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
  #811
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
Urs, the little saw on top of a tri waveform is caused by voltage bias. And is something that a correctly calibrated synth should not output. I think all analogue synths have a trim pot for this
Yep, I guessed that... I think I have to find out who calibrated that unit

Otoh it adds some extra colour to Diva.
Old 25th July 2014
  #812
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
To me the beauty lies within the perfection of analogue!




Old 25th July 2014
  #813
Lives for gear
 

How about showing us some stuff diva can do, that analogs can not do?
Old 25th July 2014
  #814
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss'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..

You're so awesome.
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #815
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Would you then say that your Jupiter-8 sounds rather Diva-ish or rather like the one used in the sound examples that were posted earlier?

We had our JP-8 calibrated to specs, but I can't crank up resonance high enough for that juicy sound.
Listening thru my DT-880 Pro I would say my JP sounds much like the audio posted earlier (that LL Cool J demo), and it also reminds me of another JP8 that i've heard at Clusterchord's place (which is late revision). The only reason is the "silk" i can hear in the recording. However there are two examples, and the second one is much harder to tell apart. But the first one was easy, pure sexy female presence in the character in that patch.

My JP-8 has a little problem with the pitch bend range not being applied equally to all the voices (few cents difference), which means it is disqualified to come as a any sort of scientific "calibration source". One damaged op amp or cap or wrongly set up trimmer means there might be more. At least not until i fix this issue and go for full refurb (it's my only synth that i didn't disassembled to pieces). Though it originates from the Tokyo's Five G store which are known for high standards and i believe them say it was fully checked and serviced. Never the less you can take my own JP8 reference point with a grain of salt.
Old 25th July 2014
  #816
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
So, when they bluntly say "software will never sound analogue" in fact they should say "software usually doesn't have the artifacts I find desirable". That would leave it open to others to decide what to think about it, rather than claiming objective authority in something that's arguably a matter of subjective taste.
Well put.

So Urs - in terms of analog emulation, is Diva your pièce de résistance? Can we expect a Diva 2, or a completely new instrument, perhaps? Do you have any idea what the product calendar for u-he looks like over the next ten years? Or is there simply a villa at the Côte d'Azur in your future?
Old 25th July 2014
  #817
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
so, i clicked the thread today, read the first post, listened twice, and voted for the OB-whatever option
don't have diva, nor have really heard this OB synth before (or i did, no idea)

i certainly heard a small difference in the "PWM" (or whatever it actually is)
this PWM in the first part was more evenly spread (not sure how to explain it) while in the second part it was somehow more surgically clean sounding
the first part also had some small audio glitches, so i thought: "nicely spread" is probably analog, "surgically clean" is probably digital

i also watched the audio on a sonogram, and i *think* i saw something different in the shape of the filter envelope perhaps, i can't be sure what i'm seeing tho because the sound source is complex.. it could be just a matter of parameters not set quite equivalently or filter frequency response (linear vs log) and/or envelopes response (linear, exponential, spline, who-knows what)

well, turns out i guessed wrong, and i'm not surprised

i've done an analog emulation too (of a mono synth), and i know that software can do it, it comes down to how deep you want to go, and how much CPU cycles you are ready to waste
it's certainly NOT impossible
however, i also learnt that the physical part of an analog/hardware synth may (and usually does) actually play a big role, which can't be emulated by a software plugin alone
Old 25th July 2014
  #818
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Yes, in any one on one comparison we did here, Diva sounded better than its analogue counterparts. Subjectively evaluated by the peeps that were around at the time, during a period of one year or so of tweaking.

That said, many people then missed a bit of that muffled character of aged analogue gear. This was less prominent in the machines we had around at that time, it was more audible in audio examples. Which I then mostly attributed to recording techniques (tape?), which then led to the development of a tape saturation plug-in. So, well, maybe one day we'll add that muffled sound back into Diva as an option.
This thread is too much fun. I wanted to read the whole thing before jumping in, but I preferred Diva also. My favorite 4 bars were the 1st 4 bars when the PWM synth came in, most enjoyable 4 bars of music in the whole example.

Urs, I more and more respect your decision to betterize the hardware, as I personally really dig the way Diva sits in a track. I haven't touched my Mini Moog or MKS-80 since purchasing Diva. But I think the muffle option is a great idea and should be in there, especially if Sascha is adding such obscure features to his U-he creations as he is. Just to put more and more nails in the coffin as it were.

My wife for some reason can pick out which synths are Diva and which are analog on my record, whereas I don't really care. Interesting nonetheless. She said it makes her shoulders relax more. I think its because I run Diva at a higher cutoff value though usually...
Old 25th July 2014
  #819
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
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 ):

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
These are good points, but then you get into the area of variables that are very wide - for example, are we talking about 30 year old synths with dying components vs new analog synths? Are we trying to compare the sound of a 30 year old synth to the way it sounded when it was new?

My P8 doesn't have a lot of the type of analog character described in your post - it's simply too new, and too modern. Perhaps sometime during the next 10 years it will develop some anomalies attributable to age that will give it some more "character", but for now, it doesn't really scream "analog" in any meaningful way that isn't created on any of my other synths - HW, or SW, virtual or analog.

New software synths like DIVA will always sound great, you are correct that the effects of aging are not an issue, and that one copy should sound exactly like the next, but 30 plus years ago, that's exactly what many of us wanted from our synths; we never sat around and waxed enthusiastic over ground hum, unintentional distortion and wobbly oscillators - and when the new wave of digital synths began to appear, we marveled over the increased complexity of sound possible.

There's a validity to working with old instruments and gambling on the stability vs instability - and that instability becoming part of the "charm" of the recording. However for me, I'd rather add-in instability later, after my sources have been recorded.

There's a price to be paid for instability, though, and it keeps going up ($) - my main suite of guitar amplifiers consist of a 72 SF Twin, 65 BF Princeton, 70 SF Champ, and a DRZ Maz JR 18. All the Fenders cost me very little money - $450 for the most expensive of the bunch, the SF Twin. This isn't the case with synths and it's my biggest beef: people are charging Lamborghini money (and getting it), for Chevrolet Vega parts - if it were the other way around, I'd have a different opinion.
Old 25th July 2014
  #820
Lives for gear
 
Acid Mitch's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Are we trying to compare the sound of a 30 year old synth to the way it sounded when it was new?
The comparison was between Diva and an old synth that had been recapped and recalibrated, so some parts of the OB8 are old and some are new. It probably sounds more like it would have when new, than if none of the parts had been replaced.
Old 25th July 2014
  #821
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Swan thanks for doing this. I did a similar thing with a track that was all Mini Moog on my record. Just replaced with 5 tracks of Diva. I didn't bother going back out into hardware, as it was close enough ITB to get the idea. I'm gonna read the final 10 pages of this and probably add more useless comments.

I think you conducted the test PERFECTLY. I can't believe that people have to count 4 bar increments, that is bizarre. Interjecting with an "example a" voiceover kills the idea of music being made and seamless transitions, just count if you have to.

Secondly, FF 400 converters are totally fine. They are way better than anything that was being used in the 90s, up until the early 2000s probably. So thats not gonna make a difference. Yes converters matter, blah blah blah, I have owned everything from an M-Box to the Forssell Mada-2a. But its not going to make a $4,000 synth sound $3800 better than Diva.

I had a feeling the 2nd was the Oberheim, as it was sloppier overall, but that was after maybe 5 listens. And even then I preferred the 1st example.

Also, I can use plenty of simultaneous instances of Diva in Divine mode on my I7 macbook pro. 256 latency, low latency mode in Logic (this is key) and 44.1k. Diva sounds NO better at higher sample rates. I've done so many blind tests, its the same.
1
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #822
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicncars View Post
How about showing us some stuff diva can do, that analogs can not do?
We added a few things... in the Uhbie-Filter you can modulate the mix of HP and LP, and you can have BP in the middle instead of just BR.

All filters have a FilterFM routing from VCO1. Most analogues don't.

We also added a path to modulate resonance, crossmod depth, and we added some math operations to the otherwise semi-modular modulation routing.

In some synths the actual VCA is only controlled by the VCA envelope while the output pot is just a passive resistor. In Diva the VCA knob lets one adjust the distortion of the VCA in relation to the overall volume, which is controlled by the output knob.

That's some of the things we haven't found in the original devices.
Old 25th July 2014
  #823
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
She said it makes her shoulders relax more.
The true sign of genuine analog!
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #824
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acid Mitch View Post
The comparison was between Diva and an old synth that had been recapped and recalibrated, so some parts of the OB8 are old and some are new. It probably sounds more like it would have when new, than if none of the parts had been replaced.
I was responding specifically to the text copied in my post.

However, you raise another good issue.

A 30 year old synth today will never sound exactly as it did 30 years ago, if for no other reason, and this gets into a more mysterious area of perception, people hear things in a different context today than we did 30 plus years ago.

This excludes all technical talk of capacitors, quality of replacement parts etc., I'm talking about societal and cultural issues ... it's possible that the way synths were perceived back in the 70's - and the timeline with which that "sound" moved along during the 70's, into the 80's and 90's can never be perceived quite the way a young person today, hearing these things for the first time, will perceive it.

For those of us who were around when the first synths appeared, we tired of the sound fairly early - this is why when Yamaha released the DX7 in the early 80's, it almost completely wiped out the analog synth market, and it killed a few companies in the process - Sequential Circuits, Oberheim etc.

Interesting thoughts to ponder, but context is everything, IMO.
Old 25th July 2014
  #825
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
Swan thanks for doing this. I did a similar thing with a track that was all Mini Moog on my record. Just replaced with 5 tracks of Diva. I didn't bother going back out into hardware, as it was close enough ITB to get the idea. I'm gonna read the final 10 pages of this and probably add more useless comments.

I think you conducted the test PERFECTLY. I can't believe that people have to count 4 bar increments, that is bizarre. Interjecting with an "example a" voiceover kills the idea of music being made and seamless transitions, just count if you have to.

Secondly, FF 400 converters are totally fine. They are way better than anything that was being used in the 90s, up until the early 2000s probably. So thats not gonna make a difference. Yes converters matter, blah blah blah, I have owned everything from an M-Box to the Forssell Mada-2a. But its not going to make a $4,000 synth sound $3800 better than Diva.

I had a feeling the 2nd was the Oberheim, as it was sloppier overall, but that was after maybe 5 listens. And even then I preferred the 1st example.

Also, I can use plenty of simultaneous instances of Diva in Divine mode on my I7 macbook pro. 256 latency, low latency mode in Logic (this is key) and 44.1k. Diva sounds NO better at higher sample rates. I've done so many blind tests, its the same.
thanks mate! you advice has been is spot on thru the years so nice of you to say.

btw which MBP are you using? Im having a slight issue with my late 2011 2.2 - as soon as the fan kicks in - the CPU usage goes thru the roof and I have to quit...I thought LL mode was to shut off high delay plugins in Logic - does it reduce CPU?
Old 25th July 2014
  #826
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
I was responding specifically to the text copied in my post.

However, you raise another good issue.

A 30 year old synth today will never sound exactly as it did 30 years ago, if for no other reason, and this gets into a more mysterious area of perception, people hear things in a different context today than we did 30 plus years ago.

This excludes all technical talk of capacitors, quality of replacement parts etc., I'm talking about societal and cultural issues ... it's possible that the way synths were perceived back in the 70's - and the timeline with which that "sound" moved along during the 70's, into the 80's and 90's can never be perceived quite the way a young person today, hearing these things for the first time, will perceive it.

For those of us who were around when the first synths appeared, we tired of the sound fairly early - this is why when Yamaha released the DX7 in the early 80's, it almost completely wiped out the analog synth market, and it killed a few companies in the process - Sequential Circuits, Oberheim etc.

Interesting thoughts to ponder, but context is everything, IMO.
I think part of it, as well, is that 35 years ago, these synths that were coming out they were new tech, the future had arrived, these innovative companies were pushing the envelope, now we had polyphonic synths, with patch storage, and with midi, they could control each other. It was cutting edge, exciting times!
Old 25th July 2014
  #827
Lives for gear
 
Acid Mitch's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post


For those of us who were around when the first synths appeared, we tired of the sound fairly early - this is why when Yamaha released the DX7 in the early 80's, it almost completely wiped out the analog synth market, and it killed a few companies in the process - Sequential Circuits, Oberheim etc.
.
Wasn't it polyphony,patch storage, tuning stability,portabiltiy, MIDI and digital being the next big thing ,as much as some people being tired of the sound ?
Old 25th July 2014
  #828
Gear Head
 

What if both were recorded on a reel to reel?

Anybody take into account that the recording/reproduction format is primarily digital these days? Like this test. When I sit at home and play my old Odyssey through a Fender Bassman, it sounds a whole lot more alive than playing the Oddity through the computer. But when I record both through the same DAW, the difference is minimal.

Last night I listened to a W. Carlos' lp through the old stereo and remain floored by how viscerally stunning the Modular Moog still sounds when presented in a purely analog format. I'm sure you've all heard Neil Young's observation that Steve Jobs listened exclusively to lp's in his own home. Or Keith Richard's observation that todays digital studios are so much easier to record with, but sound like crap. Someday, the technology will advance so that it will be economical to use a format that is more satisfying than the most primitive of known Fourier transforms. (I got high hopes for holographic, but doubt I'm still around by the time they get to it.)
Old 25th July 2014
  #829
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rzzzzz View Post
Anybody take into account that the recording/reproduction format is primarily digital these days? Like this test. When I sit at home and play my old Odyssey through a Fender Bassman, it sounds a whole lot more alive than playing the Oddity through the computer. But when I record both through the same DAW, the difference is minimal.

Last night I listened to a W. Carlos' lp through the old stereo and remain floored by how viscerally stunning the Modular Moog still sounds when presented in a purely analog format. I'm sure you've all heard Neil Young's observation that Steve Jobs listened exclusively to lp's in his own home. Or Keith Richard's observation that todays digital studios are so much easier to record with, but sound like crap. Someday, the technology will advance so that it will be economical to use a format that is more satisfying than the most primitive of known Fourier transforms. (I got high hopes for holographic, but doubt I'm still around by the time they get to it.)
Exactly! X 1000 my p5 and virtual p5 sound different through my PA, when I record them, they sound very similar on the computer.
Old 25th July 2014
  #830
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acid Mitch View Post
Wasn't it polyphony,patch storage, tuning stability,portabiltiy, MIDI and digital being the next big thing ,as much as some people being tired of the sound ?
Also factor in that it was relatively cheaper as well.

Surely sampling was more exciting than digital synthesis? Seemed to have a bigger impact in the 80's and 90's than digital FM synths.
Old 25th July 2014
  #831
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
We added a few things... in the Uhbie-Filter you can modulate the mix of HP and LP, and you can have BP in the middle instead of just BR.

All filters have a FilterFM routing from VCO1. Most analogues don't.

We also added a path to modulate resonance, crossmod depth, and we added some math operations to the otherwise semi-modular modulation routing.

In some synths the actual VCA is only controlled by the VCA envelope while the output pot is just a passive resistor. In Diva the VCA knob lets one adjust the distortion of the VCA in relation to the overall volume, which is controlled by the output knob.

That's some of the things we haven't found in the original devices.
I'm going to download the diva demo, when I get in the studio later today.
Old 25th July 2014
  #832
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
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.
I don't know if that's a true statement. We would need more data to confirm.

I think it's true that most people heard a difference... which I believe the analog guys have been saying all along.

If nothing else, I think we can say that most of us don't know the difference, or have a different idea of what sounds analog, which does lend to the rest of your post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
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
I chose Diva to be the first instrument, because I believe Diva does in fact sound better than most analog gear. Not better as in quality, but better as in fidelity. Almost "too perfect" not so much that it sounds "fake" but getting there.

Just my opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
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
Again, I don't think anyone imagined a difference. The poll clearly shows there is a difference. We just didn't know how to quantify that difference or our expectations lead us to wrongly identify the sound source.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post

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
I'm not ashamed to admit it. A big part of my enjoyment of analog gear, is knowing that I'm sitting down in front of analog gear.

There's a big difference between sitting there with a Juno-60, a Pulse 2, & Diva... & that's probably the order I'd prefer them (but that's just me) I might think differently if that Diva hardware controller ever came out. Or even if I programmed my favorite controller to control my favorite parameters in Diva... who knows?
Old 25th July 2014
  #833
VST
Lives for gear
 
VST's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
I can't believe that people have to count 4 bar increments, that is bizarre. Interjecting with an "example a" voiceover kills the idea of music being made and seamless transitions, just count if you have to.
Except that you can't skip to different parts of the test without losing your place, and are then forced to restart from the beginning every time. It is a test and not a song so not sure why this would be a bad idea.
Old 25th July 2014
  #834
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by haze015 View Post
Well I have a MS20 here is you wanted to compare with a synth that is modelled.

The other problem with these A/B tests is that the synth has gone through A/D conversion. So are these tests showing that when listened to through a digital medium, that the differences between more about the qualities/flaws of the synths rather than an analogue/digital difference? What would a test that tried to eliminate this and was more about the differences for users of synths rather than audiences show?
Give me a break. How could you call others elitists (meaning something negative) and in the next post talk converters? YMMD

BTW: How would any GS not be proud of their kid if they would become audio elitists?

One McGill Professor said at the AES in Budapest: "Nowadays our biggest challenge is to get our students to listen. They come in with earbuds from their iPods in their ears and yet somehow they hear music, but firsthand when we audition them some music, yet they hear something, they don't really listen and it's very difficult to get them to listen closely. When I was a student I was cleaning a studio, making the toilet and things, just because at some time at night I would be given the chance to play back some music I brought. So I automatically would listen as good as I could, because I had to clean the studio all day for sometimes just a few minutes of listening."

Nowadays people exist who consider listening closely as elitism and at the same time have no shame to doubt the sound neutrality of a FF400. Wow. How is that not an end-of-the-world-scenario.

I should have remembered: GS is for entertainment purposes only (as I recently read in someones signature)
3
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #835
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by vstace View Post
Except that you can't skip to different parts of the test without losing your place, and are then forced to restart from the beginning every time. It is a test and not a song so not sure why this would be a bad idea.
The last thing I would want to hear when trying to concentrate on the delicaties of that nobel, real analog sound would be someone doing voiceovers.

But one could always put the files to SoundCloud and describe different parts with comments.

EDIT: Actually that might be a very bad idea
Old 25th July 2014
  #836
227861
Guest
(friend comes over)

"i brought some beer. you ready to jam"

(they walk into the next room full of gear. He goes over to the computer. Diva is loaded.)

"you should see these cool patches!!!"

(moves mouse)

"hey man i thought we were going to tweak knobs and stuff, play some keyboards and jam? what about all this gear you have"

(points to Diva)

"hey this sounds the same so no point. I selling all that stuff now, I can do it with softaware"

"are you out of your fing mind?"

"no listen, I did a test"

"who the f cares, lets play some keyboards!"
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #837
Gear Nut
 

I don't think digital has won quite yet.

Think about it, any one of us could have made those sounds on the OB8, and the sounds would be absolutely amazing no matter what the settings are (more or less). But everyone is hailing SWAN808 for his programming chops because he made Diva sound so good and analoguey. I'm still for using analog stuff for analog sounds and digital stuff for digital sounds. They sound different and can do different things, and that's fine! Use them for those different sounds they can make!
2
Share
Old 25th July 2014
  #838
Gear Nut
 
BlueeyedBlond's Avatar
 

I guess first was OB8 second Diva, too lazy to dig through pages
At the very beginning after four bars that brass stab sort of falls a part in terms of voicing, it's just fluctuates all over as if it were muting each other, some with ears will now what I mean. That's what I noticed right away while not paying attention to bar count, two stab parts of precise, two parts of floating.
If it was one for each bar, then I hear now difference, if it was two parts for four bars, then that brass stab "muting" is very obvious.
So I guess there was Diva's voice detuning in action.
The same difference I heard when in some old thread some guy posted examples of diva versus jupiter 8, the same voices falling apart sort of thing.
Old 25th July 2014
  #839
VST
Lives for gear
 
VST's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
The last thing I would want to hear when trying to concentrate on the delicaties of that nobel, real analog sound would be someone doing voiceovers.

But one could always put the files to SoundCloud and describe different parts with comments.

EDIT: Actually that might be a very bad idea
You really think a 1/2 second, low volume utterance of a letter every 20 seconds would ruin it?

It broke my concentration more counting bars in my head while listening to the demo. Hell, add a shaker shake for A and a rimshot for B when the phrases start, IDK, something at lease.
Old 25th July 2014
  #840
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by vstace View Post
You really think a 1/2 second, low volume utterance of a letter every 20 seconds would ruin it?
Yes, it would mask the change and make the test even harder.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump