Obsidian v cpu hungry analogue modeling synths?
It’s very early to judge obsidian, but I’m already falling in love with it. There is one specific aspect of it where I have a small suggestion about which I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts.
As flexible as obsidian is, I suspect many people will end up finding room for occasional use of cpu hungry analogue modeling synths (my personal favorite are DRC (now testing the auv3 beta) and Model 15) alongside obsidian every now and then.
What I’m wondering about is this: am I wrong to suspect that the one area where obsidian stands to gain the most (in comparison with those cpu hungry analogue modelers) is the filter section - e.g. by adding some oversampling options (maybe just on the analogue modeled filter shapes) for special occasions like in the internal Waveshaper effect?
(Where I’m coming from on this: saturation characteristics is a well known area where oversampling pays huge dividends by raising the threshold at which adding saturation introduces harsh aliasing artifacts. (I take it that Matt agrees given that he added oversampling options on the Waveshaper.) I’m not sure, but I suspect that having a similar 4x/8x oversampling option at least on the analogue modeled filter shapes would still keep obsidian way more cpu efficient than loading up a cpu hungry analogue modeling synth, but would go a very long way towards covering more of their territory. The other thing is: being able to pair obsidian’s awesome digital oscillator types with filters that have less noticeable aliasing artifacts when saturating would open the door to so much juicy hybrid territory..
Tl; dr: obsidian v hungry analogue modeling beasts: how much further could obsidian go in that territory with oversampling options on the analogue modeled filters?