Oberheim OB-X8 Review – “Extremely Expensive….But It Does Sound Gorgeous”

In his latest video, synthesist Starsky Carr reviews the new Oberheim OB-X8.

The Oberheim OB-X8 combines the three different voice architectures of the classic OB-X, OB-Xa, and OB-8 synths into a single instrument. The individual filter types and other unique characteristics of each model have been faithfully reproduced, along with an uncompromising 100% analog signal path.

“It’s an extremely expensive bit of kit,” notes Carr. “But it does sound gorgeous.”

Check out the video and share your thoughts on the OB-X8 in the comments!

Topics covered:

0:00 intro
2:39 panning modes
3:33 what is it? Overview of main functions
8:22 oscillators
14:59 filters
20:22 envelopes
23:48 levers
25:14 arpeggiator
27:43 chord mode
29:48 unison
31:34 final thoughts – roundup
35:11 sound demos

66 thoughts on “Oberheim OB-X8 Review – “Extremely Expensive….But It Does Sound Gorgeous””

  1. It’s expensive, but it’s cheaper than buying any of the classic Oberheim synths used, and it does way more.

    This is a modern classic. Like the Prophet 5 Rev 4, the OB-X8 represent the best version of one of the best synths ever made.

    1. i would prefer something much more complex with the same core sound but like anything else it is worth whatever people who like it willing to pay, it does sound amazingly musical and it is sold out.

      1. You’re correct, of course. However, if I was even in the market for such a synth, I’d wait for the Behringer, without any (possibly faulty) prediction of eventual resale value affecting my decision.

        1. seems we are both not in the market for this so i don’t have more to say but if you ever want me to stop replaying about anything know that you should just mention beringer 🙂

    2. The Obie-X8 truly is a legend in it’s own time. This instrument literally has the potential to change how the power of analog sound is harnessed & perceived. TomO.’s back around town kids, alive & well as well as his legacy nonetheless. Sure it might be pricey but there’s plenty of pretty good reasons for that if ya believe in the addagee ‘u get what u pay for’. Cost & space issues aside, VST and Eurorack heads take heed bcos this thing’s gonna make those medium’s seem almost toylike sonically folks.

    3. In real terms (adjusted for inflation) it’s cheaper than the classic models it harks bact to when they were released.

      1. Once the Behringer is released, people will be able to gauge the real value of the hardware. It’s not 1978, and just because Tom Oberheim’s name is on it does not, necessarily, make it a “modern classic”, worth more than the competition because of the name that’s on it. In 1978, there wasn’t any meaningful competition. Product runs were of relatively low volume, and there weren’t a lot of keyboard players who even wanted to invest in a polyphonic synthesizer back then (as compared to today, where polyphonic synths are, more or less, the norm and anybody who would buy this probably has at least a half dozen laying around). This is a different time and a different market. In 1977 I paid over $1000 for an Altair 8800A microcomputer that had an 8-bit processor, 16k memory, and an audio cassette interface for storage (and I had to build it myself, including soldering the 64 sockets for the memory chips on each of the two 8k memory boards). At about the same time you could purchase a Prophet-5 for about $2k (I wasn’t into pricing Oberheims at the time so I have no idea what their competitive synth was or what it cost in 1978). Now, jump ahead 46 years and compare today’s computer to today’s polyphonic analog synthesizer in terms of “how far they’ve come”. People who think that today’s synths manufactured by the classic companies are reasonable monetary investments are just kidding themselves. If you like a synth, you purchase it for what it costs if you really want one. If you think it’s priced too high than you don’t purchase it. What its value is in the eyes of a dreamer is of no consequence.

        1. The Behringer synth will be a good value, but like most of their other synths, it’s a knockoff of a 40 year-old design, rather than something new, and it will have obvious compromises.

          It will be perfect for people that are nostalgic about old-school synths, but don’t want to invest in an old-school synth.

          The OB-X8 and the OB-6 represents the pinnacle of Tom Oberheim’s synth designs and they’re both magnificent synths.

          While you suggest that “People who think that today’s synths manufactured by the classic companies are reasonable monetary investments are just kidding themselves.”, you’re either ignoring reality, because the market has already spoken, or you think your opinion is more valid that then reality of the marketplace.

          Either way, ignoring reality makes your perspective look foolish.

          1. What reality? You can’t compare resale values of something that is a revered classic of which not too many remain with something that has just been released and has sold out. Also, even for the OB-6 (I have a Prophet 6, BTW), you are still talking about a contemporary synth which is still available new. Whether or not you, or anybody else, considers them to be “magnificent synths” (and I’m not suggesting that they aren’t), basing what you believe to be their value in the future on what a classic Oberheim synth is worth today is what is really foolish. As I’ve said elsewhere here, an item’s value is solely dependent on what people will pay for it. In this regard, of course the OB-X8 is worth what they are charging for it because people are purchasing it at that price. My point is that, compared to what you can purchase for an equivalent sum, when you take all the things that the synth are and drop the Oberheim name from it, you find you are paying a hell of a lot for the name. Again, I think that the synth is crazy good, it’s just overpriced and I won’t be buying one (i.e., even though I can afford to buy one, I think my money would be better served buying something else).

        2. “Now, jump ahead 46 years and compare today’s computer to today’s polyphonic analog synthesizer in terms of “how far they’ve come””

          Digital synths have largely turned into software, and many good software synths are cheap if not actually free, mirroring the computer/software revolution.

          Computers became cheap and powerful for many reasons including Moore’s law, insane volume/economies of scale, commoditization, globalization, etc.. Most people carry computers/smartphones with them everywhere they go. These effects haven’t applied in exactly the same way to electronic musical instruments, especially analog synths. But cheap electronics have definitely led to budget analog synths like the Monotron, Volcas, Minilogue, Uno, Werkstatt, various designs from b-company, etc..

        3. Behringer caters to a totally different market, and cannot be used as a measuring stick for what other company’s products should be worth.

  3. Considering the inflation from the 70-80’s until now it’s actually cheap. Todays youngsters have no idea what we had to pay for high end synths back then.. – and we didn’t even have Behringer to help us out… (link to Monthy Phyton missing)

    1. OB-8 sold for $4395 in 1985 (according to wikipedia) – equivalent to $12K today. And the new OB-X8 offers greater functionality and presumably comparable quality. Though I do like the polyphonic aftertouch feature of the UB-Xa. And I have to give credit to Sequential for introducing their own cheaper/smaller format Prophet-5 derivative in the form of the Take 5.

    1. I agree. However, I would buy a 3rd Wave over both of them (unless Moog ever gets around to fixing the One so that it actually works).

        1. I’ve never actually ever played one. Living in an area of music desolation in southwest Florida, I generally don’t get to play things I don’t own (and I haven’t been to NAMM in over 15 years). For me the Moog One is interesting in that I set up a bank account into which I was occasionally putting money in order to purchase one. Just about when the total in that account had exceeded $8k, two things happened that soured me on even considering the Moog One. (1) The irreverent lack of gratitude exhibited by Moog employees demanding unionization (poor babies), and (2) the Tim Shoemaker video that illustrated what wasn’t actually fixed in (what I believe) was the last update. After the video, I watched closely for Moog’s response and never saw one. Bob Moog’s legacy is pretty much gone in the company, I’m afraid.

            1. Not having a Moog One, I have no idea what you are referring to when you type “last update”. The Tim Shoebridge video I was referring to was the second one (of two, I believe, he did on the Moog One) where he explains the nature and his believed genesis of the problem with the oscillator compensation algorithm in the synth. Several months ago, I sent an email to the technical support people at Moog asking if the problem had been dealt with but never received a response. I haven’t purchased a new Moog in over 40 years so I don’t know what kind of information they send owners documenting the changes that were made in their software revisions. So, have you received documentation that specifically states that the oscillator compensation circuit error has been corrected? Given the lack of response from Moog, and not seeing anything else about this very serious problem or its correction, I have been led to believe that it has not been corrected. So, if you, or anybody else here, can affirm that oscillator compensation does what it is supposed to without introducing more serious problems than the ones it was intended to correct, please do so. I haven’t spent the money in that specific account yet, and even though I have a growing distrust in Moog, I’d be willing to give it a shot again.

                1. Nothing in that article suggests that they have fixed the problem (at least I’m pretty sure they haven’t fixed it) “Oscillator compensation calibration is now more stable and is more likely to produce accurate results on the first run.” In the Shoebridge video, there was nothing wrong with the stability or accuracy of the compensation, and in the video it appears to have done exactly what it was supposed to do “on the first run”. . In fact, it worked quite well. It is the artifact of providing a shoddy fix for their main problem (poor quality control) that made the correction worse (in some instances, like when the oscillators weren’t that far out of tune in the first place) than the problem it was supposed to solve. When I read what is in the notes, I would think that the problem is probably even worse now (i.e., it is more likely to occur due to stability in their misguided algorithm). In the comments section of the Shoebridge video, several recent entries have asked Tim to test it again with the 1.5 firmware. Unless somebody here that actually has one has tested for that exact problem, I’ll wait for Shoebridge to respond before I will be willing to give Moog the benefit of the doubt. If they fixed it, hooray for them. It took, what, almost two years? Since they are apparently now unionized, I’m surprised they even got to it at all.

                  1. it’s not the oscillator compensation that fixes it, it’s the deep tuning capability that they opened up to the public. It takes around 6 hours to work but works really well, calibrating not just oscillators but all synth functions. It’s actually been available a long time land was available when Tim S made that video though it wasn’t properly public then, only to those who got instructions from Moog. Tim S did know about it and I challenged him on why he hadn’t run it before doing the video. He said he didn’t want to.

                    1. I think Tim’s point was that it was the oscillator compensation algorithm that broke it. So, since you didn’t specifically say… do you have a Moog One and can you attest to the fact that the phase issue in the oscillator compensation demonstrated by Shoebridge in the video is, in fact, fixed?

  5. That jog wheel and menu diving looks like a slog. I agree with Starsky, why on Earth not have some more buttons and knobs instead? Waste of space

    1. The original OB-Xa 8-voice carried a list price of $5595 in 1980. Adjusted for inflation, that’s the equivalent of $20,117. People complain about price because they’d like to own one but can’t afford it or justify it. It’s one of those things where you get what you pay for — a rock solid “old school” case, good keyboard and quality parts.

      1. Well a Casio CZ-1000 listed for $649 in 1985, around $1800 today, so closer to the UB. Personally I’d enjoy playing either instrument – phase distortion and 8-stage envelopes are underrated, while the UB has polyphonic aftertouch!

  7. Way too much obsession about price. Lots of musicians can afford high-end synths, and they sell, so they’re obviously worth it.

    If you’re complaining about price, suggesting that buyers are brainwashed or ‘collectors’, you’re in a petty little fantasyland that ignores both economics and utility.

    I’ve got several old-school synths, and they are WAY fucking better than their modern knockoffs in terms of sound, feel, mojo and being fun to play.

    I’ve also got a Behringer D and, while it sounds good, it 100% sucks for playing and tweaking patches, compared to a full-size Minimoog. And that doesn’t just apply to Behringer’s synths, but to things like the Volcas and Roland’s Boutique series. If you don’t love tweaking and playing your synths, your mileage may vary.

    Every time I see a comment complaining about synth pricing, though, it just sounds like someone with no serious keyboard or synth skills trying to justify why they settled for something cheap. If you don’t understand why someone might want to get something better, it’s probably a reflection on your inexperience, instead of someone else’s gullibility.

    The OB-X8 looks and sounds great and it’s the greatest synth that Tom Oberheim has ever designed. It’s worth it to musicians that care about these things.

    1. Yes, but Telle-Tubbies, Moon Rocks, and Cabbage Patch Kids sold very well, but where are they today? Yes, I know they aren’t synthesizers, but the point is the same from an economic perspective.

      1. Telle-Tubbies, Moon Rocks, and Cabbage Patch Kids were all useless to begin with, so your point is irrelevant.

        High quality synths are the best to play, and they tend to keep their value in the long run. This is because they’re instruments first, rather than just technology.

          1. No kidding, if we’re talking about actual moon rocks brought back by astronauts and spacecraft. They are not useless – they inform us about the composition and evolution of lunar regolith, the conditions of the lunar surface, the formation and history of the moon, earth, and solar system, etc.. The moon is very dry – yet moon rocks actually contain tiny amounts of lunar water, verified by hydrogen isotopes; this was not evident a half century ago when instruments were not as sensitive.

          2. Cabbage Patch Kids may not be a sought-after collectible, but they are still being manufactured today by Jazwares. They’re probably still popular because of nostalgia as well as the interesting feature/gimmick that each doll is unique and comes with an adoption certificate.

            1. Maybe if Oberheim gave each OB-X8 a birth certificate they could help with future resale value of a currently overpriced synth!

  8. Having owned the original Oberheim 8 voice, OBXa and OB8 for which I paid early to mid 1980’s dollars for, the the OB-X8 could be considered a “deal”. Without a frame of reference and some sense of history, I’m sure it seems expensive. How much was the average car in 1982 vs today?
    Hello, McFly?

      1. I wasn’t going to go there (automobile comparisons), but in 1978 a VW Campmobile by Westfalia had a sticker price of about US$3500. After inflation, that would be about $16.000 in today’s dollars. However, it is unlikely that one in salvageable condition could be bought for close to that, and a fully refurbished one can bring in closer to $40k today. Cars and electronics are never a good comparison because while electronics continue to decrease in price/capability, automobiles prices always increase in price/capability.

        1. Correct. Mechanical things have become more expensive, electronic things are far less expensive and more capable. The OB-X8 is at an intersection. On one hand, the large metal case and Fatar keyboard are now quite expensive to make. The electronics are considerably cheaper than they once were. That said, there is also a boutique aspect to this product; because of the price, it will not sell tens of thousands of units like the Korg volca series.

          2. As somebody here pointed out somewhere, using metal is more inexpensive than using plastic for low volume production runs (i.e., under 5,000?), because it is less expensive to bend metal than it is to fabricate the mold for the plastic case. Also, about six months ago I got in on a collective buying deal and purchased a new 61-key Fatar TP/08s [weighted synth action with monophonic aftertouch, that I hope they are using, and not the inferior TP/09s] for $120 (including shipping from PA to FL). So, whatever it is that’s contributing to the price of that synth I doubt that the case or the key bed has anything to do with it. I still maintain that it is, maybe, a $3500 synth that is being jacked up by $1500 just because of the name that’s on it.

            1. My company just paid many tens of thousands of dollars to tool a relatively small metal case through one of the largest Chinese factories. Large plastic cases are not economically feasible unless you’re making tens of thousands of units.

              When pricing an instrument, you have to look at estimated sales numbers and amortize the cost of development (firmware, software, hardware design, mechanical design, artwork, manual, FCC/CE compliance testing, marketing, etc). It’s not as simple as saying “We’re gonna use $350 of metal and a few $5 microcontroller.”

  10. I love this synth and plan to add it to my collection of tools that I use every day. The fact that Toms’s name is on it is the icing on the cake. With all the legends we have lost, I’m not sure how many future opportunities like this we will have. The build quality is fantastic, the sound amazing, and it’s just a fun keyboard to tweak knobs and experiment with. I think it’s priced pretty much on the nose; it’s not for everyone. It’s a premium synth for a high-end clientele. The build quality and feel of the knobs and keyboard reinforce this. Those that think it’s not worth its price, I’m sure the knock-off version that Behringer will bring out will be acceptable for you. Nothing wrong with that.

    1. Well, if you would need to pay less than the equivalent of US$10,000 for this synth, you are not describing equitable economies of scale for the two products. If you would have to pay about $10k, I fail to see your point except that things are really expensive in your country, and that would be a shame!

  13. But, what was the size of the initial production run. If you make three of something, they sell out a lot more quickly than if you make 3,000.

  14. A lot of people keep using the argument that if you cant afford something, then any criticism levied against a product is just envy. I can afford these high end synths, hell i could buy a Jupiter 8 now if i wanted and would still be alright. But that doesnt not mean a product is automatically worth what it sells for. Prada bags sell for $10k, but the materials its made of would be worth about $100. So youre paying for the brand. No ones saying the X8 is a good synth, but for something thats trying to emulate classics at one of the highest prices you can pay for a poly, (apart from ones like Moog One, Balron, schmidt etv), it does make you want to really ask what its actually worth if you strip the name out. I think there are people who are unhappy with price because they cant afford it, and on the other side, there is a huge swathe of people that just “believe” the latest machine is better no matter what. There is always a tiny % of technical, high skilled, deep diving users that will say synth X is better than synth Y, but therye an exception. Listen to starskys OB6 – X8 comparison, you can start to see why people would be skeptical of the massive price difference. I think people should be asking why that particular sound is in such high demand and why the used market for synths of that era still suggests that it cannot me replicated today. Im sure the OB-X8 is a good synth, maybe great. But the OB-XA, OB-8, OV-X are some of the greatest of all time. Also why is it as soon as a synth is released its a classic, the way people use that term, everything is a classic. An iphone 1 – 13 is a classic. There are plenty of good synths that will no be classics, pick most digital synths at random and you wouldnt pine after them the way vintage analog “classics” are.

    1. I’ve owned four Oberheim synths in my life. Two Expander Modules in the mid 70s, and a Matrix 6R and an Xpander in the mid 90s. Personally, I think that all of the Oberheim poly synths that came after the Matrix 12 were pretty much players’ synths and not really synthesists’ synths. That is, they all feature variations on that one basic “Oberheim” sound, and really don’t allow for much experimentation in the production of new musical tonalities. If you think about it, about the only memorable music produced by Oberheims was “Jump”, and a few Prince hits. Since that Oberheim sound is what identifies the synths, it is obvious that in order to be considered an Oberheim, any new synth must be capable of making those sounds. From all that is available in terms of demos, the Behringer UB-Xa appears as capable of making those kinds of Oberheim sounds as this $5000 “wonder”. So, it begs the question, “Are people who are buying into this absurdity really that dumb, or do they just have tons of money to throw away?”

      1. When you say that “the only memorable music produced by Oberheims was “Jump”, and a few Prince hits,” it indicates that you have an extremely shallow understanding of them, which is startling from someone that says that they have owned four.

        Do you just have tons of money to throw away?

        There are more high-end synths than ever before in history – Prophet 5 Rev 4, the OB-X8, the Moog One, the Korg ARP 2600 reissue, the Waldorf Quantum, etc. Suggesting that this is because buyers are ‘dumb’ indicates either profound ignorance or an over-inflated ego.

        1. Please reread what I said, and please put it in context with everything else that I have said in this thread that was negative toward the OB-X8. First, I don’t have anything against Oberheims, and yes, I have owned four in the past. Also, since the sarcastic “Prince…” remark was, as I explicitly stated, not levied against the earlier synths that were not “one-to-three sound wonders”. The sarcasm points at my premise that if a synth can make those “canned” Oberheim sounds (specifically of the OB series in regard to the OB-X8) it will be praised by people who want to continue to hear those sounds, but only if Tom Oberheim’s name is on the synth. The criticism of the synth that I have continually stressed is its outrageous cost, and one that can only possibly be tolerated because of the name that’s on it. Granted, the UB-Xa isn’t available yet, but according to Uli Behringer it will sell for about US$1500. That’s less than one third the cost of an OB-X8, and on many levels it is a technically more advanced copy of the heyday Oberheim “OB” synths than the OB-X8 is.

          Your comment “Suggesting that this is because buyers are ‘dumb’ indicates either profound ignorance or an over-inflated ego” is predicated on a very faulty assumption (not necessarily about my ego, though 🙂 ). I have no problems with “high-end” synths as a class, and in fact, own a number of them. My problem with many of them (the OB-X8 probably being the most outrageous example) is the capitalization on personal or brand names as a basis for setting a price point. The best example of this is the 2600 clones which can be evaluated on an apples for apples basis. Both the Korg and the Behringer synths are unabashed clones of the original ARPs. Outside from subtle aesthetics, the only thing that differentiates them is price and the name that is stenciled on their faces. The brand name “Korg”, apparently in some people’s minds, is worth more than the brand name “Behringer”. As a devout capitalist, I see nothing wrong with a company exploiting those kinds or “advantages”. However, their ability to do so is fueled by the consumer who is willing to pay so much more for what amounts to a little stenciling of a brand name on the product. To rephrase the final sentence of the post to which you replied …. Companies will continue to release outrageously priced pieces of equipment as long as consumers are dumb enough to purchase them when there are (or will be) more than acceptable alternatives available at much lower prices. Own a “piece of history”, my ass!

          1. Again, what Behringer, or other large companies can do is not relevant. The new Oberheim is a relatively small operation, such as Moog or DSI. The price reflects this IMO.

  15. Wow. Now I know why I do not venture into these comment groups very often. The dude or dudette whom declared “the market has spoken” is right on. I sold my OB8 and DSX together for the price of the OB-X8 AND a Jupiter X. Happy? You bet. They are in good company: EML101, Voyager XL, JD800, and ’73 2600.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *