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
  #751
Yes the same chips don't mean the same sound, the vca and other stuff differs as to many other circuits that the audio path takes..
Old 25th July 2014
  #752
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
I don't get your point. Whoever brought up "only people with special skills (that no-one else here has) can really understand the problem" is the offender. It's yet another deus ex machina that's used as a straw. I just enjoyed making fun of it.
<DELETED BY MODERATOR>

You already were explicitly disrespecting anyone learning the "recording" classes at McGill, saying anyone with such trained skills would never be able to enjoy being involved into the process of music creation again.

We even had some McGill student here to challenge your opinion.

And now you put yourself completely offside claiming it would not need people with special skills to differ an analogue synth from a digital one? Most people on earth do not even know what a digital or analogue synth is! Even if you are in front of one, you still need some kind of special skills to tell whether it's an analogue or digital synth.

Additionally I think it's generally a pretty bad idea to talk disrespectful of someone who has shown the patience and will to have himself educated in an area where oneself has not been educated that far. No one can be able to tell what people feel who learned other things in their lives than oneself. Plus, basically, there is no real difference to a school kid who thinks drinking beer is more fun than math lessons. If you are really good at math in school, a lot of your classmates may think you don't have any fun in your life either. However, studies have shown that those kids later get the good jobs and are rather satisfied with their lives. Now guess what? While there are a lot of graduates from a lot of "audio" schools who struggle to find a worthy studio to work at, graduates who come from McGill are sought after! Now what do you think is more enjoyable - being haunted by the best studios or struggling to find work in the area you were educated in?

Don't think it is fair to say anyone making decisions you cannot exactly understand must be a somewhat poor person, lacking joy or anything else in their lives. As you are a skilled software developer it is more than likely that - at least at one point in your life - people were talking like that of you as well. It takes some "diving" into technology to become a good software engineer, which at times might have kept you from drinking beer with some friends who may think staying away from beer is no fun at all

I respect your work and it is absolutely not my intention to offend you personally. But this somehow had to be said. At least I feel so
4
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #753
Lives for gear
 
nectarios's Avatar
 

For me personally, coding and CPU are 95% there nowdays. I am a hardware junkie and always will be, but I welcome this advance of software.
Yes, programming and playing a physical object with a certain interface and not clicking on a screen with a mouse, is more inspiring to me. I proved this to my self with my old Polar TI and then selling it to fund other gear, but also bought a Virus C. I was forced to program the C using its interface, instead of the Virus plug in and I got much better sounds from the "lesser" Virus, than I ever did on my old Polar TI.

I'll keep buying eurorack modules, they do great things and I love patching cables in the real thing and programming it. But I can now take this brilliant sounding software with me, outside of the studio and write music in some nice location with my headphones, or take it on stage without worrying about carrying heavy analog synths with me, worrying about flight cases, damage, etc.

If you see past the typical analog VS digital debates on forums, it is actually a win/win situation for everyone who loves using a nice sounding synth.

Its all great, we live in great times and although I've only been into the synth music thing for about 15 years, I don't recall ever having it so good.
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #754
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Now that digital can match the sound of analog the gap between the two technologies has widened so far that only an insane person would spend thousands on an analog synth when they can get the same sound, more types of sound, portability and reliability from a $170 soft synth.
I assume you meant the gap "has narrowed" -- but no matter. I would still disagree with your statement if for no other reason than calling others insane because they do not share your opinions or your values regarding musical instruments is wrong.
5
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #755
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
This is really ugly, disrespectful and - sorry to say that - plain ignorant.

You already were explicitly disrespecting anyone learning the "recording" classes at McGill, saying anyone with such trained skills would never be able to enjoy being involved into the process of music creation again.

We even had some McGill student here to challenge your opinion.

And now you put yourself completely offside claiming it would not need people with special skills to differ an analogue synth from a digital one? Most people on earth do not even know what a digital or analogue synth is! Even if you are in front of one, you still need some kind of special skills to tell whether it's an analogue or digital synth.
I think you take it a bit too far. It is not my job to defend Urs, but clearly he makes fun of the word "SKILL" as in a rare, unique talent that just the chosen few have. That is of course not the case, most things in music and audio can be taught or learned by observation and drawing conclusions yourself.
So Urs was just against elitism in this case.

Anyways, can we please be a bit less emotional and stop accusing all others of being mean, disrespectful and intending to end the world with a devilish plan, thank you.
It should be an exchange of thoughts about technology and gear, not about personalities.

Urs, be so kind and answer my question about the triangle vs sawtooth core, do you seriously believe the final discrete VCO design of Roland and a Curtis chip sound pretty much the same ???

cheers
Julian

Last edited by Prophonic; 25th July 2014 at 09:13 AM.. Reason: typo
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #756
Lives for gear
 

Digital emulations can sound extremely similair to analog on plain sound settings. It is when you push the boundaries a little things really start to break up audio wise.

I honestly sold all my analog gear some years ago and invested in UAD and loads of soft synths, only to have stopped using them....and have now re bought the synths, Fatso's, hardware eq's etc...and building yet more modulars I can not afford because......

For me I can unfortunately hear a difference. The speed of programming and sonic pleasing to my ears I just do not get with the virtual stuff. But then I am just a little oversenstive to aliasing as well so that could be it.

Some DSP synths I actually quite like, the JP-8000 for all its faults and ageing technology certainly is a useful synth. Even the D50's virtual oscilators used on patches like Soundtrack are unique sounding and useful.

Having owned an OBXA for some years (sold it and now can't afford to buy it back...not worth it at todays prices), I don't find the emulations as good. For more basic sounds sure...I had a hard job figuring out this threads A/B test to the point where it could have been 50/50 and I preferred the emulation but kind of knew it had a digital sound to it.

On those basic sounds it IS going to be hard, ramp up the resonance and hit some more testing parameters of the hardware synth and let's do the test again
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #757
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disease Factory View Post
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..
But of course you had already formed that opinion before you turned anything on...

next...
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #758
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by erdi View Post
So the conclusion to this thread is: just sell all your hardware and lets all use Diva.
Thats right.Due to the inconveniant dimentiens of the large and unwieldly monstrosaties plus the distatsteful costs and embarrassing fashion statements that come along with it we should all just get the coded software instead.Whoever said it was all about the gear was just plain wrong!!

edit-sorry for the speling misstakes in dis postt.
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #759
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Can we make it a rule that you stay out of the thread if you didn't vote before the reveal?
3
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #760
Lives for gear
 
danielb's Avatar
I'm a little ambivalent about this whole debate.

I have two separate synth activities:

- Messing about with synths and designing sounds: This I do entirely with my hardware synths. I hardly ever load the DAW and I route all of the hardware through the Virus effects.

- Composing and recording music. Heavily based the Virus and softsynths. I have even been known to use a preset now and again. Entirely based around the DAW. The hardware is mostly used for some extra spice. One exception is my latest track which was entire done on hardware synths (mostly Yamaha DX7).

In all the years I have been recording tracks, I have heard all kinds of criticisms, but no one has EVER said "those softsynths sound like crap, why don't you use more hardware?", or "those digital synths are awful, why not use more analogue?".

D.

PS. I can quite easily understand why someone would spend $5000 on a premium synth; I just wouldn't do it myself.
Old 25th July 2014
  #761
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
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.
What you forget to mention is that we did also get nice and correct descriptions of the differences between the synths from people who voted for the wrong answer.

.

We will have to assume that all of the people that voted started out with more or less the same ability to discern (some fine ears in here did get it wrong as well, remember that) and that the results indeed confirm that the problem is not in the test but in the fact that people really couldn't tell which was the actual analogue synth*.

As i said before: For every guy who now thinks he got the answer right because of what he heard, there is a guy who while voting thought he got the answer right because of what he heard, but didn't.

So to recap, you can't use these numbers to say that 50% know what they hear, and the other 50% are tone deaf
Btw, ironically i would love to support this, because it would be right up my alley, being a truly insulting statement, but i can't.

The only thing these numbers show is that Diva does analogue so well that people just as well could have flipped coins to come up with the poll results we see.
Pure chance.



...now the real problem in this discussion is of course that the analogue defender league simply can't accept that in this particular clip there are no differences between the sounds that indicate whether the synth playing is digital or analogue - despite the fact that the numbers clearly have demonstrated that.
50/50 - it doesn't get much clearer than that.



* Yes, there are differences between the sounds - but the differences are clearly not differences that relate to whether a given sound can be perceived as coming from analogue rather than digital equipment.
The poll shows this clearly.
Old 25th July 2014
  #762
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
The best thing about plug in's is they have done away with so much nasty midi cabling and ROMpler modules and that can only be a good thing, they don't need to emulate classic analog synths, gear heads like to use the real thing, but they sure do work awesome as mega sound canvas's, nothing worse than a rack full of crappy sound modules on different midi channels and blah blah blah I'm already over it.....instead now just line them up and have a million of them available if you want at the click of a button, they are the best thing ever to replace rack units imo...doubt those things will come back in vogue..death to ROMPLER Units..!!
Old 25th July 2014
  #763
Lives for gear
 
Synthbuilder's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by erdi View Post
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.
I'm not so sure. The idea of cascading single stage low pass filters to form one filter with a greater slope goes before the SSM2040. But certainly Dave Rossum was the first to do it on a chip.

I think Roland, in the design of the IR3109, were really heading for a integrated version of their cascaded design based on originally four 3080s (SH1, System 700, early JP-4) and then four BA662s (later JP-4, SH-09). The problem with using individual OTAs was the need to manually match the devices for transconductance.

The later Roland IR3R05 was an attempt to then match the new dual state variable filter topology they used on the JP-6. Personally, I think they should have stuck with the cascaded design since it self resonates in a nicer way, and overdrives better.

Tony
Old 25th July 2014
  #764
Lives for gear
 
Synthbuilder's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by erdi View Post
So the conclusion to this thread is: just sell all your hardware and lets all use Diva.
I think it's: Use what you like using.

For me DIVA has replaced my old JP-6. Not because it sounds exactly alike, but because it performs a similar function in the creation of my music.

For many folk DIVA can replace simple analogues. For many others it cannot. I'm not sure why there's a problem with this. Everyone has different likes and needs.

Tony
Old 25th July 2014
  #765
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by julianboyd View Post
I think you take it a bit too far. It is not my job to defend Urs, but clearly he makes fun of the word "SKILL" as in a rare, unique talent that just the chosen few have. That is of course not the case, most things in music and audio can be taught or learned by observation and drawing conclusions yourself.
So Urs was just against elitism in this case.
I absolutely don't get it. Is it considered to be funny to call others fun-lacking-elitists?
Are you saying you perceived this comment
Whoever brought up "only people with special skills (that no-one else here has) can really understand the problem" is the offender. It's yet another deus ex machina that's used as a straw.
as irony?

If any of this was meant to be funny I am sorry. But I don't see any sign of irony in there?! However the fact that the statement is rather ridiculous, might be such a sign
Maybe I just didn't get first place how ridiculous it really is? On the other hand I consider those in-depth thoughts about such a topic nerdy. If it needs nerdy thoughts to know this is irony, the joke itself would be elitism. That would be nulling out your initial argument about this being against elitism.

One way or the other - I don't get what you are saying
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
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.
Im sorry if you felt attacked by my post - to be honest Im quite tired of people calling out others on confirmation bias. As I said - its a term that now days appears to be hijacked by people to support thier own argument.

Its been mentioned a lot recently and personally - I think you ought to have real evidence in someones case to suggest that process is the explanation behind what someone claims to hear. As musicians our ears are important - and if you are going to what someone hears and take a more scientific viewpoint that it is subconscious bias - I think its just to have proper scientific evidence to support this. My single A/B test on 3 sounds is not close to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
We will have to assume that all of the people that voted started out with more or less the same ability to discern (some fine ears in here did get it wrong as well, remember that) and that the results indeed confirm that the problem is not in the test but in the fact that people really couldn't tell which was the actual analogue synth*..
I dont assume this that everyone has an equal ability to discern tbh but I agree with you the broader results reflect an inability for the majority to discriminante in this particular sample.

Is it reasonable to think a person who has never owned an analogue synth - will have an equal ability to discern as a person who has a collection for a decade?
Old 25th July 2014
  #767
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
...now the real problem in this discussion is of course that the analogue defender league simply can't accept that in this particular clip there are no differences between the sounds that indicate whether the synth playing is digital or analogue - despite the fact that the numbers clearly have demonstrated that.
But that's simply not true, grumphh. There are quite a few signs of differences in that clip which can lead one to conclude (with varying degrees of confidence) which synth is digital, and which one is not.

You simply can't hear them and admitted so yourself (quite honorably I might add ):

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
I can't tell what is what.
From other A vs D threads, you should know where I stand on this whole thing. I don't need convincing that sound with analog characteristics can be produced digitally. I've taken enough of these A/B tests to know I can't distinguish analog sound sources from digital ones with 100% accuracy.

The trouble for me begins when the Digi-Crusaders conclude there is thus no value in using unique analog instruments and that anyone who uses them instead of software is insane, elitist, biased, trendy, what have you.

One of the things I appreciate about analog instruments is their uniqueness. As an extreme example, were we to put our two Jupiter-4s together in a studio and perform a blind test I bet we would know which one was our own instrument!!!

On the other hand, were we to play two copies of Diva from our laptops would we be able to say with confidence "Oh, that's the Diva from my laptop!" ??

I don't think so. heh
3
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #768
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
What you forget to mention is that we did also get nice and correct descriptions of the differences between the synths from people who voted for the wrong answer.

.

We will have to assume that all of the people that voted started out with more or less the same ability to discern (some fine ears in here did get it wrong as well, remember that) and that the results indeed confirm that the problem is not in the test but in the fact that people really couldn't tell which was the actual analogue synth*.

As i said before: For every guy who now thinks he got the answer right because of what he heard, there is a guy who while voting thought he got the answer right because of what he heard, but didn't.

So to recap, you can't use these numbers to say that 50% know what they hear, and the other 50% are tone deaf
Btw, ironically i would love to support this, because it would be right up my alley, being a truly insulting statement, but i can't.

The only thing these numbers show is that Diva does analogue so well that people just as well could have flipped coins to come up with the poll results we see.
Pure chance.



...now the real problem in this discussion is of course that the analogue defender league simply can't accept that in this particular clip there are no differences between the sounds that indicate whether the synth playing is digital or analogue - despite the fact that the numbers clearly have demonstrated that.
50/50 - it doesn't get much clearer than that.



* Yes, there are differences between the sounds - but the differences are clearly not differences that relate to whether a given sound can be perceived as coming from analogue rather than digital equipment.
The poll shows this clearly.
What you are saying is absolutely correct. But what the poll cannot show at all is whether there might be a subset of people who could distinguish the two. During listening I noticed that while I had made a clear decision concerning my vote, I realized that this decision was not generally related to the better sound. I think it's quite possible that most people preferred the sound of DIVA, voting that one while some who touched a lot of analogue and digital synths may have voted against the brighter sound as they may have thought this might be a sign of "digital sound generation". These are things we simply cannot know from the poll but they are worth looking into if going on with further polls.
Finally, the idea that there might have been notable differences but that people were not able to connect those attributes to the correct device might support the idea, that it might be learned to tell the difference/ to connect those attributes to the correct gear.
Old 25th July 2014
  #769
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synthbuilder View Post
I think it's: Use what you like using.

For me DIVA has replaced my old JP-6. Not because it sounds exactly alike, but because it performs a similar function in the creation of my music.

For many folk DIVA can replace simple analogues. For many others it cannot. I'm not sure why there's a problem with this. Everyone has different likes and needs.

Tony
Exactly, people don't need to be told either way, be happy there is choice and you can buy what fits your wallet.

You can't download a JP-8, but most here would, if they could......
Old 25th July 2014
  #770
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
But what the poll cannot show at all is whether there might be a subset of people who could distinguish the two.
You know, i really cannot say whether you can hear that the PWM is generated digitally or not.

But going by the numbers if you can, you are the only one heh

Because, if there was a subset of the group that could reliably identify the correct synth, the numbers wouldn't be 50/50 anymore.

That is the whole point of the numbers - they show that no such subset exists, as the results are equal on both sides.
Old 25th July 2014
  #771
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
You know, i really cannot say whether you can hear that the PWM is generated digitally or not.

But going by the numbers if you can, you are the only one heh

Because, if there was a subset of the group that could reliably identify the correct synth, the numbers wouldn't be 50/50 anymore.

That is the whole point of the numbers - they show that no such subset exists, as the results are equal on both sides.
Sorry, that one is wrong. First of all, opposing groups nulling each other out is something we see quite commonly in tests. E.g. if you make a test "right wing vs left wing politics" and get 50:50 from a poll, that result alone does not tell you whether there were any right or left wingers at all.
Furthermore, if the possible subset of people who might have been able to tell just is small enough, it won't be of any significance to the poll and therefor not significantly impact the 50:50 result. And if the possible subset of those who might be able to tell was opposing the arbitrary voter, then that subset would have pushed the result even further towards 50:50. In plain theory such a group might consist of up to 50% of the voters (a boundary scenario, rather unlikely in real life to happen)
Old 25th July 2014
  #772
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
maybe good to stop making statistical assumptions full stop, drawing non empirical conclusions from them, and shove them up peoples ass as thruth....
Old 25th July 2014
  #773
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
Sorry, that one is wrong. First of all, opposing groups nulling each other out is something we see quite commonly in tests. E.g. if you make a test "right wing vs left wing politics" and get 50:50 from a poll, that result alone does not tell you whether there were any right or left wingers at all.
Furthermore, if the possible subset of people who might have been able to tell just is small enough, it won't be of any significance to the poll and therefor not significantly impact the 50:50 result. And if the possible subset of those who might be able to tell was opposing the arbitrary voter, then that subset would have pushed the result even further towards 50:50. In plain theory such a group might consist of up to 50% of the voters (a boundary scenario, rather unlikely in real life to happen)
Nope. This isn't about preferences but objective differences.

It is pretty simple - even the most ignorant listeners still have a 50/50 chance to hit the right result, as they just have to vote what they think is analogue.

...again, for those that don't get it - if you can't identify the analogue synth, the answers will be evenly distributed - just as they are in this test.

The only ones who could (but didn't heh) make a difference in a poll of this nature are the people that truly can identify the analogue synth, and thereby alter the poll results in favour of the correct answer.
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #774
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenwert View Post
And now you put yourself completely offside claiming it would not need people with special skills to differ an analogue synth from a digital one? Most people on earth do not even know what a digital or analogue synth is! Even if you are in front of one, you still need some kind of special skills to tell whether it's an analogue or digital synth.
People may be able to hear a difference, but "knowing" what the differences are is what education offers.

What you're suggesting is only those who've been trained to hear the differences between digital and analogue are the only people capable of hearing a difference. Total bull****.
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #775
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
You mean the filter, or complete synths?
I can't say that for every detail, but the sound examples of the early 12 bit Jupiter-8 I have heard sound nothing like our very late model. I then talked to some guys who have both and they said that it's a different filter architecture. After I checked that out yesterday, Roland's service manual doesn't support this claim, but the sonic difference is obvious to me (and anyone who hears the difference to Diva). To me, the examples of the early JP-8 filter with resonance cranked up sound more like the Jupiter-6 we have.

The difference could be just as much as a different resistance in the feedback path. Maybe Roland "tamed" the resonance in later models. I surely can't get the same juiciness out of this as is heard in many of the examples. I most certainly get it out of my Jupiter-6.
Old 25th July 2014
  #776
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyklane View Post
What I've found most enlightening is your idea(?) of removing the sample delay in the feedback network around the filter...this happens in pico/nanoseconds in an analog circuit, and micro/milliseconds in the digital domain, tied to sample rate... in an analog circuit, this stabilizes the circuit, but I get the sense that in a DSP environment, it serves to "smear" the resonance and thus is well-rid of.
Ah, the zero delay feedback thing. It wasn't my idea and we didn't do it first, but it is for sure a major step forward in recent years. I think though we were the first ones to do a numerical solver for the non-linear case - as opposed to an analytical approach that generally requires a tradeoff in accuracy.

ZDF filters were discussed controversally in the DSP community because mathematically and using ideal parts, the good old biquad filters derived from z-transform also model filters with a delayless feedback loop. However, latter have no variables and operations that correspond to specific parts in a circuit and therefore they can't be turned into models for nonlinear filters with realistic parts.

The major advantage is often described as a lack of "smear", but it's also true that they respond much better to fast modulation and they keep their stability over the whole frequency range, whereas e.g. naive State Variable Filters "explode".
Old 25th July 2014
  #777
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by haze015 View Post
People may be able to hear a difference, but "knowing" what the differences are is what education offers.

What you're suggesting is only those who've been trained to hear the differences between digital and analogue are the only people capable of hearing a difference. Total bull****.
Without any kind of listening education it would not even be possible to identify any synth as some kind of synth!
The degree of listening education needed to distinguish, let's say a 303 from a Minimoog, is even larger as you need to know what they are ought to sound like. There is not a single other way to learn this than training to hear the differences! With this example there was even the attempt to have one synth mimic the sound of the other one, pushing the degree of training needed to hear the difference to an even further level.

Basically what you were saying is well-described by the wording you were throwing out at the end of your post.
Old 25th July 2014
  #778
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
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.
My apologies if I come across like that. I think though that I usually *react* on statements by others that I find ridiculous and untrue. I think we've done something really cool, and it's a total of 7 people worldwide that follow us around and post the ever same nonsense - which puts me off.

Active marketing would include statements like "see, the mojority thinks that Diva sounds better", which apart from not being true would be what marketing usually looks like. I hate marketing, but sometimes pride might be mistaken for it.
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #779
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougt View Post
Oh wow so I just saw he even admits the schematics are the same but still sticks by the different version story??
Gosh. So much for being honest.

The schematics are *similar*. They show the same architecture. Yet the sound is obviously different.
Old 25th July 2014
  #780
Hi Urs - you mentioned in a previous post you tweaked the sound of Diva to become less 'boxy' - can you describe what you mean/did in this process?
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump