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 25th July 2014
  #721
227861
Guest
so after you conclude your tests what is your goal? To rid yourself of your hardware?
Old 25th July 2014
  #722
Lives for gear
 
Naugo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForWerd View Post
Well done. It's really so close it doesn't matter IMO. This is exactly the reason I sold my MKS-80, Voyager and Nord Lead 4 racks. I then purchased Diva, Monark and a FatSo Jr. Not looking back.
What'd you do with the remaining $5,000?
Old 25th July 2014
  #723
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 View Post
so after you conclude your tests what is your goal? To rid yourself of your hardware?
the goal is to get a more accurate picture really. Its good to show how close Diva can be - but also it would be good to explore perhaps some differences that could account for the anecdotal feedback from people with analogue experience who say its not 'quite' there yet.
Personally I hear some differences and still prefer the overall sound of my OB8 - but Im being as objective as I can be by comparing Diva very closely -and also to my Moog Source. I may actually have to sell them due to financial reasons - so perhaps along with a general interest in this area - that is driving the effort needed to make these comparisons.
Old 25th July 2014
  #724
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougt View Post
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"?
Kinda harsh.

Based on my reading, it was the MKS-80, aka Super Jupiter, that had two different filter types, one the same as the Jupiter 6 and Jupiter 8, IR3109. The other being IR3R05.

Seriously, Urs is the last person I wouldn't grant the benefit of the doubt. He is here and on other forums sharing his knowledge and time freely in support of his products, which are without question the best thing going. He is also honest and upfront about shortcomings, changes to be made, and I have been rocking free beta-testing for quite a while.

No respect lost at all. Simply a misunderstanding I'm sure. I'm certain others will agree.
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #725
Registered User
I'm not sure that anything worthwhile will come out of doing more of these comparisons. I think the point was made, and this has been both entertaining and educational. And kudos again to Urs for taking the time to come visit us here at GS and speak his mind. I hope that he - and others from the industry - continue to join in from time to time.

My issue with these things has to do with potential bias from the outset - even unintentional. But to be sure, I am not suggesting that the OP's intentions were anything less than honorable, and wouldn't be so in the future.

It's just that - having done a bit of this kind of stuff myself - I know how easy it is for anyone to simply engineer the kind of result they'd be happy to achieve.

If someone shows me two examples where the difference is clear, and it is obvious that Diva is not doing a good job of replicating the analog sound, is it simply due to the fact that the person didn't have the skills to do the proper Diva programming? Or maybe they didn't take enough time? Or maybe the recording was somehow flawed? Or did they have their own agenda at work here?

Due to the above, I would always be skeptical of a "test" that showed me how deficient something is. The deficiency could be with the skills of the tester, and not in what is being tested.

On the other hand, I think there are certainly some analog sounds that are easier to replicate than others. Did the tester gravitate toward sounds that were easier to re-reate? Mind you, I am not suggesting anything untoward about SWAN808 or what he did here. And as someone who has been a fan of software instruments for quite a while, I admit I'd get a chuckle out of ten more A/B tests like this that had similar results. I personally believe that it IS possible for software instruments to produce sounds that are essentially indistinguishable from hardware, even the most venerable analog machines. But I admit to being more picky about my playing than I am about my sounds, and I'm usually more interested in sounds that aren't from the analog repertoire.

All this being said, I'm somewhat inclined to pull out my Little Phatty and see what kind of comparisons I could create between it and Diva. But as I said, any failure on my part would probably be more likely due to my bad ears and shortcomings as a sound designer, as opposed to shortcomings in the software.
Old 25th July 2014
  #726
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
Kinda harsh.

Based on my reading, it was the MKS-80, aka Super Jupiter, that had two different filter types, one the same as the Jupiter 6 and Jupiter 8, IR3109. The other being IR3R05.

Seriously, Urs is the last person I wouldn't grant the benefit of the doubt. He is here and on other forums sharing his knowledge and time freely in support of his products, which are without question the best thing going. He is also honest and upfront about shortcomings, changes to be made, and I have been rocking free beta-testing for quite a while.

No respect lost at all. Simply a misunderstanding I'm sure. I'm certain others will agree.
While I think it is a great soft synth, although, I haven't played it, he also seems to like to toot his own horn, too. It's great that his synth is working so well, but he is trying way to hard to sell it, I think.
Old 25th July 2014
  #727
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
Seriously, Urs is the last person I wouldn't grant the benefit of the doubt. He is here and on other forums sharing his knowledge and time freely in support of his products, which are without question the best thing going. He is also honest and upfront about shortcomings, changes to be made, and I have been rocking free beta-testing for quite a while.

No respect lost at all. Simply a misunderstanding I'm sure. I'm certain others will agree.
Well said. I completely agree.

Personally, I am blown away by the musicality of both Diva and Zebra 2. I am just a lowly piano player, but I cannot fathom the knowledge, skills, and talent that must be possessed in order to create instruments like these. Brilliant work.

The world of software instruments is in its infancy. Mr. Heckmann is a very young man (at least compared to me), and I cannot wait to see wonderful instruments he - and others like him - bring us in the years ahead.

Software instruments are bringing great sounding instruments to us keyboardists at a fraction of the cost of hardware instruments. It's a beautiful thing.
Old 25th July 2014
  #728
Quote:
Originally Posted by djugel View Post
I love your posts ...
I'm glad anyone besides me does

Chi-Town!
Old 25th July 2014
  #729
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
While I think it is a great soft synth, although, I haven't played it, he also seems to like to toot his own horn, too. It's great that his synth is working so well, but he is trying way to hard to sell it, I think.
I think he is really, really, really excited about what he and his team have been able to accomplish. They have created what is arguably one of the most compelling software instruments ever conceived, designed, built, and brought to market. His enthusiasm for his work is not without cause.
3
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #730
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
Chi-Town!
A Chicagoland GS event is in order at some point....
Old 25th July 2014
  #731
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
I think he is really, really, really excited about what he and his team have been able to accomplish. They have created what is arguably one of the most compelling software instruments ever conceived, designed, built, and brought to market. His enthusiasm for his work is not without cause.
Enthusiasm is good, great, really, but when someone is doing a test with your product, you shouldn't come in and try to poison the well, so to speak. Let your product stand on it's own, enjoy the free press, and chime in here and there but don't make excuses for your product, especially, when it sounds as good as it does.
I had never heard of Diva, before this thread, but after hearing the example, I looked it up, and thought about buying it, as I haven't bought any soft synths in a while. A big turn off though, I have to admit, is CPU hogging. His synth maybe getting closer to sounding as good as an OB8, but he can impress me, once he figures out a way to use less resources, then I'll be impressed. For now, I'll continue using my old, outdated, analog hardware.
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #732
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
A big turn off though, I have to admit, is CPU hogging. His synth maybe getting closer to sounding as good as an OB8, but he can impress me, once he figures out a way to use less resources, then I'll be impressed.
I can run it without any problems at all - even multiple instances - on the machine I bought earlier this year. The good news is that Urs built in the ability to run Diva at different detail levels, that lessen the CPU hit, and tracks can always be frozen at the highest level of quality.

That said, I've been freezing Diva tracks as I go, ensuring that I have plenty of resources of Omnisphere and other instruments I use. After all, you have to record hardware synth tracks as you go, one at a time, unless you're working with a workstation, or a multi-timbral synth like a Virus.
Old 25th July 2014
  #733
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
Well said. I completely agree.

Personally, I am blown away by the musicality of both Diva and Zebra 2. I am just a lowly piano player, but I cannot fathom the knowledge, skills, and talent that must be possessed in order to create instruments like these. Brilliant work.

The world of software instruments is in its infancy. Mr. Heckmann is a very young man (at least compared to me), and I cannot wait to see wonderful instruments he - and others like him - bring us in the years ahead.

Software instruments are bringing great sounding instruments to us keyboardists at a fraction of the cost of hardware instruments. It's a beautiful thing.
We can observe a similar trend of improvement in digital hardware synths, which are of course nothing but softsynths running on their own hardware platform. It's all just a question of cost and processing power. But sooner or later, we will experience the release of new digital hardware synths, which will offer the quality and options of Diva and even more. It's just a matter of time. As I prefer hardware synths, I am really looking forward to this future!
Old 25th July 2014
  #734
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
I can run it without any problems at all - even multiple instances - on the machine I bought earlier this year. The good news is that Urs built in the ability to run Diva at different detail levels, that lessen the CPU hit, and tracks can always be frozen at the highest level of quality.

That said, I've been freezing Diva tracks as I go, ensuring that I have plenty of resources of Omnisphere and other instruments I use. After all, you have to record hardware synth tracks as you go, one at a time, unless you're working with a workstation, or a multi-timbral synth like a Virus.
I think they have a demo, maybe I'll have time this weekend to d/l it, and try it. It does seem pretty exciting, and as I noted, I had never heard of it, until this thread. Thanks, gearslutz, even though, I do not really need the help, in finding something else to want! Lol.
Old 25th July 2014
  #735
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
I think they have a demo, maybe I'll have time this weekend to d/l it, and try it.
Yes, it is here.

The demo is fully functional, but as I recall it maybe inserts silence or a bit of static every 30 seconds or so. It is annoying enough to make you want to pull out your credit card, register the damn thing, and get rid of the damn noise!

But at least you can see how it runs on your computer.

Remember - you can adjust the setting to draft, fast, great, or divine, as I recall. Most of the patches sound just fine in "draft" mode, and will lower the CPU hit. I think this setting is called "Accuracy" on the front panel.

Also, there's a multi-core button that defaults to "off." Turn it on if you have a multi-core machine.

Lastly, as I recall you can click on the DIVA logo to change the GUI to a variety of different sizes. This is VERY cool, depending upon what size monitor and screen resolution you're using. I wish every software instrument did this.
Old 25th July 2014
  #736
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
Yes, it is here.

The demo is fully functional, but as I recall it maybe inserts silence or a bit of static every 30 seconds or so. It is annoying enough to make you want to pull out your credit card, register the damn thing, and get rid of the damn noise!

But at least you can see how it runs on your computer.

Remember - you can adjust the setting to draft, fast, great, or divine, as I recall. Most of the patches sound just fine in "draft" mode, and will lower the CPU hit. I think this setting is called "Accuracy" on the front panel.

Also, there's a multi-core button that defaults to "off." Turn it on if you have a multi-core machine.

Lastly, as I recall you can click on the DIVA logo to change the GUI to a variety of different sizes. This is VERY cool, depending upon what size monitor and screen resolution you're using. I wish every software instrument did this.
Multi sized GUI is a great idea! They are pretty inventive.
Old 25th July 2014
  #737
Gear Nut
 

I find these debates to be hilarious. I came over from a notorious guitar gear forum and expected this forum to be far less steeped in psuedo-science, "mojo," and golden-ear-elitism because of the sort of utilitarian, use what works, cutting edge origin of electronic music, but instead it's like I walked into the dark ages.

How do very few people seem to understand that "digital" and "analog" aren't descriptors of sound? I find this mind boggling that analog and digital are commonly uses as adjectives for sound. There is no "analog" sound. There is no "digital" sound. Y'all are crazy. This is why I don't get any of these debates. Hardly anyone around here deals with this in the understanding that analog and digital are different ways of constructing gear, and if there is a difference between them, it is in how they were constructed or how they are being used, and not because of some ancient god that only resides in analog that is at war with the digital spirits.

Calling out the OP as "trolling" is ridiculous, and I think just shows the insecurity surrounding people's beliefs. It's like introducing double-blind testing to an audiophile forum, or water to witches.

It's ok to like old analog gear. It's cool. It's cool that when you open it up it's electricity running through capacitors, resistors, and op amps rather than the same stuff in the computer you watch porn on. I get it. I have a tube amp and analog boutique pedals right next to my Roland tr-8, and then a Minibrute next to that. But, I'm not going to pretend that analog guitar stuff, by it solely being analog, is any better than digital because it is completely irrelevant. I just buy analog stuff because it's cool to open up a pedal and see all the wires and crap inside of it and know some dude made it in his basement. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't start shouting at strangers when someone may challenge my perspective in a objective, scientific fashion.
3
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #738
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdbot View Post
I find these debates to be hilarious. I came over from a notorious guitar gear forum and expected this forum to be far less steeped in psuedo-science, "mojo," and golden-ear-elitism because of the sort of utilitarian, use what works, cutting edge origin of electronic music, but instead it's like I walked into the dark ages.

How do very few people seem to understand that "digital" and "analog" aren't descriptors of sound? I find this mind boggling that analog and digital are commonly uses as adjectives for sound. There is no "analog" sound. There is no "digital" sound. Y'all are crazy. This is why I don't get any of these debates. Hardly anyone around here deals with this in the understanding that analog and digital are different ways of constructing gear, and if there is a difference between them, it is in how they were constructed or how they are being used, and not because of some ancient god that only resides in analog that is at war with the digital spirits.

Calling out the OP as "trolling" is ridiculous, and I think just shows the insecurity surrounding people's beliefs. It's like introducing double-blind testing to an audiophile forum, or water to witches.

It's ok to like old analog gear. It's cool. It's cool that when you open it up it's electricity running through capacitors, resistors, and op amps rather than the same stuff in the computer you watch porn on. I get it. I have a tube amp and analog boutique pedals right next to my Roland tr-8, and then a Minibrute next to that. But, I'm not going to pretend that analog guitar stuff, by it solely being analog, is any better than digital because it is completely irrelevant. I just buy analog stuff because it's cool to open up a pedal and see all the wires and crap inside of it and know some dude made it in his basement. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't start shouting at strangers when someone may challenge my perspective in a objective, scientific fashion.
So, what you are basically saying is......it's just sound? There's a novel idea.
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #739
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Im glad you liked the test. Believe it or not - I actually started my tests to explore the differences I heard between my analogue synths and Diva/Monark. Conducting these two tests - has been interesting for me. On one hand - it has shown me that Diva is more accurate than I initially thought - and with proper programming - its very close.

However I think its quite sad that you think its confirmation bias when people with many years of experience with analogue synths say Diva or other softsynths are not totally accurate or they can hear a difference. Its true experience doesnt make you immune to bias - but the accusation of confirmation bias should be the absolute last conclusion to any sort of respectful discussion. This term now days seems to get thrown about a lot - and most absurdly - by people who actually have quite limited real world experience with the devices they are discussing. I do wonder if perhaps the people throwing around accusations of bias are in fact subject to their own powerful bias towards emulations...
Without a very thorough investigation myself - I would never dream of calling someone out as suffering from confirmation bias. However as a result of pretty basic tests - people can immediately make this accusation - which doesnt seem very objective to me...

On several occasions we have had accurate descriptive answers from people like intuitionnyc, Maison Vague, MikeVee and Golden Beers - who both have plenty of analogue experience - pointing out correctly - the differences and getting the poll correct. Its quite interesting to me that some people have not commented on things like that. Or pondered on the percentage of respondants in this poll who had more than 6 months experience with a real analogue synth. Instead you get the confirmation bias schtick from a group who appear very heavily invested in the ITB workflow and limited analogue experience.

The emulations are close - and its not easy to pick them out always - but that doesnt mean some people cannot-or that the differences are not there. I can tell you - I can still hear differences and I'll be exploring them more thoroughly for my next test - so will be interesting to see what comes out of that.
Perhaps you are not very familiar with the field of psychology (I do not know)- confirmation bias has been repeatedly shown to exist even among experts in various professions. It is not something that one can make oneself immune to- it is a basic daily psychological process that operates in all of us and is central to our ability to understand our world and navigate it with the fewest possible surprises. It is not a sign of a lower mind and to assume you can become free of it through training is arrogant.

I raised the issue because nobody else was raising the issue. I do not feel it is a rhetorical dirty trick and am feel it is you who are trying to unfairly tar me as "not respectful" by raising the issue. Your statement: " I would never dream of calling someone out as suffering from confirmation bias" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle. It is not something one "suffers" from any more than one suffers from cognitive dissonance or other fundamental processes (and I did not call anybody out individually- I have too much class for that). We need biases to survive in this world- they are shortcuts for extensive experimentation that is time consuming.

You seem to feel it is an insult to remind people that we all are human and are prone to biases- I do not feel this is an insult and I think raising the issue of confirmation bias is very appropriate. Your reprimand is out of line and is an attempt to smear me as an individual - I have too much class to do the same to you and have only addressed you individually to defend myself.
4
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #740
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Im glad you liked the test. Believe it or not - I actually started my tests to explore the differences I heard between my analogue synths and Diva/Monark. Conducting these two tests - has been interesting for me. On one hand - it has shown me that Diva is more accurate than I initially thought - and with proper programming - its very close.

However I think its quite sad that you think its confirmation bias when people with many years of experience with analogue synths say Diva or other softsynths are not totally accurate or they can hear a difference. Its true experience doesnt make you immune to bias - but the accusation of confirmation bias should be the absolute last conclusion to any sort of respectful discussion. This term now days seems to get thrown about a lot - and most absurdly - by people who actually have quite limited real world experience with the devices they are discussing. I do wonder if perhaps the people throwing around accusations of bias are in fact subject to their own powerful bias towards emulations...
Without a very thorough investigation myself - I would never dream of calling someone out as suffering from confirmation bias. However as a result of pretty basic tests - people can immediately make this accusation - which doesnt seem very objective to me...

On several occasions we have had accurate descriptive answers from people like intuitionnyc, Maison Vague, MikeVee and Golden Beers - who both have plenty of analogue experience - pointing out correctly - the differences and getting the poll correct. Its quite interesting to me that some people have not commented on things like that. Or pondered on the percentage of respondants in this poll who had more than 6 months experience with a real analogue synth. Instead you get the confirmation bias schtick from a group who appear very heavily invested in the ITB workflow and limited analogue experience.

The emulations are close - and its not easy to pick them out always - but that doesnt mean some people cannot-or that the differences are not there. I can tell you - I can still hear differences and I'll be exploring them more thoroughly for my next test - so will be interesting to see what comes out of that.
Aren't you making quite a few assumptions of your own in this post?
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #741
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdbot View Post
I find these debates to be hilarious. I came over from a notorious guitar gear forum and expected this forum to be far less steeped in psuedo-science, "mojo," and golden-ear-elitism because of the sort of utilitarian, use what works, cutting edge origin of electronic music, but instead it's like I walked into the dark ages.

How do very few people seem to understand that "digital" and "analog" aren't descriptors of sound? I find this mind boggling that analog and digital are commonly uses as adjectives for sound. There is no "analog" sound. There is no "digital" sound. Y'all are crazy. This is why I don't get any of these debates. Hardly anyone around here deals with this in the understanding that analog and digital are different ways of constructing gear, and if there is a difference between them, it is in how they were constructed or how they are being used, and not because of some ancient god that only resides in analog that is at war with the digital spirits.

Calling out the OP as "trolling" is ridiculous, and I think just shows the insecurity surrounding people's beliefs. It's like introducing double-blind testing to an audiophile forum, or water to witches.

It's ok to like old analog gear. It's cool. It's cool that when you open it up it's electricity running through capacitors, resistors, and op amps rather than the same stuff in the computer you watch porn on. I get it. I have a tube amp and analog boutique pedals right next to my Roland tr-8, and then a Minibrute next to that. But, I'm not going to pretend that analog guitar stuff, by it solely being analog, is any better than digital because it is completely irrelevant. I just buy analog stuff because it's cool to open up a pedal and see all the wires and crap inside of it and know some dude made it in his basement. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't start shouting at strangers when someone may challenge my perspective in a objective, scientific fashion.
Welcome to the forum!
Old 25th July 2014
  #742
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
Kinda harsh.

Based on my reading, it was the MKS-80, aka Super Jupiter, that had two different filter types, one the same as the Jupiter 6 and Jupiter 8, IR3109. The other being IR3R05.

Seriously, Urs is the last person I wouldn't grant the benefit of the doubt. He is here and on other forums sharing his knowledge and time freely in support of his products, which are without question the best thing going. He is also honest and upfront about shortcomings, changes to be made, and I have been rocking free beta-testing for quite a while.

No respect lost at all. Simply a misunderstanding I'm sure. I'm certain others will agree.
Well again there's a big difference betweeen a "misunderstanding" and repeatly making crazy false statements.

Obviously I wouldn't expect everyone here to know the facts about particular synths but someone who is portrays himself as such an expert on the technical details I would hope would at least know the difference between the Jupiter-8 and MKS-80 (either rev).

Also although the JP-6, JP-8, and MKS-80 rev4 all have use the IR3109 chip in their VCF circuits they are all very different filters.

Oh wow so I just saw he even admits the schematics are the same but still sticks by the different version story??
6
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #743
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acid Mitch View Post
For travelling to gigs.
I understand that. It's only one option. My post was pointing out that not everyone is looking for portability. There are all kinds of reasons for why we do what we do, back in the day people built giant modulars to make weird sounds.

Today, give a kid three APC40s & a launchpad... & step the fuc back.
Old 25th July 2014
  #744
Lives for gear
 
anigbrowl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naugo View Post
What'd you do with the remaining $5,000?
Hookers'n'blow, of course - the ingredients of any self-respecting hit record.
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #745
I for ****s and giggles booted up diva, played around ,then I plugged in my boomstar, then the slim phatty, then the p12, and let me tell you, SOFTWARE IS SO LAME.. So uninspiring. So boring, So canned sounding... It just is, you can make good music with it, but it just never gives me the ear boner i get from when i turn on brilliant hardware and start playing around with it.

Even the korg kronos has this amazing sound and polish to the sound that NO plugins have. I just don't get it..
6
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #746
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
I'm not sure that anything worthwhile will come out of doing more of these comparisons. I think the point was made, and this has been both entertaining and educational.
As the overall result has been "random chances" and as I was under the impression there is some distinct difference neural networks (in our brains) might be trained to realize my opinion is the exact opposite of yours.
Old 25th July 2014
  #747
Gear Maniac
 

Diva and real synths maybe sound the same on the records, but playing on HW is a istant fun, and playing of soft synth with cheap and cheeasy midi keys (like "mini-nano" keys or novation).
Also fun of playing on DIVA or other powerful soft synths will be increased if someone produces special controller like Machine for Machine
Old 25th July 2014
  #748
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
Kinda harsh.

Based on my reading, it was the MKS-80, aka Super Jupiter, that had two different filter types, one the same as the Jupiter 6 and Jupiter 8, IR3109. The other being IR3R05.

Seriously, Urs is the last person I wouldn't grant the benefit of the doubt. He is here and on other forums sharing his knowledge and time freely in support of his products, which are without question the best thing going. He is also honest and upfront about shortcomings, changes to be made, and I have been rocking free beta-testing for quite a while.

No respect lost at all. Simply a misunderstanding I'm sure. I'm certain others will agree.

It is not misunderstanding. He is spreading misinformation. And that is unacceptable from someone with his status. He was specifically mentioning JUPITER8, not MKS80. There are no different JUPITER8 filter revisions. And people should stop saying MKS80 is a JUPITER8 or JUPITER6 because they are all different (even if they share the IR3109).
This kind of misinformation does more harm than good because it spreads and echoes for years and confuses people.


chrissugar
3
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #749
Lives for gear
 
erdi's Avatar
 

Hmmm so my SH101 has the same filter as the Jupiter8, Jupiter6, MKS80, MKS70, Juno 60 and Juno 106. I am quite enlightened.




Obviously the surrounding the circuit implementation is the most crucial element to the sound characteristic. This is why the filter of the JP-8 is different than JP-6 even though they share the same chip.

Another fact for y'all: the IR Roland Filter was based on the CEM 3320 chip (which itself was based on the SSM 3320). And by based I mean copied.
Old 25th July 2014
  #750
Lives for gear
 
erdi's Avatar
 

So the conclusion to this thread is: just sell all your hardware and lets all use Diva.
1
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump