - but remember that the level of expression you can get from the CS-80's keyboard and ribbon controller offer a tremendous amount to that.

Jupiter 8s also have the great arpeggio function and the ability to split the keyboard, so you can have the lower two octaves as one sound (even arpeggio) and the upper three octaves as another sound - this is really great for live use.

Prophet 5s are of course two branches of the same synth, the Rev 2 blows a Rev 3 out of the water but it'll cost you a lot more money and they're not supposed to be as reliable.

Can't vouch for the Oberheims having never used one, but they do tend to be cheaper second hand than the P5 and JP8 (apart from the Matrix 12).

Also remember what you'd consider a good synth sound is totally subjective and as you'll be spending at least Β£1500-Β£2500 it makes sense to hear each of the candidates in the flesh first.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Why do you need vintage synth?
Do you have some 'nostalgia' associated with it or very special project that require older type of sounds?

In reality, specially for very creative and younger musicians it is ABSOLUTELLY not essential to cope with old crap. I have several vintage synths and I can't say that they did anything special in music creation process, but as I grow up in those times when they evolved they ressemble me to some of music pieces I liked.
VirusTI + DSI Polyevolver + Omega (or Andromeda or Sunsyn depending on budget) will cover practically all bases where synth is needed. Tweaking it, using good preamps and analogue outboards will influence sound and final result much more than choice of vintage vs. modern synth.
I think that paying more than 1500$ for any piece of old technology (out of collector's items for investment purposes) is just overpaying for the fact that something is getting rarer nowdays. It has nothing with making music.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
cosmos's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang ➑️
Why do you need vintage synth?
Do you have some 'nostalgia' associated with it or very special project that require older type of sounds?

In reality, specially for very creative and younger musicians it is ABSOLUTELLY not essential to cope with old crap. I have several vintage synths and I can't say that they did anything special in music creation process, but as I grow up in those times when they evolved they ressemble me to some of music pieces I liked.
VirusTI + DSI Polyevolver + Omega (or Andromeda or Sunsyn depending on budget) will cover practically all bases where synth is needed. Tweaking it, using good preamps and analogue outboards will influence sound and final result much more than choice of vintage vs. modern synth.
I think that paying more than 1500$ for any piece of old technology (out of collector's items for investment purposes) is just overpaying for the fact that something is getting rarer nowdays. It has nothing with making music.
heh

for example, insted of buying 5-6k JP8, go ahead and order DSI PEK, 2 chandler germaniums & a Distressor/Eventide DSP4000.

you will be much MUCH MUCH more happier..
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Mike6581's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
That being said, you could argue that about a brand new Fender Stratocaster vs a pre-CBS one. There's tonnes of great new synths out there but I wouldn't trade my Jupiter 8 for any of them. It's basically my perfect synth and suits what I do down to the ground - more than an arsenal of other synths. It's all taste and that's the important thing.

However, if you're starting more or less from scratch, the posters do make some incredibly valid points and great pre-amps and effects will make a tremendous difference to the sound. If you're just starting out in the work of synths, the PEK has Curtis DCOs (I believe) in there so you're getting a pretty good subtractive poly-synth and on top of that all the other great features and interesting sounds/programming potential of the PEK thrown in. If the PEK menaces you, the Prophet 08 is a great piece of kit.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #15
Gear Guru
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
If you want a vintage synth sound you mostly need a vintage synth. THAT sound has been used on so many records over the years - and is still used in many types of music - for example current styles of disco and dance music with a disco edge is often of that flavor.

Its difficult to get those sounds from a modern analogue - although I grant that the Sunsyn or Omega is very close - albeit at the same price as a top vintage polysynth...

However yes - if you're not fussed about that sound - there is no point in having to spend all that money for the more limited functionality.

However I suspect the OP is aware of this...
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #16
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
I have not tried the Omega, but from reviews it sounds rather clinical. I am however probably going to get a voayger rack sometime. Other than that, I love the vintage tones and I have tried all the modern analogs and digitals (i own a P'08 which comes close) and they don't offer what I'm lookin for yet... also the Omega is very expensive for 8 voices. I'd rather have a couple of vintage synths for an Omega 8 given what I've heard.

So you are saying that putting the line level input of a digital or analog synth into a nice preamp will improve the sound by giving it more color/analog feeling... do you keep the pre-amp level at zero given that the synth is a line level? So, If i used an API pre, it would really add warmth IYO?
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
desotoslo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I have run my Kawai K1m into: Radial JDI->DAV BG1->studio electronics AN-2 analog stereo simulator/chorus->DAW, and that [originally] electronic-sounding K1m now sounds awesome.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
analogbass's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike6581 ➑️
It's all a matter of taste, I think the Jupiter 8 can have an incredibly warm, dark sound if you use it properly. It can also do bright and brassy, but it's up to you if you want that. Yes you can get searing sawtooth sounds, but nothing like a CS-80 - but remember that the level of expression you can get from the CS-80's keyboard and ribbon controller offer a tremendous amount to that.

Jupiter 8s also have the great arpeggio function and the ability to split the keyboard, so you can have the lower two octaves as one sound (even arpeggio) and the upper three octaves as another sound - this is really great for live use.

Prophet 5s are of course two branches of the same synth, the Rev 2 blows a Rev 3 out of the water but it'll cost you a lot more money and they're not supposed to be as reliable.

.
None of the Rolands have a warm sound, period. Some claim this, but it's not true. Their tone color is always neutral and transparent, which some like for how that fits into a mix without being obtrusive. Also, the Rolands always tend to be more flexible as early adapters of midi, and more flexible re: functions like splits, arpegiators, midi flexibility, etc.

This crap about Prophets rev 2 blowing away the 3s is absolute nonsense, something along the same BS propogated about new vs. older minis, new vs. older super jupiters, etc. They're all good, some marginally "better" but all excellent.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
analogbass's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang ➑️
Why do you need vintage synth?
Do you have some 'nostalgia' associated with it or very special project that require older type of sounds?

In reality, specially for very creative and younger musicians it is ABSOLUTELLY not essential to cope with old crap. .
I agree with this entirely, with the proviso that only a handfull of newer synths get in to the ballpark if the idea's true representations of the old, vintage richness. Something like an Andromeda, Omega or Voyager as examples, give much of the old sound married to newer flexibilities. Whether it's close enough sonically can only be answered through direct hands-on experience.

Much of the other stuff like a Virus or DSI only provide a representation of analog, along with their own qualities-greater flexibility and convenience than the old stuff as is the norm but nowhere near the same league sonically for those who know the difference.


Quote:
I have not tried the Omega, but from reviews it sounds rather clinical. I am however probably going to get a voayger rack sometime.
Anyone truly serious about actually knowing the differences has to at some point stop relying on hearsay and posts here that are merely good guides and beginning points. Of course it's easy to post and speculate, but those are only rough guidelines given some of the bizarre and innacurate opinions seen. the truth is you'd have to have the initiative to actually get in front of the better renditions out there today.

Extremely good investment in time, worthwhile even if hard to do given the outlay of money. Be creative and find a way, if you actually do care about the sound and the money. IMO many would find one of the newer good examples preferable over an older piece, for a number of reasons. One can't simply write something off as "sterile" based on something posted online, given the disparate and often innaccurate views out there. It's lazy to actually believe or rely just on online opinions that are all over the place for purchase decisions.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Mike6581's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
"None of the Rolands have a warm sound, period"... Go on define in EXACT words what "warm" means in the context of a synthesizer sound. You can't. It's an ambiguous concept and the definition of which is entirely down to the observer, rather like the concept of warm as a whole.

As for the Prophets, I'd say there's a significant difference between the two if you compare compositions made with rev 2 Prophets to a rev 3 one, but then again that's not hands on. There's a good grounding to say there'd be an inherent difference, particularly as the oscillators are made by a different company.

Which is why it's important you try out the synths for yourself, it's such a lot of money you'd have to spend, even if you went for an Omega they're a dear do. Don't just rely on online clips, actively try and source out the synths.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #21
Moderator
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogbass ➑️
None of the Rolands have a warm sound, period.
Care to define "warm"?



Thanks in advance!
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablu8 ➑️

So you are saying that putting the line level input of a digital or analog synth into a nice preamp will improve the sound by giving it more color/analog feeling... do you keep the pre-amp level at zero given that the synth is a line level? So, If i used an API pre, it would really add warmth IYO?
There are very nice preamps and DIs that are great sounding when paired to synth's outputs. API pre is OK, but not more than that (it has other, much better uses in studio).
Mentioned Germanium pre offers plenty of vintage charm + it is quite noisy (in good way), so everything through it get some nice character, AMI TAB tube DIs are among my favs for synths (I have 8 just for synths), so when I compared several old synths in great shape with Omega into DI or pre, Omega had all that hyped warmth on the top of being simply bigger and if necessary more aggressive.
Vintage warmth is nothing more than limited frequency bandwidth mixed with higher noise floor, various hums-buzzes and intermodulation distortions present in ALL 25-30 years old synths. These artifacts are easily produced with many modern analogue processors (like Thermionic Culture Voulture, Fatso and many other), so having initial good analog signal that is clean requires bit of creativity (and investments unfortunately) to add any dimension preferrable by musician.
Several live concerts I saw during last years with entirelly newer or even digital synths properly processed confirmed this fully.
For that reason IMO paying 3,5+ k for 'legends' is more in collectors domain.
Same as pre CBS Strats that mostly DON'T sound so special as people think, at least not to justify nearly 20-50 times price difference to good used Strat from later periods.
Still, collector's frenziness and nostalgia are things beyond rationale thinking, so opinions on that are always somehow biased.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Mike6581's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I think the difference with pre-CBS Strats is you're pretty much guaranteed the pinnacle of "Fenderness" when you get one. It's not just the sound, they play wonderfully - like a Fender that was made for love rather than to be rattled of the production line in the fastest time, lowest cost. A pre-CBS Fender isn't much more expensive than a Custom Shop, so they're not that crazy... Though a '54 will set you back a few bob! The same could be said about modern analogue synthesizers, a Moog Voyager costs about the same as a second hand Mini Moog and only fractionally less than I paid for my Jupiter 8.

As for classic synths, there's a finite number of them out there and there's nothing new that exactly does what they all do so well - until that balance is redressed you'll have to pay over the odds, it's the classic supply and demand scenario.

A great pre-amp and outboard effects can bring a tremendous amount to the sound of a synth, or anything for that matter - same for any instrument. But I don't think everything about a vintage synth's sound could be re-created by running a VA through a tube amp though. You can make a sound richer in texture through that but think about how much better a real analogue synth would sound if you ran it through that same rig. A lot of the character of a vintage synth comes from the subtle detuning of the oscillators and things like that and the 'how long do you dare not hit auto-tune' aspect of a monstrous patch. Also consider how much deeper the bass sounds you can get off a VCO synth are compared to their DCO and VA relatives. And in the case of a VA, the lack of 'zipper noise'.

I also think many classic synths are so much more fun to play than their modern equivalents. Menus and rotary encoders just don't cut it compared to pots and sliders. That's the biggest downfall of synths like the Prophet 08 if you ask me. I think that interface really hinders the creation of new sounds as it takes twice as long, if not longer.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #24
Lives for gear
 
analogbass's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
3.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris ➑️
Care to define "warm"?



Thanks in advance!
If ya have to ask..


Quote:
"None of the Rolands have a warm sound, period"... Go on define in EXACT words what "warm" means in the context of a synthesizer sound. You can't. It's an ambiguous concept and the definition of which is entirely down to the observer, rather like the concept of warm as a whole.
Bull****. There are plenty of synths known for warmth, and they are. If you don't already know that..

This is the expected reaction and defensiveness from the Roland lovers out there. Hey they can sound good, but don't try to imbue every synth with every attribute and adjective, that's innacurate. Some actually mistake Rolands for DX7s, for good reason. There are some similiarites in the tone colors, which is why they're sometimes mistaken.

Find me a warm Roland bass sound and post it, or it didn't happen-they're non-existent. I grew up on 70s and 80s music, heard alot, listened carefully, read the album instrument liners and read Keyboard since it gave good background on what was used on what records. I probably know more about what comprises Roland sounds on records than most here. Deelite, Rodney Franklin, Total Contrast, Madonna's mid-80s albums, etc. sound good-that's why i have a couple of Rolands-but they ain't warm.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Space Station's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I disagree and I'm not a Roland lover and in fact I dont like the JP8 at all. I find it way too brassy sounding.

However I think the Juno 60 is incredibly warm sounding up against my Oberheims, Moogs, Sequentials, Arps etc etc. I think the RS-505 is an amazingly warm sounding beast too.

You just can't apply a blanket statement like that over a diverse brand such as Roland who've made more different models than anyone else.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
analogbass's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Station ➑️
I disagree and I'm not a Roland lover and in fact I dont like the JP8 at all. I find it way too brassy sounding.

However I think the Juno 60 is incredibly warm sounding up against my Oberheims, Moogs, Sequentials, Arps etc etc. I think the RS-505 is an amazingly warm sounding beast too.

You just can't apply a blanket statement like that over a diverse brand such as Roland who've made more different models than anyone else.

I love the defensiveness here, essentially the in the box thinking that's so strong that the belief is propogated that every beloved synth must have every single attribute, which is untrue.

I've read about and listened to vintage during the golden eras of the 70s and 80s. Verified impression through then-common album liner notes of gear lists, and read Keyboard articles on what was actually used then (vs speculation and revisionist thinking now widely circulated online by those who weren't around). A good friend and prominent synthesist in NYC during the 80s actually said same, didn't use Rolands for the reasons mentioned.

Post a clip proving what you say, especially a bass sound. It'll be nicely analog but warm, no. Some in music magazines politely referred to the character as "neutral", which is essentially the same sentiment.

In a thread a couple of weeks ago there was discuss of Axel-Fs track. Some thought it was a DX-7, when it was likely just analog, a Roland. Same confusion with some of the mid-80s Madonna tracks. All for good reasons, Rolands and Yamahas had some of the same tonal character. Not entirely the same of course, but enough to fool some.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
desotoslo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
maybe you mean warm = saturation of sound (a sound that gets itself wet)...

and cold = hollow. so a roland analog bass sound can sound "analog" (rich, punchy, thick) but not necessarily saturated, filling in on itself.

does that approximate it?
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
clusterchord's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablu8 ➑️
Thanks...

I''m also interested in either the OB-8 or the Xpander....xpander seems rather similar in sound to the OB8, but I can't judge from the demos. If anyone can point out the differences i would appreciate it. I see no point in getting both. I would rather an earlier (OBX) + Xpander
sounds like a perfect combination to me. youre on the right track here. indeed if oberheims is what u want, this sounds like a very complementary combination. personally, or ideally id get these three: obxa, obx and xpander. the holy trinity of three different eras/sounds of oberheim.



if u want Vangelis CS80 sounds, your best bet is finding a CS-60, it goes for much less money. it uses identical voiceboards, except it doesnt have the expressiveness i.e. polyaftertouch n velocity , and does not layer , only one VCO per voice,, but still.. it sounds eat. and i repeat its not an emulation/imitation. it actually is the sound of CS-80, just in a different box.

other than that, of all synths tryin to emulate CS80 sounds.. andromeda came closest, and i use it sometimes for this type of sound. however, it is still far away from the original. which i owned as well.



if indeed youre thinking of VP330 strings, as Carey pointed out, just get a stinrg machine thats in the ballpark of VP330 sound. a Roland RS505, or some crumar etc. not exact same, but very good ballpark.. and as i hinted bfr, these are cheap. VP330 prices go thru the roof bcs of onboard vocoder and choir sounds.




@Don: relax, its just our old friend analog bass. you'll get used to it. pompous blanket statements are his way of life.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #29
Moderator
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by clusterchord ➑️
@Don: relax, its just our old friend analog bass. you'll get used to it. pompous blanket statements are his way of life.
Old 6th February 2009 | Show parent
  #30
Moderator
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by desotoslo ➑️
maybe you mean warm = saturation of sound (a sound that gets itself wet)...
Keep in mind each person percepts things different way (hearing). This should be the starting point before we go to define anything.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 69 views: 7361
Avatar for Zoolook
Zoolook 27th August 2014
replies: 9464 views: 860426
Avatar for wagoo
wagoo 3 weeks ago
replies: 10950 views: 1336816
Avatar for agstreyiii
agstreyiii 2 days ago
replies: 143 views: 10772
Avatar for BM0
BM0 25th January 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump