!ATTENTION!: Video comparing DIVA to Juno 60 Directly!

[javd007]

Thank you. The music on YouTube is god awful lol look at some of my posts for my professional songs. Many people message me to collaborate including one big name but I haven't really pursued anything .

[szf]

I've listened to those too, great retro tunes You might like some of my retro inspired stuff in my sig too.. most rec'd live straight to tape.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by Teknobeam

tactile interface
that tangible factor
without having to fire up a PC or a Mac

Thank goodness these things are far easier to solve than finding the right algorithm!

Originally Posted by javd007

Ugh no. You did not get my point. it's close, close. That's all. I don't use software at all. I've never used a vst, and won't.

So what made you install this one?

[audioconsult]

always this bullshit tests.. with the camare mike

and 90 % close? says who? the expert guy with the super test video?

[Analog Prophet]

Not 100%, but close enough to me. Nice work, thanks

[Brassica]

Come on, give the guy a break.. he's doing a good service. We could clearly hear the differences or similarities. The "close" bit is just his opinion..

I'm sure Diva would sound better than the Juno with some tweaking. Just because a synth has been used extensively in music of the last god knows how many years, doesn't make it some benchmark for new synths to aspire to.

I don't think people realise the reason why they think a synth sounds good. IMO, it's because they've heard that sound somewhere before, therefore it's reassuring to use it for their own music. That's not real creativity in my eyes, just "a study". A bit like watercolour painting of fields and fruit... *yawn*.

[audioconsult]

i ve tested diva and it has the same glassy digital sound as all the other plug ins.. so comparing it with real analogs is a total fail anyway especially when i hear 90% figures.. its at best 50% but in my world where something sounds either analog or digital thats a plain 0%.. or 100% digital...

compare it with other plugs and you might have some usefull figures ..is it better sounding than other plugs? thats the question...

but please stop the bullshit to declare analog synths as emulated digitally..
we far from that still.. and by now i doubt that it can be achieved at all.

[Synth Buddha]

Originally Posted by audioconsult

i ve tested diva and it has the same glassy digital sound as all the other plug ins.

And the fact that not more people have noticed that has gotten me interested in pursuing a ****ing doctorate degree in psychology. Diva sounds like a virtual analog software synth, plain and simple. In some respects it's obviously a great leap forward, and you can't argue that the sound quality isn't there, but it still sounds like a modelling synth. And it's definitely my least favorite U-He synth - I absolutely LOVE Zebra and Ace. I just don't care much for bullshit.

To each their own, though. I can see why people love Diva, it just doesn't work all that well for me, and I think that in some respects it's quite overrated.

[thermos]

To the op, I bet you would find the Tal UNO-LX to be closer than what you got to with diva. I had a Juno 60, and was never particularly fond of it (compared to what it was worth). So far I am quite happy with the $35 plug as a replacement. Not the same depth in a track, but pretty darn good for software.

[Analog Prophet]

I am an analog purist that love my Moogs, Oberheim, Yamaha etc pure analog classic synths. But more than that I am a musician, producer and music lover and in the context of music no one care if a sound is analog or digital generated - if the music and the sounds are good then the sound source is good - and vice versa. I am sick of all crap comming up from people saying that everything else than analog generated sounds are crap - most of them (of respect for some I dont say all) just talk xxxxxxxx (put in some appropriate word of own choise here) but very rare able to make some good music that brings something magic

Come on, this comparison of Juno-60 and Diva was excellent and in the context of music with 50-100 tracks, compressors, EQs, delay, reverbs, enhancer, limiter and mastering no one can tell the difference between software and hardware in a such comparison as this one (but in some not so good emulations many still can) or what cables or valves in the tube compressor that was used.

Sorry, I was a little bit upset - now I have calm down again

[audioconsult]

i am no analog purist but i am sick of plug in propaganda

[atma]

i agree that Diva is THE best softsynth analog emulation ever made. but i also think the TAL emulation is somewhat closer to an actual juno.

[yourmajesty]

Juno 60 v. Tal-U-No-Lx

Juno 60 vs TAL-U-NO-LX by TAL - Togu Audio Line on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

there's also the wav on:
http://kunz.corrupt.ch/products/tal-u-no-lx

[ionian]

Regards,
Frank

[nms]

Originally Posted by Analog Prophet

in the context of music with 50-100 tracks, compressors, EQs, delay, reverbs, enhancer, limiter and mastering no one can tell the difference between software and hardware in a such comparison

I've always found that to be the biggest cop out farce. You're fooling yourself if you think they won't still sound different. Maybe if you're burying stuff back in the mix but people who use and love analogs generally use them in a more prominently featured mannner as a key characteristic of their sound.

I have Gary Numan's Virus TI recreation of his original Polymoog patches. Anyone wanna bet on whether the difference can be spotted a mile away?

Oh and that UNO chorus definitely doesn't sound like the Junos. I've never heard one that does which is why I did an external audio input mod on mine.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by audioconsult

i am no analog purist but i am sick of plug in propaganda

You should be happy with plugin propaganda because it means fewer people looking for the originals.

Originally Posted by nms

I've always found that to be the biggest cop out farce. You're fooling yourself if you think they won't still sound different.

Sound is not the issue, interface is. You're not going to be playing a VST in the same way simply because of the fact that you can't help but be reminded that there's a computer in front of you.

With a Juno (or any other knobby 80s/70s synth) you grab a slider, any slider; your muscle memory knows whether you're reaching for the cutoff or the attack or whatever, and you yank it up or down, because the sliders were built in a time where quality was still somewhat important, and you know you can't do anything wrong because the Juno's such a safe synth with constrained modulation ranges. Compare that to the flimsy knobs on most controllers where you have no idea whether you're reaching for the attack or cutoff - you always have to check the label, and they're ordered in a grid instead of grouped logically - and the range does not match; you're going to approach that in a completely different way.

So you're going to play in a different way, and it's not going to be as enjoyable, and your ears - and more importantly, your perception - are going to be influenced by that.

[jbuonacc]

Originally Posted by nms

You're fooling yourself if you think they won't still sound different.

you're fooling yourself if you think that it really matters (in most cases). there's some very raw sounding analogs that have a unique character which would be hard to replicate, but they're pretty rare to begin with. the difference between the Juno-60/106 and the new TAL emulation isn't enough to be worth mentioning.

I have Gary Numan's Virus TI recreation of his original Polymoog patches. Anyone wanna bet on whether the difference can be spotted a mile away?

not a big surprise there, does the Virus TI claim to emulate any characteristics of the PolyMoog?

[nms]

lol. It makes as much sense as going into any pro studio and telling the engineers it doesn't matter what mics they use or whether they use their favorite analog gear vs computer emulations.

I'm pretty sure the mastering forum guys would have a bit to say if you suggested no one will hear the difference in the finished product if they just used VST's instead of their tens of thousands worth of hardware.

[Analog Prophet]

Well, this is a little weired: Finding myself defending software analog sound while I am an analog synth freak

But what I mean is that new technology is not a threat but fantastic possibilities for a synth- and music lover as I. My point is that everything old (or new) analog is not good just because its analog and everything new "analog" software is not bad just because it is not analog generated and has wooden panels (but I love wooden panels and can't breath music without them).

Just to study synth sound in white coat, loupe through an oscilloscope is just boring to me and far away from context of the soul in the music produced with differnt kind of analog sounding intruments. And yes, there is still some magic with a real analog synth that the software does not have - yet.

Diva or Juno-60, they booth sounds great to me. But if I could chose one of them as a gift would like to receive the Juno-60 - it has wooden panels, but not the Diva.

[flufftronix]

Originally Posted by nms

I'm pretty sure the mastering forum guys would have a bit to say if you suggested no one will hear the difference in the finished product if they just used VST's instead of their tens of thousands worth of hardware.

I think the point though is that if there's quality gear and skill at the mixing and mastering stages, details like lack of "brilliance" brightness, etc can be corrected later on. So many soft synths sound SO much better (and authentic) once run through outboard gear or analog modeled tape distortion, compressors, eq, etc.

This usually means more time treating soft synths.. which is what most of the difference between analog vs. analog modeling comes down to for me. Digital is so much more versatile, but analog obviously already sounds like analog. Strokes and folks and what nots.

[audioconsult]

Originally Posted by goldphinga

not even close to the Juno..

the tal is pretty close.. theire freeware is actually among the few plug ins i ever used in a track because it actually moddled the envelopes pretty well..

maybe i buy the new one..

[audioconsult]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

You should be happy with plugin propaganda because it means fewer people looking for the originals.

when i look at the actual second hand market prices and the flood of pseudo electronic music producers ( in the sense that they just copy and use presets..a plug in user is a preset user and even when they got the original hardware the first thing they do is to install the old factory sounds..) So i would think that the opposite is the case..

after some time itb only they get that they miss out on something and therfore we have more people hunting analog synths than ever..

When they would sell them again after beeing thru with the hobby phase that wouldnt be a problem really and the rise in prices just temporarily ... but as it looks.. hunters and gatherers.. the gatherers keep theire stuff until they die.. So the originals get more and more rare..

anyway.. not a too big problem because there was never more analog synths on the market right now.. and even the plug ins get more and more useable..

my main synths theese days are actually digital hardware.. nord modulars and a dx7... But lately had an old oberheim 4 voice in the stucio and the magic that machine creates not only have given me the best sequence i had in years.. it also was really shaking my walls and resisted to be recorded digitally without significant loss.. quite an experience..

[tehlord]

Originally Posted by javd007

Not to mention diva has no physical knobs, monetary value etc...

A used Diva license is worth about 60-70% of the new price.

Go over to KVR to see how long a for sale ad lasts, not long.

[audioconsult]

Originally Posted by tehlord

A used Diva license is worth about 60-70% of the new price.

Go over to KVR to see how long a for sale ad lasts, not long.

so there are so many fs adds? doesnt that tell a story too?

for a juno 106 i bought maybe 4 years ago i payed 250.-

for a juno 6 half a year ago 350.-


how much are the emulation plug ins? and dont tell me that i can use them 30 times in a track.. ther is not enough space in my tracks to use 30 junos..and i prefer to do the drums with other synths.

[Analog Prophet]

Originally Posted by nms

I'm pretty sure the mastering forum guys would have a bit to say if you suggested no one will hear the difference in the finished product if they just used VST's instead of their tens of thousands worth of hardware.

In real life there are more crucial things to focus on in a mastering situation.

I don't say that there's no difference between the Juno-60 and DIVA, but Diva has made a rel good work to emulate some analog synths.

But don't you know that there are also differences between different pieces of hardware analog synths of same brand and model and range of serial number? These differences are sometimes slight and sometimes more obvious - more than the difference between this Juno-106 and Diva.

[clusterchord]

Originally Posted by Analog Prophet

I am an analog purist that love my Moogs, Oberheim, Yamaha etc pure analog classic synths. But more than that I am a musician, producer and music lover and in the context of music no one care if a sound is analog or digital generated - if the music and the sounds are good then the sound source is good - and vice versa. I am sick of all crap comming up from people saying that everything else than analog generated sounds are crap - most of them (of respect for some I dont say all) just talk xxxxxxxx (put in some appropriate word of own choise here) but very rare able to make some good music that brings something magic

reading between the lines of your post, what you're really telling us that you are the guy who does makes good music that brings something magic

and that if you, the self-proclaimed purist, a reference point for whats analog what isnt, say Diva is ok - it must be ok.

nice.


honestly who knows, it might even be true on both accounts.. or it might not.. hell if i care, but it's just the way you say it..

[Analog Prophet]

Originally Posted by clusterchord

reading between the lines of your post, what you're really telling us that you are the guy who does makes good music that brings something magic

and that if you, the self-proclaimed purist, a reference point for whats analog what isnt, say Diva is ok - it must be ok.

nice.


honestly who knows, it might even be true on both accounts.. or it might not.. hell if i care, but it's just the way you say it..

Please, read on the lines instead of between them and you get the message.

[javd007]

Everyone keeps saying 106. You guys do realize its a Juno 60 in the video right? Lol

[Synth Buddha]

Originally Posted by javd007

Everyone keeps saying 106. You guys do realize its a Juno 60 in the video right? Lol

There are those that would have you believe that those synths also, ahem, "sound the same."

[Analog Prophet]

Originally Posted by Synth Buddha

There are those that would have you believe that those synths also, ahem, "sound the same."

Juno-106 was supposed to be the successor of Juno-60, but the big mistake was to replace the VCO to DCO and some other components. Juno-60 sounds great, but Juno-106 became Junk-106 in my ears.

I a Juno-60 when it first was released and loved it. Later on I had Juno-106 (in different periods), but the sound was as plastic as the panel to me. well, some sounds are really good, but the over all sound does not appeal to me.

Yes, they sound different.