The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Analogue vs Digital - Diva and OB8 test Keyboard Synthesizers
View Poll Results: Which synth is First in the 8 bar cycle?
Diva
92 Votes - 51.11%
OB8
88 Votes - 48.89%
Voters: 180. You may not vote on this poll

Old 23rd July 2014
  #421
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Actually that exactly what I am saying- it does replace hardware and goes beyond it.
But it's still not capable of some analogue sounding PWM as you can see by those who were able to tell which is which by listening to that PWM sound.

What you are saying basically is wishful thinking.

You should be happy enough with the fact that no VA Hardware should be able to outperform DIVA
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #422
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
Well, this is not true really. Most digital synths still alias disastrously, especially on FM or sync sounds. This is a general problem with digital signal processing, that most certainly has not been defeated.

If you run your daw at 192kHz and use lots of oversampling it's better, but takes a lot of processing power.
Dodgy aliasing can be such a cool sound though.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #423
Gear Maniac
 

Diva has a matrix to make each voice sound a bit different. I wonder if that was used in this test?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #424
Lives for gear
 
WozNYC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by haze015 View Post
Dodgy aliasing can be such a cool sound though.
Agreed. I love early Depeche Mode records where you can hear samples pitched way down on those Emax samplers with that awesome clock noise.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #425
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Prophet View Post
Actually then you miss the whole point as it's only in the context of music that a sound is interesting. Oscilloscope musicians are not real musicians, just failed musicians.
My take on the whole thing is that it doesn't matter what someone else thinks. I prefer analog. Do the two instruments in the clip sound similar... yes. Does that change my opinion... no.

I couldn't care less what some kid thinks he hears in his headphones. I don't care what the audience thinks they hear from 100 yards. It's about how it feels to me. Whether I'm pressing the keys of my M-Audio Oxygen49, or a Juno-6, or a Prophet5, it feels different.

Same speakers, same mixer, it feels different. It might not feel different to the other guy. The other guy might prefer the one I don't.

That's fine with me.


Having said all that, there's no way I could afford all the different gear that I want & I don't have the place for it all either. Luckily I believe software is getting close enough to be close enough.

I'm not particularly a fan of Diva, but I've only been looking at it as a Moog emulator, which I think it's not very good. However, the idea about mixing & matching Moog oscillators, with Juno Filters, & all the other combinations is pretty intriguing.
6
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #426
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Sorry, the distinction here is between analogue and not-analogue sound.

The claim is that an analogue synth a priori sounds "better" by virtue of its analogue circuitry, that apparently has qualities that cannot be emulated by digital (according to you analogue defenders).

You can't suddenly say that only some analogues can be used for comparisons as long as you claim that analogue is better than digital at being analogue.

That is your copout.
Well, I never said anything else. Search this forum. Analog a priori sounding better is a straw man.

If you delve into the technical details, you'll find reasons why those modern synths sound so mediocre, and why the sound doesn't reflect the potentiol of "analog". And yes, better has real relevance here - check out the examples I posted in the other thread. The modern output op amp produces a more even sound, but add reverb and the recording using the technically inferior one works much better.

The things I find desireable in analog sound (be it processing or synthesis) somehow don't appear in emulations, probably because their complexity and nonlinear behaviour is far to complicated for current processors. After all, it still takes about 10 minutes to calculate one second of audio to simulate a fairly simple electronic circuit in-depth.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #427
Gear Maniac
 

DSP Oscs just need a couple of internal envelopes that randoms parameters to create the effect of analog Oscs. Right? :P
Old 23rd July 2014
  #428
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJB06 View Post
OB8, but also to my ears the first clip as well as being bright sounding the envelope snap was quite unlike an Oberheim (which are generally a bit lumpy sounding)
Actually Diva has correct envelopes. The problem is in Oberheim OB-8's service manual.

To elaborate a bit more (and i have noticed people are repeating this over and over about OB-8 envelopes being, lumpy, sluggish, etc). There is an error on how to calibrate envelopes, and a lot of units are simply not calibrated right. I ensure you that CEM3310 can get quite snapy in OB-8 when calibrated correctly! This assumes the unit has been refurbished as well (caps replaced, etc.).

And for all of those who aren't happy with their envelopes in OB-8, don't worry, there's nothing wrong with your machine, neither OB-8 has sluggish envelopes. Just calibrate them correctly!

http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufa....envelopes.txt
2
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #429
Lives for gear
 

Once I knew the answer it confirmed what I already knew - that PC kills Mac every time baby.
2
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #430
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlestickz View Post
I see analog synths becoming another niche area of collecting.
That's what people were saying in the 80's
2
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #431
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
That's what people were saying in the 80's
A lot of todays Analogs will be considered crap in the same amount of time as your mobile phone will. The market is becoming saturated and hence there's a lot of crap being developed because you can basically just solder a couple of transistors etc together and sell an analog synth.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #432
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Expectation is the right word here. You expect something, hence you want to hear it that way.

I could as well say, "that Minimoog used there does not stand a chance against the one we used to model Diva on. We have a handpicked Minimoog with such a bold quality, there's only a handful in existance that sound as good."

I'll happily admit though that Diva sounds nothing like an unserviced early serial Minimoog.

Yet.
Well, to my ears that Minimoog sounds like a Minimoog. Not only like a 30 year old Minimoog, but also the Minimoogs recorded over 30 years ago on countless records.

But I'd be very interested to hear comparisons of Diva with your "golden" Minimoog.

Also, I realize Bob Moog wanted to improve on his original design with the Voyager, but unfortunately to me that instrument is not interesting sonically.

And I also prefer the real JP8 in those examples. There's this elusive "something" in the sound the emulations always lack.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #433
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthetic Wav View Post
if ff400 sound like FF800 it make everything you record sound more sterile making a test like this harder :D

i m not there to say the test is invalid but converters can color the sound a fair amount.
What you're saying opposes the findings of scientific double-blind test. Who should I believe - the majority of scientists or some unknown guy on the internet?

Plus it was fairly easy to tell which is which (if you knew the critical aspects of any digital emulation)

Plus your statement didn't even make sense if it didn't oppose the scientific findings: If the interface influences the sound significantly and if only one source went through the converters it would become easier, not more difficult, to tell which is which.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #434
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
The way we went about it was this: We created the analogue model for each component (VCO/VCF/VCA/Envs) based on the circuit schematics. Then we tweaked each of it to sound exactly the same as the vintage synth (JP-8, JP-6, Juno 60, alpha Juno2, 2 x MS-20 (both revisions), Hans Zimmer's Minimoog and our Little Phatty (osc waveforms only). Some vintage synths have identical parts, so we did these only once. Then we matched gains to make modules interchangable.

In a final step, we made each model sound better to our ears. Less "boxy", more "3D", more character. This is especially true for the Uhbie filter which came in later

That's of course controversial and there'll always be someone who begs to differ. But that doesn't really matter. We're certain that Diva sounds better than any of the synths we have used as reference, right here, in our studio.
(emphasis added)

I'm not sure if I understand this correctly but are you saying Diva actually sounds better than the very synths it's designed to emulate -- that it has moved beyond "as good as real analog" into the realm of "better than real analog?"
3
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #435
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
What you're saying opposes the findings of scientific double-blind test. Who should I believe - the majority of scientists or some unknown guy on the internet?

Plus it was fairly easy to tell which is which (if you knew the critical aspects of any digital emulation)
Blablabla. Show me papers comparing RME converters to high end converters!

Building a good converter is a non-trivial task and costly mainly because of the requirements in terms of power filtering and clocking. The bulk of converters has textbook implimentation of reference designs combined with corners cut everywhere, especially in the PSU and clocking department and often compromises made for low power consumption.

So what they do is optimize performance for certain specifications like distortion measured with sine waves at 1khz and low noise, while ignoring other ones important for human perception like time-domain and phase response, since these are harder to get right, see above.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #436
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
The problem is, it isn't so anymore.

As this test clearly shows. People can hear differences between the two synths used, but they can't in fact determine which source is analogue and which is digital.
Yes they can. Since when does 50% equal 0%?

Even when I take into account my mediocre performance on that dreadful djanthonyw test from last year, I'm still averaging about 85% accuracy on these silly analog vs digital A/B tests. If you doubt me, feel free to rummage through my 4000+ posts. heh

The fact is, I can tell a difference -- and so can others. Not always, of course, but enough to be convinced there is still value in using genuine analog instruments.
3
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #437
Lives for gear
 
pulsar modular's Avatar
 

I'm with the rompler crowd...I mean..this is really amazing..

No one will ever need an analog synth. Diva can do ANYTHING!
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #438
Lives for gear
 

I'm still running osx4, because if I upgrade I lose a lot of plugs like Hartmann nuke, which cost 1000.00. That is part of the cons of software. Sure, my vintage synth may need repairs at some point, and periodic maintenance, ( so do cars), but I do not have to worry about upgrades and running out of resources, hard drive failure, getting stuck at an os due to lack of company support, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I use plugins, and am very thankful that there are companies building them, but, to say analog is an outdated concept, is very short sided,IMHO.
If that is the case, why are companies, and individuals, as opie, trying so hard to emulate analog sounds?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #439
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
Yes they can. Since when does 50% equal 0%?
Ever since statistics were invented.
(I know, you are a musician, so you don't need to know this )

But statistically speaking a 50/50 outcome between two choices means that the results rely on pure chance.

I.e. 100% of people were guessing or in other words 0% got it right. heh
3
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #440
Lives for gear
 
pointsource's Avatar
 

good job, they sound exactly the same.

I listened thru sennhiser headphones and at my Adams A8X, even paying close attention is hard to tell what is what so, this just shows that the analog x digital debate is a lot of bull**** nowadays.
2
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #441
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
Blablabla. Show me papers comparing RME converters to high end converters!

Building a good converter is a non-trivial task and costly mainly because of the requirements in terms of power filtering and clocking. The bulk of converters has textbook implimentation of reference designs combined with corners cut everywhere, especially in the PSU and clocking department and often compromises made for low power consumption.

So what they do is optimize performance for certain specifications like distortion measured with sine waves at 1khz and low noise, while ignoring other ones important for human perception like time-domain and phase response, since these are harder to get right, see above.
Time-domain response is ignored by companies like RME? Time-domain response is a part of human perception, not an artificial technical measure to characterize a system?

Now who is up for blablabla

I'm out
Old 23rd July 2014
  #442
Lives for gear
 
danielb's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post

The fact is, I can tell a difference -- and so can others. Not always, of course, but enough to be convinced there is still value in using genuine analog instruments.
I could eventually hear a difference. However, for there to be intrinsic value in using genuine analogue instruments you have to judge them to be better, rather than just different. Even after I homed in on the minuscule difference, there was no way I could consider one to be superior over the other.

I quite appreciate the advantages of hardware - I actually like hardware synths more than software (there, I said it...) for a variety of reasons. However it does seem that the automatic assumption that hardware actually sounds better is a little shakier than it used to be.

Just playing devil's advocate...

D.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #443
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointsource View Post
good job, they sound exactly the same.

I listened thru sennhiser headphones and at my Adams A8X, even paying close attention is hard to tell what is what so, this just shows that the analog x digital debate is a lot of bull**** nowadays.
Well they didn't to me on my laptop speakers. Very similar, but not exactly the same.

However, I got it wrong.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #444
Lives for gear
 

Yeah i know about the calibration Don, i had James Walker do it when he was servicing an OB8 i had some years back.
But still the Oberheim sound in general is a bit fat and lumpy and thats certainly not a criticism.
The JP8 being a bit more precise (not as much low end girth) and has sharper envelopes, its as much the shape of the curve i think rather than the ultimate speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
Actually Diva has correct envelopes. The problem is in Oberheim OB-8's service manual.

To elaborate a bit more (and i have noticed people are repeating this over and over about OB-8 envelopes being, lumpy, sluggish, etc). There is an error on how to calibrate envelopes, and a lot of units are simply not calibrated right. I ensure you that CEM3310 can get quite snapy in OB-8 when calibrated correctly! This assumes the unit has been refurbished as well (caps replaced, etc.).

And for all of those who aren't happy with their envelopes in OB-8, don't worry, there's nothing wrong with your machine, neither OB-8 has sluggish envelopes. Just calibrate them correctly!

http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufa....envelopes.txt
Old 23rd July 2014
  #445
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Ever since statistics were invented.
(I know, you are a musician, so you don't need to know this )

But statistically speaking a 50/50 outcome between two choices means that the results rely on pure chance.

I.e. 100% of people were guessing or in other words 0% got it right. heh
You're dodging the issue with games, grumphh.

You know full well there are people who can still tell the difference.

You should also know how easy it is to lie with statistics.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #446
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielb View Post
I could eventually hear a difference. However, for there to be intrinsic value in using genuine analogue instruments you have to judge them to be better, rather than just different. Even after I homed in on the minuscule difference, there was no way I could consider one to be superior over the other.

I quite appreciate the advantages of hardware - I actually like hardware synths more than software (there, I said it...) for a variety of reasons. However it does seem that the automatic assumption that hardware actually sounds better is a little shakier than it used to be.

Just playing devil's advocate...

D.
that's very true but the biggest assumption we all make is that our own personal idea of what's better is better for everyone else.I do this all the time via a series of rants on this forum , better for me is anything that keeps me away from a computer when making music or art no matter how good it sounds .

>for there to be intrinsic value in using genuine analogue instruments you have to judge them to be better, rather than just different.

well this is my point , whats better ? better sound ? what about the user experience when working with a hardware synth ? i find them better in the sense i get more pleasure from hardware than software , i find computers and software make me feel like a office clerk , better ? i judge hardware better not only in sound but more in pleasure of use and also the process.

Its such a cold and boring experience using a software synth compared to a hardware one and then with vintage gear you have a further depth of experience which for me is better and cannot be had from working with a computer.

My feeling is computers tend to make humans more mentally fixated , this then leads to more mentally fixated over worked music , personally i do not find this a better sound or music but the real reason in the 80's and 90's we had tons of amazing music and now ? now we have a million tutorials on eq and using vst to achieve ' that polished turd ' music which moves no one but mix engineer / musicians who became lost in their daw and deaf as a result.

My problem with software is that it is software and software turns artists or many into lab technicians and mentally fixated deaf idiots.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #447
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
You know full well there are people who can still tell the difference.
No games heh

There definitely is a difference - but again, guessing was just a huge part of this test.

Because this test doesn't show that 50% of people here can reliably distinguish between a and d but rather that people have just been guessing more or less randomly*.



* The most fun part of this thread is to see those that guessed wrong try to explain why they didn't get it heh heh
2
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #448
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
The most fun part on this thread is people arguing about audible differences between professional-grade audio interfaces while not being able to tell the - in comparison much more obvious - difference from the listening test above.

Still can't get over that one
Old 23rd July 2014
  #449
Quote:
Originally Posted by justmull View Post
Goddam it I voted on this poll yesterday but didn't comment and can't remember what I voted - I think I put Diva first.
Has it been answered yet (can't be bothered combing through 14 pages of posts)? Great testament to Diva though - one great sounding VST.
Just click on the number to the right of the poll, you will see who voted what. Yes you voted in the lucky side.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #450
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksp View Post
Diva ? its a plugin and no matter now good it sounds it does not interest me until its in its own case / hardware and outside the word processor.

I still personally think you can here the word processor mentality in its character
and its pretty pathetic we spend some much time trying to make software sound almost as good as synths did 20 years ago.
why...???
1
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump