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 24th July 2014
  #661
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
You're right, the schematics of both revisions match. But the sound in ColCoolJ's examples is that of the State Variable configuration Roland used in the JP-6, and afaiaa some MKS-80. I haven't listened to yours yet, and I don't think I will.

You should be excited. If it wasn't for the digital envelopes, the JP-6 sounds much better than the Jupiter-8. IMHO.
Curious, why would you not want to hear his, in the name of research, seems a little short sided.
Old 24th July 2014
  #662
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Of course, the hardware has something about it. I said so myself, I love the tactile feel of the gear. I'd never want to program a CS-30 emulation by mouse.

However, being able to perform with just a laptop and a small controller is also something that shouldn't be sniffed at.
Why does it have to be a small controller? People are funny, they do what they do because they want to do it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post

I don't know how he keeps all that straight in his head. But he does.



I'm sure there are hundreds of kids out there like this guy, a 42 knob 36 slider controller would be nothing for him to perform with.
Old 24th July 2014
  #663
Lives for gear
 
Acid Mitch's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderkyss View Post
Why does it have to be a small controller?.
For travelling to gigs. You can carry a small controller and laptop as hand luggage on planes which keeps costs down and stops your gear getting lost or broken by baggage handlers.
It's also far easier to use public transport when your stuff is small and light.
Old 24th July 2014
  #664
Lives for gear
 
flowthrough's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post
It's not that bad. If you have a modern i5/i7 multi-core machine and set it to take advantage of that, it's very useable.
Core2 duo here (not even i3 I'm afraid)- but good to know what's needed for it.
I may be more modern with a quad core next year (I skip technology waves).

Urs' explanation of circuit equivalency equations (circuit reduction) is fascinating, and creative- (& shows effort has been made to avoid 'over-code').
Old 24th July 2014
  #665
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by enecosse View Post
One thing around that is whilst Diva allows oscillator tuning, it doesn't do per osc drifting. It acts on the whole voice. You can use up LFO's crudely simulating it, but it'd be good to have some options there. I think Monark benefits from it.
Yup, I just checked and that's true. I'll file a FR for a switch to have individual drift (unfortunately at the expense of two more pink nose generators and lowpass filters).
Old 24th July 2014
  #666
Lives for gear
 

I have not purchased DIVA, but I did try out the demo for a while. I did like it but I ended up buying DCAM. It has enough grit to resurface the M25.
1
Share
Old 24th July 2014
  #667
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
Curious, why would you not want to hear his, in the name of research, seems a little short sided.
Because I'm not free of confirmation bias either. I would hear a test that I won't like, so why bother?
Old 24th July 2014
  #668
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synth Buddha View Post
I DO hope you are kidding.
I wasn't but I don't know you and the tone wasn't apparent. If you were being sarcastic, well then I apologize, but a simple goes a long way to denote sarcastic tone in a post.
Old 24th July 2014
  #669
I can understand it would be easy for a developer to feel at times like taking a bit of a trench mentality because there can be comments coming from all around some which may be valid - some invalid - from analogue enthusiasts. John Hodgson described the problem as a signal to noise issue...its why personally Im trying to be as fair as possible in my tests - making sure I show Diva at its best and carefully tweaked and used. And accepting the statements made by Urs about the specific machines he used - and listening with interest about the technical comments about the difference between Osc etc.

When a person who is into analogue hears a difference between the sound of two things - and the technical explanation doesnt make sense - I think the best way to further discuss it - is to provide audio which demonstrates as best as you can. Honestly - there is no point in many of us trying to engage into a technical debate with Urs...! Ive had experiences in the past where developers may have underestimated the significant of a specific component for example - in the final sound - and that has been picked up by peoples ears - as opposed to the technical logical standpoint. I still think our ears should be an important component to making great sounding instruments - of course!
2
Share
Old 24th July 2014
  #670
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
...I was wrong. But what do you think a typical listener (the end user) thinks about this test?
Good point. I was correct, but I ask the same thing. If one's ear must be trained to hear the difference (and I do believe this is not only easy, but more a matter of being educated as to what characteristics to listen for) then all bets are off. No one who's not interested in this stuff, like we are, are going to care enough to listen. I once had a girlfriend who had me pick out a stereo system for her because she swore "I can't hear the difference." I said, "well, if that's the case, why do you care what I think?" After a big kerfluffle (she thought the salesperson was ignoring her, which I thought was funny because as he was talking she started looking at some unrelated stuff on an end-cap) I was able to set her down with a few stereo set ups (nothing fancy, she didn't have that much money) and she pretty easily picked the one she liked, which I actually felt was the best choice of the systems too.

My wife does kind of the same thing, though when we went to see a movie in a place that had a special hand built high end audio system, my wife remarked about how good the music sounded. The truth is, both woman in my stories probably have better hearing than I do, but significantly less (if not none) givings of a sh!t about the subtle differences between analog and VA. (that said, when I was buying my Phatty my wife noticed how crappy the Gaia next to it sounded)

What both people did care about a LOT though, was the content. When I sold A/V gear I used to tell broke TV shoppers, "Bart Simpson is just as funny on the cheapest TV we sell." So write me a good tune and I'll enjoy it if it was done with a 10 year old Synthmaster plug in and played back on my Ford Focus' audio system. Write a crap tune with the best of the best and I'll still turn it right off. I don't know if this makes any difference, but when I was on the "Software is fine for me" side of things and Livingsounds posted a "Will it sound like this?" example, I dug the track a lot. Did that influence me? Maybe, but despite the fact that I was right and Livingsounds was wrong on this test, I still agree with him that, if you really want very high end sound, there's nothing like the real thing (if that real thing is a very good version of "the thing" and it's been recorded with very good versions of those things).

What we often don't take into account is that not all people, including myself, is that obsessed with having very high end sound. I'm more about flexibility, workflow, and decent sound. There is nothing wrong with either take but these threads sure do make it seem like there is.
Old 24th July 2014
  #671
Lives for gear
 

The DIVA / OB test is over and its now clear that pretty much everybody heard so little difference that the results were the same as random guessing.

It was a good and fair experiment

Here is another cool experiment in the link below:
Imagination Can Influence What We See & Hear | Psych Central News

Basically the experiment shows what has been proven over and over again by psychologists over the years: our imagination can actually change our perception- we see and hear what we expect to see and hear

Years ago I saw experiments where researchers switched soda can covers and people actually said that the can with the Pepsi logo tasted better than Brand X even though the same soda was in each can

This principle is so researched and so powerful that psychologists have a name for it: confirmation bias
Dang- this principle is so researched and proven that Wikipedia has a whole page devoted to it

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that the poll showed DIVA = OB the burden of proof has changed

It is now up to those who say “analogue can’t be copied” to prove that they are not being influenced by their expectations when they sit down at their analogue gear- confirmation bias is such a powerful force in life I think it is fair to ask the analogue boosters to prove they aren’t imagining a difference

And here is how to do it, the way Yoozer suggested: have a series of A/B test like the DIVA one 1. A/B 2. A/B etc (10 is a nice number to go to). You may get lucky once - but not 10 times in a row

Then all you analogue boosters listen to the tests and post your answers before the results are announced

I wonder how many of you would really take this challenge?

Given the 50/50 results from a large sample base- I am positive that the knowledge that you are sitting down to an analogue synth is affecting what you think you hear
Old 24th July 2014
  #672
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowthrough View Post
Core2 duo here (not even i3 I'm afraid)- but good to know what's needed for it.
I may be more modern with a quad core next year (I skip technology waves).

Urs' explanation of circuit equivalency equations (circuit reduction) is fascinating, and creative- (& shows effort has been made to avoid 'over-code').
It'll still be useable. I had it running on my old Core 2 Duo (Win 7) Try it. Many sounds that don't use high resonance do not need "devine" mode to sound great and tbh, the times I'm making sounds that use a lot of resonance are usually the times I'm testing to see if a VA is worth buying. You won't get a lot of instances going and you may need to freeze tracks, but so what? Like others have said, if you're recording audio from an analog it's not like the track isn't "frozen" upon record.

I did upgrade to an i7 Dell a couple years back and Diva was one of the factors that made me think it was time to upgrade, but there were/are plenty of other plug-ins that were also asking for a lot of my CPU cycles and I knew it was only going to get worse with time. In my current set up, I use hardware first and where it makes perfect sense. I only go to software when when it does something I can't do in hardware or my hardware is already being utilized and I know that software can do the job more or less equally as well. Another factor for me was that I needed a CPU that would allow pretty low latency as I'm a guitar player and I like a pretty low latency set up.
Old 24th July 2014
  #673
Lives for gear
 
Synthbuilder's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Yep, the Korg35 was messed up, but mostly the high pass. The lowpass should still be pretty good.
Oh yes, the LPF is quite usable and it's certainly in the ball park. I'm just not quite sure it has the same brightness as the original. I've sold mine now though so I can't send you any samples.

Quote:
Wasn't the MS-10 rather similar to the older Korg 700?
No, the MS-10 has a Korg35 hybrid IC in there with the additional op-amp in the feedback loop like the first batch of MS-20s. I don't know whether the MS-10 ever 'upgraded' to the later LM13600 filter that the later MS-20s used.

The MS-50 had a diode ring filter with a circuit core much like those on the Korg 700 and 770.

For me DIVA has replaced my Jupiter-6. It's not quite the same and it certainly doesn't have the same visual appeal but it gets the job done.

If I could add another thing to DIVA it'll be in the glide 'circuit'. I'd like a proper glide emulation option that follows an exponential RC charging curve like the Roland SH-101, TB-303 and others.

Tony
Old 24th July 2014
  #674
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Totally agree this was a great AB, but one single sound is surely not enough to fully shift burdens of proof.

A productive way forward would be for the hardest of the hardcore analog fans to put up references of synth parts that sound so analog they doubt they can be reproduced on a softie (I do wonder what an A/B of Diva vs. Massive or other good softie would produce btw)...

This is a tough test though.... impossible to use published music as we'd never be able to A/B properly unless people have and make available the stems of any track used...

I totally agree that in this case many thought they could tell the difference but it's clear that the majority cannot.
Old 24th July 2014
  #675
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
I love the sudden change in tone and overall certainty of the comments AFTER the reveal.

Page 2....."well, its really close, but I think, I'm not sure....sorta brassy.....a tad more low end...."

Now:....."yeah it is really obvious when you hear.....I could definitely....while it was close I knew....."

Stop embarrassing yourselves. Delusion is a hell of a drug.
Same exact thing happened in the Lynx Aurora 16 Vs. Behringer ADA8000 thread.

I got it right but I had a difficult time distinguishing much of a difference other than a tad more brightness from Diva. That was the only giveaway.

I was listening on Adam A7s through an RME Fireface 400. I have to kinda laugh at some of the comments dogging the RME converters. I'm pretty damn certain they're better sounding than what most CDs were mastered from in the early 80's through the early 90's. Certainly not enough to make a difference for these purposes. See this thread.
2
Share
Old 24th July 2014
  #676
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthbuilder View Post
The MS-50 had a diode ring filter with a circuit core much like those on the Korg 700 and 770.
Ah, ok, that way round!

I've got an 800dv which I still consider the holy grail of Sallen-Key-type filters.

Quote:
If I could add another thing to DIVA it'll be in the glide 'circuit'. I'd like a proper glide emulation option that follows an exponential RC charging curve like the Roland SH-101, TB-303 and others.
We'll see. Glide was difficult to deal with because we wanted to keep the amount knob. We would also like to limit glide to certain intervals, and control a balance between up/down. Unfortunately we'll end up with 10 parameters where those synths usually just have one. Maybe a bunch of preset choices on top of the current lot would do the trick.
Old 24th July 2014
  #677
Hi Urs - why is it the glide parameters are more complex than the single one I have on my OB8 and Source? I cant seem to get the hang of glide on diva...
Old 24th July 2014
  #678
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
The DIVA / OB test is over and its now clear that pretty much everybody heard so little difference that the results were the same as random guessing.

It was a good and fair experiment

Here is another cool experiment in the link below:
Imagination Can Influence What We See & Hear | Psych Central News

Basically the experiment shows what has been proven over and over again by psychologists over the years: our imagination can actually change our perception- we see and hear what we expect to see and hear

Years ago I saw experiments where researchers switched soda can covers and people actually said that the can with the Pepsi logo tasted better than Brand X even though the same soda was in each can

This principle is so researched and so powerful that psychologists have a name for it: confirmation bias
Dang- this principle is so researched and proven that Wikipedia has a whole page devoted to it

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that the poll showed DIVA = OB the burden of proof has changed

It is now up to those who say “analogue can’t be copied” to prove that they are not being influenced by their expectations when they sit down at their analogue gear- confirmation bias is such a powerful force in life I think it is fair to ask the analogue boosters to prove they aren’t imagining a difference

And here is how to do it, the way Yoozer suggested: have a series of A/B test like the DIVA one 1. A/B 2. A/B etc (10 is a nice number to go to). You may get lucky once - but not 10 times in a row

Then all you analogue boosters listen to the tests and post your answers before the results are announced

I wonder how many of you would really take this challenge?

Given the 50/50 results from a large sample base- I am positive that the knowledge that you are sitting down to an analogue synth is affecting what you think you hear
So, if someone were to get all 10 correct, would you guys then shut up about luck? :0)
Old 24th July 2014
  #679
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Hi Urs - why is it the glide parameters are more complex than the single one I have on my OB8 and Source? I cant seem to get the hang of glide on diva...
Well, we used what we had from Zebra and ACE. Sounds using dual oscillators and duophonic sounds benefit from a separete glide amount for each oscillator.

If you leave everything untouched, i.e. in its default position, the Glide knob acts like any normal Glide parameter.
Old 24th July 2014
  #680
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Ah, ok, that way round!

I've got an 800dv which I still consider the holy grail of Sallen-Key-type filters.


We'll see. Glide was difficult to deal with because we wanted to keep the amount knob. We would also like to limit glide to certain intervals, and control a balance between up/down. Unfortunately we'll end up with 10 parameters where those synths usually just have one. Maybe a bunch of preset choices on top of the current lot would do the trick.
Good to get more info on this from Urs but, from the manual (pdf):

Glide sets the basic portamento rate, Glide2 is a bipolar offset applied to VCO2 (Dual VCOs
and Triple VCO) as well as VCO3 (Triple VCO)
• Range is the portamento “strength”, a u-he speciality. Lower values shift the beginning of the
slur closer to the target note – great for sloppy intonation effects!
• GlideMode has two options:
time: however far apart notes are, the glide will take exactly the same amount of time
rate: When notes are further apart, glide is proportionally slower


See also the slop stuff on p.29
Old 24th July 2014
  #681
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
The DIVA / OB test is over and its now clear that pretty much everybody heard so little difference that the results were the same as random guessing.
Oh, I don't know about that. From skimming through the thread, seems to me people generally heard a distinct difference (and described that difference in pretty much the same way), but then attributed the characteristics they described to the wrong instrument. What, really, can be deduced from that?

I wonder if there would have been any further insight gained if, say, an additional question were asked along with the A/B choice? Something like.. "Do you own and use an analogue synthesizer?"

Just a thought. FWIW, I could tell which was which straight away, even though it's as basic a patch as you could hope for. Hey, maybe I was lucky! In any case, I can't imagine there'll be a thread like this comparing DSP to analogue modular any time soon.
Old 24th July 2014
  #682
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
I tease my mother. She believes that at specific times, she has experienced a sixth sense. A clairvoyance if you will.

One time, when I was quite young, I was out late, and she felt a growing concern. She was certain something terrible had happened to me. Well, I had gotten piss drunk, and picked a fight with three men, all larger than I. Lets say, it didn't turn out well for me. She claims to this day, that she knew that it had happened. I have asked about other times that she had experienced anxiety about me being out late, and had come home unscathed. However, she only recalls the instance where her suspicions were confirmed, naturally. This is called CONFIRMATION BIAS.

I too made a choice. I felt that the bass on the second part sounded more precise....or something sounded a little looser on the first, whichever you like. Naturally, like my mother, when the reveal went down....had I been correct, I would say to myself, "I knew something about that bass seemed different." Confirming why I had made my correct choice.

However, with the results being as close as they were, I could no longer pretend that my selection was based on anything other than chance.

Its not about being right or wrong, its about interpreting data. Of course there are variables, and no study which involves human self-report is without some problems.
I love your posts ...
Old 24th July 2014
  #683
Lives for gear
 
laikenf's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by n9v9m View Post
Oh, I don't know about that. From skimming through the thread, seems to me people generally heard a distinct difference (and described that difference in pretty much the same way), but then attributed the characteristics they described to the wrong instrument. What, really, can be deduced from that?
IMHO, it means that the sound quality of some software synths is as good as an analog hardware synth; differences don't matter, as not even 2 analog synths of similar architecture will sound the same anyway.

I think that the fact that SW is "getting there" is wonderful, even though I truly wish SW developers would stop trying to emulate analog; but that's just me, I love technology and It's very exciting to know that hings are moving forward.
1
Share
Old 24th July 2014
  #684
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by n9v9m View Post
I wonder if there would have been any further insight gained if, say, an additional question were asked along with the A/B choice? Something like.. "Do you own and use an analogue synthesizer?"
How many people voted who've never even owned an OB8? Or even heard one in person? Or own Diva, or even heard it? Or just made a decision based upon what they "think" a real analog synthesizer (and thereby an OB8) and a software instrument are "supposed" to sound like?
Old 24th July 2014
  #685
227861
Guest
I must say I love Zebra and the company U-he. About 6 months ago I had direct contact with someone at Uhe, when asking if I had to register and activate online or weather I'd get a good old fashioned serial number and I got a prompt reply and awesome communication. They pretty much answered, I would own it so I would get the serial, no online activation troubles like other softsynths. This sold me on it and their awesome support. To this day I think Uhe is a top notch company.

Again my only problem with the thread is someone saying it's a replacement for analog. It's not. Both are good. Period. The software can't make every subtle sound of some hardware synths, but besides the point some of us just connect physically and mentally with a physical synth. That's about it. Best of both though. Awesome products they make, no need to declare it better than hardware. It's great in its own right, in its own realm (the software world).
1
Share
Old 24th July 2014
  #686
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by laikenf View Post
IMHO, it means that the sound quality of some software synths is as good as an analog hardware synth; differences don't matter, as not even 2 analog synths of similar architecture will sound the same anyway.

I think that the fact that SW is "getting there" is wonderful, even though I truly wish SW developers would stop trying to emulate analog; but that's just me, I love technology and It's very exciting to know that hings are moving forward.
Analog is the benchmark.
2
Share
Old 24th July 2014
  #687
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
How many people voted who've never even owned an OB8? Or even heard one in person? Or own Diva, or even heard it? Or just made a decision based upon what they "think" a real analog synthesizer (and thereby an OB8) and a software instrument are "supposed" to sound like?
I own an OB8, I do not own diva. They both sounded great.
1
Share
Old 24th July 2014
  #688
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by laikenf View Post
IMHO, it means that the sound quality of some software synths is as good as an analog hardware synth; differences don't matter, as not even 2 analog synths of similar architecture will sound the same anyway.
I've read this argument in regards to virtual synths vs. analog ones as early as 1997. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

If I find the time I'll post a few examples for "replication".
4
Share
Old 24th July 2014
  #689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
The DIVA / OB test is over and its now clear that pretty much everybody heard so little difference that the results were the same as random guessing...
Personally I heard a clear difference using AKG K702 headphones through a KRK Ergo amp...the Diva had a fuller brighter sound whilst the OB8 sounded flattter and darker in tone.
Old 24th July 2014
  #690
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
And here we have GS at its worst.

We've been so fortunate to have the designer of what is arguably one of the most successful software instruments visit with us in our forum here. Like all of us, he is welcome to share his thoughts - openly - and that is what Urs has done.

Hopefully, he will continue to do so.
The problem is he isn't just "sharing his thoughts" he's making wildly innacurate claims (repeatedly insisting there are 2 different JP-8 filter versions and saying one is the same as the JP-6 for example). That calls into question anything else he says. To me when someone makes up crazy BS regarding their product I loose a lot of respect for that company and it's products.

Now we also have to deal with the consequences of someone who others will assume has some expertise in synths making such claims. I've already seen the JP-8 "rev 1 and 2 filters" being quoted in another thread here. How long before we see ebay listings using this false claim to sell their supposedly "better version"?
5
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump