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
  #511
Lives for gear
 

So, I guess, the bottom line is, we should not even attempt to answer, since we don't know, and can only guess. Making the experiment a waste of time.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #512
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 View Post
Keeping up with a computer is as much of a pain in the ass sometimes or more than a vintage synth. Especially when updates come so often, developers leave, new computers are needed because of an upgrade, other software, ect. So the argument of maintenance is off.
I use a certain brand of computer named after a fruit, and the amount of maintenance I have to do is very, very, very small. I buy a new one every five years or so just to take advantage of faster processors and whatnot. And I would be doing this anyway - installing OS upgrades, etc. - even if I wasn't doing music on my computer.

By the way, I probably bought my first software instrument about 9-10 years ago. Since then, I've bought about 15 of them. They all still work - every single one.

I suppose it is possible that in the coming years that a significantly new OS could be released that won't run my existing plugins. If the companies still exist, they'll get upgraded. If not, I might have to buy new ones. Buy I'll probably be buying new ones, anyway. I have every confidence that there will be great software instruments available in 2027, even if my old ones from 2008 don't work any more.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #513
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haze015 View Post
I heard a difference in this test, just got it wrong.

But that was a test where people who claimed to hear a difference in the quality of music which has had brick wall limiting used on it couldn't hear a difference. It was the same approach with this one, A/Bing between both and not a single person got it right. I could hear a difference, but got to wonder how much of it was psychological from knowing what I'd done.

Hoping to expand on that experiment, even I did not expect that result.
If you're mixing it yourself, you're listening to the same thing over and over. You are inevitably going to hear more and more nuances than someone hearing something only once*– even to the point of creating them once you realise you had the EQ on bypass.

It took me several goes on the test to discern a difference – it just took that long for the brain cells to register how the sound was changing.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #514
227861
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
I use a certain brand of computer named after a fruit, and the amount of maintenance I have to do is very, very, very small. I buy a new one every five years or so just to take advantage of faster processors and whatnot. And I would be doing this anyway - installing OS upgrades, etc. - even if I wasn't doing music on my computer.

By the way, I probably bought my first software instrument about 9-10 years ago. Since then, I've bought about 15 of them. They all still work - every single one.

I suppose it is possible that in the coming years that a significantly new OS could be released that won't run my existing plugins. If the companies still exist, they'll get upgraded. If not, I might have to buy new ones. Buy I'll probably be buying new ones, anyway. I have every confidence that there will be great software instruments available in 2027, even if my old ones from 2008 don't work any more.
Yeah but, things are different now. Meaning within the past few years. Things are moving faster in the tech world and they are definitely tying people's hands with software only downloads from the Apple App store and especially everything needing to connect to the internet to be activated.

I use Apple's too. In fact I have 3 in the house alone and more in my office. But Apple is becoming much more worse requiring updates and one to buy new hardware, more than they ever have before. 100% sure about that. They are locking people into this Apple model way of working. If you have an iPhone you will need quite a newer version of iTunes to keep it working and updates. Same with the iPad. They're going to keep Apple users pushing forward to keep buying new macs and it's going to get worse.

I've been using Mac's since 1998. FYI

As people get tied to the cloud and as there are software only download stores now for these computers, people will have no choice but to constantly upgrade and buy newer.

Don't believe me, just see what's happening to your iPhone.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #515
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If plugins can survive, they may find

In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need any HW which (one day) could die
Everything you need to track down and play
Is the software you installed today
3
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #516
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 View Post
But Apple is becoming much more worse[...]
Very true. Just a few weeks after Steve was gone they were rolling out an update for iTunes which doesn't meet their own usability criteria as touted in their own online resources. This already revealed that they already had changed the direction at that time. Before that they were absolutely obsessed with usability. At the same time there have been various decisions which changed the route they were on before.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #517
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
So, you're essentially saying no one on gearslutz knows what they are talking about? Or we are all tone deaf? Wow, what a crazy assumption. Not one person?
For the sake of argument, definitely heh

...just take a look at the poll results
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #518
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
I recently even bought an analogue EQ and compressor, mainly to be sure they'll survive my current computer (and because they sound excellent). Some software licenses might even not survive a HD crash. With software I clearly prefer stuff which utilizes no dongle, no internet connections on production machines and which allow for installation on multiple devices (while the vendor can do nothing but pray that the customer will not give a copy to someone else). If they offer you "lifetime support" (e.g. new keys for challenge-response as needed) I am confident with a company. But a lot of quality software nowadays utilizes 3rd party copytheft-protection technology which surely will become insecure in just a few years (as always with security-relevant technology). I doubt that one can be sure that all that stuff will survive long time without being paid for again.
That's a good point. In the distant future you need a quantum computer in order to crack the long gone ilok copyright protection that would otherwise bar you from running your software on a windows/osx emulation.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #519
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
For the sake of argument, definitely heh

...just take a look at the poll results
You're cracking me up..... Stop. Lol.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #520
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
One day all CA3080s, all CEM chips and all original Roland filter chips will be gone. Then suddenly a highly sought after vintage synth becomes nothing but a memory, or a source of remaining parts to keep another alive.
And then one day John Smith decides to clone a Roland voice and filter chip.

Ooops.... wait, happened already: 80017A clone

Most of these "special" chips are nothing but exponential converter and some basic RC components.

There's really nothing magical hidden inside.

Z80 might be tricky though....
5
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #521
227861
Guest
To be fair to my arguements

Honestly I cringe when I see NEW hardware come out that requires one to connect to a computer to tweak internal settings. In the future those too will be a problem.
2
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #522
In 2525, you won't need a vst emulation of an analogue synth, you'll just print the real thing.
2
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #523
Lives for gear
 
droolmaster0's Avatar
 

didn't listen and don't care.

I don't find that listening to these sorts of 'tests' is the same as actually sitting down at an instrument and seeing how it responds to the things that I like to do - some of them onerous and strange...
4
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #524
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
In 2525, you won't need a vst emulation of an analogue synth, you'll just print the real thing.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #525
227861
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
didn't listen and don't care.

I don't find that listening to these sorts of 'tests' is the same as actually sitting down at an instrument and seeing how it responds to the things that I like to do - some of them onerous and strange...
That's my biggest problem with this thread. The people who do these tests, put down hardware, or complain about the inconveniences and limitations, don't really GET what you're saying. Agree with you and feel the same way.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #526
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
nice work; they sound identical to me.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #527
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Hey guys, how's it going? Taking a break now after a merry bit of music making and stumbled across this video. Great synth, but it's a little pricey. Can somebody tell me which plugin I should use to get this sound? Thanks.

3
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #528
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
And then one day John Smith decides to clone a Roland voice and filter chip.
That's basically what everyone needs on a big scale. Crack all those designs wide open, it's not like anyone's still making money with that kind of thing except for the people selling NOS for a dozen times the price (which I don't fault them for, that's the rule of the market - small supply, small demand).
Quote:
Z80 might be tricky though....
Tons of people are making Z80s but the real insanity is clinging to a Z80 while all it does is run-of-the-mill voice assignment, memory management and interface scanning.

All those upgrades - JX3P, 106, Kiwisix - all that's required is an identical pin layout, not an identical CPU. In most cases there's even enough room for an extra daughterboard.

The only thing holding anyone back from doing a full upgrade for JP8s is the fact that they're expensive and rare. JX3Ps? Cheap. Juno-60s? Cheap. Polysix? You get the idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 View Post
Keeping up with a computer is as much of a pain in the ass sometimes or more than a vintage synth. Especially when updates come so often, developers leave, new computers are needed because of an upgrade, other software, ect. So the argument of maintenance is off.
Calling bull**** in the nicest way possible. But I'm biased because I know how to build and maintain my own

You do not have to update every time a DAW or plugin mfg sends out an e-mail that they've increased to version x.+1, and in lots of cases it doesn't matter. Oh, Apple rolls out a new OS? Look at all the ****s I give, you're not forced to update. That's why pro studios lag one version; they first want to make sure all their stuff still runs on the next and use a canary for that. For regular users there's KVR who's more than willing to play canary for you. In older studios you couldn't do your job without knowing something about the icky guts; DAW maintenance is a modern-day skill that's just as indispensable. It's not hard. It's not time-consuming. Even with the best techs I've lost my synths for a month - that kind of downtime for computers would require a decade of use for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
IMO that would not be a good test. The final "hit or miss" would depend on a single sound alone. It is always possible to dial in sound which is show one of the sources more or less beneficial than the other one. However, a large amount of separate tests could work & even tell us, which sources show larger and which show smaller differences. But the (recent) test itself failed, as the majority of answers outweighs those who were most likely able to tell which is which in the poll. So let's get the test itself right first before we think of making it more complicated.
What you want to do is rule out luck.

With the example SWAN gave you can do a random guess and still have 50% chance to get it right. The fact that the pattern was repeated doesn't matter much but gives the ears an opportunity to get used to the character, which is good, because it rules out bad initial guesses.

This test is a coin flip; heads or tails. With any additional random switch, the lucky guess is reduced with 50% every time you repeat it. "heads tails tails heads" is just as random as "tails tails tails tails" even though we see significance in the latter; gambler's fallacy says that it should be "tails" the fifth time with the second sequence even if there's no reason for it to be so - because in the end the chance is 50%, as long as the coin is not weighted. (if you're a teacher and you want to freak out people on a multiple-choice exam, make "A" the right answer 6 times in a row. You'll get lots of people looking nervously because the brain is excellent in detecting and interpreting patterns)

So everyone feeling really really proud that they got it right: congrats, you got it just as right as someone making a completely random guess, because it was only a single flip of the coin With 10 flips - 10 A/B examples - getting it right half of the time still doesn't show expertise, because it's again the same as randomly guessing on average.

By forcing people to get it right in the correct sequence - you exponentially reduce the chance of people guessing it right at random. However, you'll get fewer participants.
2
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #529
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Since Urs mentioned the tape emulation I cannot stop thinking about trying it. And U-he would allow me to stay dongle-free
Old 23rd July 2014
  #530
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
Furthermore, vsts will never have an opportunity to gain in value. They will, however, become useless. Can't say that for analogs. While their values may fluctuate, they will never reach zero. Vsts, are disposable.
Tell that to everyone who bought a Jupiter 8 for $11K in 1983 only to see it plunge in value. It's still not back at its pre-inflation new price.

Buy a Moog Little Phatty for $1200. Sell for $700. You lost $500. Buy plugin for $250. Sell for $0. You lost $250. That's half of what you lost with the other purchase (KVR marketplace shows that you don't even have to sell it for $0). Furthermore, because you didn't spend the $1200 - $250 = $950 it means you can put that money towards other nice things.

Besides, it's only "gaining in value" when you eventually sell it. Everyone claiming that they will take their synth collection to their grave is never going to see a dime of that appreciation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
Since Urs mentioned the tape emulation I cannot stop thinking about trying it. And U-he would allow me to stay dongle-free
Try it. It also works as a flanger/delay, something lots of other tape emus don't do. The only dongle I've installed was the software-only iLok thing for Eventide's Ultrachannel; for the rest I'm dongle-free.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #531
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Since the UAD Pultec emulations have been available the prices for analogue Pultec EQs only have gone up up up
Good and relatively inexpensive analogue clones are available as well nowadays. All this seems only to push the hype.

Classic analogue synths are here to stay, even if whole ICs which become obsolete have to be replaced by something else and even if DIVA will get its job done very well.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #532
Lives for gear
 

Do you think software for an obsolete os will be valuable in 40 years?jp 8 is getting close. In 40 years, a phatty may be as valuable as a rogue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
Tell that to everyone who bought a Jupiter 8 for $11K in 1983 only to see it plunge in value. It's still not back at its pre-inflation new price.

Buy a Moog Little Phatty for $1200. Sell for $700. You lost $500. Buy plugin for $250. Sell for $0. You lost $250. That's half of what you lost with the other purchase (KVR marketplace shows that you don't even have to sell it for $0). Furthermore, because you didn't spend the $1200 - $250 = $950 it means you can put that money towards other nice things.

Besides, it's only "gaining in value" when you eventually sell it. Everyone claiming that they will take their synth collection to their grave is never going to see a dime of that appreciation.



Try it. It also works as a flanger/delay, something lots of other tape emus don't do. The only dongle I've installed was the software-only iLok thing for Eventide's Ultrachannel; for the rest I'm dongle-free.
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
Since Urs mentioned the tape emulation I cannot stop thinking about trying it. And U-he would allow me to stay dongle-free
Satin is delicious.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #534
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
Do you think software for an obsolete os will be valuable in 40 years?
No, but it matters nothing for my math I buy my software assuming that it's going to be worth jack **** in 3 years or so; all the extra time I can squeeze out of it is gravy.

Quote:
jp 8 is getting close. In 40 years, a phatty may be as valuable as a rogue.
Or not. The Rogue (budget) gained value because all the cheap Minis (flagship) were already snagged up; it's why the Juno-60s are worth so much, because the supply of JP8s has dried up.

Lots of desirability is in the form factor; a small unit you can carry around wherever you want, everything nicely integrated. No cable mess like with modulars.

However, the aversion against modulars is gone; while it was exotic 15 years ago, nowadays they show up in lots of studios and when even a relatively mainstream mfg (DSI) dips their toes in the water, the signs are on the wall.

Why go for a Rogue when you can choose separate filters and oscillators that will have more power at the cost of it not being stuffed in a cute little black box with wooden sidepanels? This is an option nowadays.

Monosynths - especially if you're willing to forego memory - are not the problem. Polysynths (densely integrated, stuffed with controls) - those are the problem. To me the Modulus 002 and Pro-2 show the real problem; if you want to have lots of knobs, trying to cut down on polyphony isn't going to help much.

The bright light at the end of the tunnel is however - an OBXa only has 24 rotaries. The Pro-2 has over 40, the 002 even over 50. Reduce the number of controls with a clever menu structure and the physical size of the box, and suddenly that polysynth becomes pretty affordable. All the problems the JX10 had are solvable; instead of directly going to zero controls, take a few well-chosen ones; instead of using one poor slow CPU for everything, pick something really fast and powerful; digital envelopes are not an issue anymore, just ask Expert Sleepers (your audio interface can generate pretty fast control signals at the tune of 24-bits, 96kHz). The Shruthi filters sound really good - far preferable over the JX10 ones - and they're compact and free to clone and lots of people are making great filters nowadays, so you could even talk about licensing.

For instance - to control filter, pitch and volume ADSR, you only need 3 knobs and 4 pots, not 12 pots. To control 2 oscillators, you could use a "tabbed" approach - 3 knobs with a 2-way switch so you can control waveform, waveshape and pitch.

Or you can go balls to the wall, like with the 002, but it shows in the price.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #535
Registered User
Is there any reason to believe that in 20-30 years, anyone other than the people on this forum and the like, who will be venerable old guys by then, will be interested in the sounds made by old analog synthesizers? EDM festivals could be small affairs held for a few people in their 40's and 50's who want to waltz down memory lane. Synthesizer music could be totally "oldies" stuff that mostly only fathers and grandfathers listen to.... kinda like ELP and Gentle Giant today.

These analog synths, that were spared the dump heap and resurrected largely for EDM, could simply be left to decay in synth collections belonging to old guys, because no one really listens to that crap any more.

I have no idea what music people will be listening to in a generation or two, but there's no reason to believe that it WILL include analog synthesizers. I suppose it could, but the future is by no means guaranteed.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #536
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
In 40 years, a phatty may be as valuable as a rogue.
Only if current trends continue. In 40 years, a Phatty may be as valuable as an old black and white tube television is today.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #537
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Couldn't care less as I live now
1
Share
Old 23rd July 2014
  #538
Lives for gear
 
m127f's Avatar
 

I like Urs' comments and clear stance. Will demo his products soon.



.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #539
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Yes, in any one on one comparison we did here, Diva sounded better than its analogue counterparts. Subjectively evaluated by the peeps that were around at the time, during a period of one year or so of tweaking.
I for one believe in this. In this test it was the inconsistencies that revealed the real analog one. For bass tones it may be ok but for the brassy chord part I found the more aggressive and dissonant attack of OB8 was something I disliked. So for me Diva indeed sounded better.

But maybe there is still some truth in recent analog craze. It is actually obvious when you think how many analog monosynths have been released lately. Analog may really be better for bass. But did any manufacturer get it right? Maybe someone should create another test?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #540
Lives for gear
 
pulsar modular's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Yes, in any one on one comparison we did here, Diva sounded better than its analogue counterparts. Subjectively evaluated by the peeps that were around at the time, during a period of one year or so of tweaking.

That said, many people then missed a bit of that muffled character of aged analogue gear. This was less prominent in the machines we had around at that time, it was more audible in audio examples. Which I then mostly attributed to recording techniques (tape?), which then led to the development of a tape saturation plug-in. So, well, maybe one day we'll add that muffled sound back into Diva as an option.
Well, here's one very simple example, with Diva first, then JP8. Completely open filters, with Diva in 'divine' mode:



It's not the JP8 that sounds muffled here..
6
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump