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 26th July 2014
  #991
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Ok, 50/50 in statistics is not random at all.
Old 26th July 2014
  #992
227861
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Nope, not even our Juno 60 sounds like this. There's way too much saturation going on.
Not sure what you're implying by this? Good or bad?
Old 26th July 2014
  #993
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Ok, 50/50 in statistics is not random at all.
You should REALLY stop discussing statistics. It's in your own interest.
3
Share
Old 26th July 2014
  #994
Gear Maniac
 

My OBXa cost me about 2200 british pounds sterling. If I am honest with you I hated the thing. On rare occasion when it would decide to work I hated it also. It's sound isn't very inspiring to me and it was probably the worst 2200 quid I've ever spent. After that debacle I decided to try my hand at the Xpander. This cost me 1900 quid. Much better experience than the OBXa but it didn't impress me either :(. Value for money just isn't there.

Sometime later that same year I've discovered the joys of good outboard gear. Distressors, Fatsos, Thermionic vultures, Tone Beasts, SSL Matrix's/x-desks etc etc. Routing software synths like Diva through something like the Tone Beast TB12 for example, which is only about 300 quid or so, puts the whole debate to bed for me. Even just on it's own argument favours Diva purely on a value for money angle. You combine Diva with the TB12, a Fatso or a Distressor and Robert is your dad's brother as they say. I'm fairly certain you can buy a Fatso, a Distressor and a TB12 for the price of an OBXa. The outboard will work 100% of the time.

Software as good as the Diva has changed the game forever. To make things sound even more interesting I supplement Diva with good quality analogue outboard. End of story. I'm done spending money on overpriced but temperamental vintage synths when there is software as good as Diva that can be had for less than a 100 quid. The only thing that's important in the context of technology in music is to make sure that the sound you're making is the sound you want to hear.
2
Share
Old 26th July 2014
  #995
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robwood View Post
it would represent random distribution if we were studying chaotic patterns like cloud formation, water motion, etc... assuming everyone is guessing and no-one could tell, this is about right.

but a number of people have said they could tell. that means choosing, not guessing.. and in those terms, 50/50 means what it says... it's the same as an election; a close result doesn't mean everyone randomly voted, it means it was a close election.

imo the takeaway is that nowadays many have difficulty telling virtual from real world ...i'd no doubt be one of 'em as i couldn't tell a difference when i checked it out.


and i still think Diva sounded great... tho i'd prefer the Oberheim
The fact that a number of people have said they "could tell" does not mean they could actually tell- many of these people voted wrongly.

While you may not favor his style- Grummph is actually correct on this. If a large number of people vote on the difference between two sounds and the results come out 50/50 it very strongly suggests that pretty much everybody was guessing.

If only 6% "knew" what the OB really sounded like then they would have moved the results off center from 50/50.

before you reply - please read below

Assume this for sake of argument:

6% knew and chose B (we will call them knowers)

94 % were guessing (we will call them guessers)

the guessers will randomly choose and half of them (47% of the total) choose B correctly (lucky guessers) and half choose A incorrectly (another 47%- the unlucky guessers)

The totals are now:
For B: 6% (the knowers) plus 47% (the lucky guessers) = 53%
For A: 47% (the unlucky guessers) = 47%

But this is not what happened it was 50/50 which strongly suggests practically everyone was guessing- this is not extraordinary given how close the samples sounded

But keep in mind that GS is filled with knowers- people who spend a lot of time carefully listening to sound- this is not an audience that represents the world population in terms of attention to sound- and they couldn't tell the difference


Seen in this light the results are even more extraordinary and almost certainly the result of random guessing at two identical sounds
3
Share
Old 26th July 2014
  #996
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdf View Post
Sometime later that same year I've discovered the joys of good outboard gear. Distressors, Fatsos, Thermionic vultures, Tone Beasts, SSL Matrix's/x-desks etc etc. Routing software synths like Diva through something like the Tone Beast TB12 for example, which is only about 300 quid or so, puts the whole debate to bed for me. Even just on it's own argument favours Diva purely on a value for money angle. You combine Diva with the TB12, a Fatso or a Distressor and Robert is your dad's brother as they say. I'm fairly certain you can buy a Fatso, a Distressor and a TB12 for the price of an OBXa. The outboard will work 100% of the time.
Do you work for some of these companies? Or did you just discover there are these dynamic and effect processors? Because I think you are trying to move the target. You can certainly use an outboard 1176 clone compressor to improve the results but if it is better than a digital compressor with a 10 ms look-ahead delay is another matter.

If you want my honest opinion (ok, didn't expect that), in the end it is about skills. Skills to make a good patch and play a good lick. Mix it well with the rest of the track. Even if a lot has changed the need for skills hasn't yet disappeared.
4
Share
Old 26th July 2014
  #997
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
The fact that a number of people have said they "could tell" does not mean they could actually tell- many of these people voted wrongly.

While you may not favor his style- Grummph is actually correct on this. If a large number of people vote on the difference between two sounds and the results come out 50/50 it very strongly suggests that pretty much everybody was guessing.
Strongly suggests is OK wording, I don't so much think the 'pretty much everybody' part is supported. Population level data from a single test does not give insight into individual characteristics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
If only 6% "knew" what the OB really sounded like then they would have moved the results off center from 50/50.

before you reply - please read below

Assume this for sake of argument:

6% knew and chose B (we will call them knowers)

94 % were guessing (we will call them guessers)

the guessers will randomly choose and half of them (47% of the total) choose B correctly (lucky guessers) and half choose A incorrectly (another 47%- the unlucky guessers)

The totals are now:
For B: 6% (the knowers) plus 47% (the lucky guessers) = 53%
For A: 47% (the unlucky guessers) = 47%

But this is not what happened it was 50/50 which strongly suggests practically everyone was guessing- this is not extraordinary given how close the samples sounded
Random guessing does not always lead to a 50-50 split. Flip a coin 100 times, there's a pretty decent chance you wind up with heads 53 times or more rather than 50. A small population of 'knowers' can easily be obscured by random deviation in your binomial distribution (shape of probability of coin flip percentages).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
But keep in mind that GS is filled with knowers- people who spend a lot of time carefully listening to sound- this is not an audience that represents the world population in terms of attention to sound- and they couldn't tell the difference
Is it? I think there are plenty of people here, myself included, who have never heard an OB8 in person. An interesting amendment to this 'test' would be to poll the respondents on level of experience with the OB8 or Diva and see if that has any bearings on accuracy of guesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Seen in this light the results are even more extraordinary and almost certainly the result of random guessing at two identical sounds
They were certainly close enough for music, but I'm not sure anybody is saying they were identical. Nor does it matter if they were truly identical in sound, because a musician or producer would have to go through different processes to coax them from either instrument so reasons remain to use one or the other.
1
Share
Old 26th July 2014
  #998
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
Do you work for some of these companies? Or did you just discover there are these dynamic and effect processors? Because I think you are trying to move the target. You can certainly use an outboard 1176 clone compressor to improve the results but if it is better than a digital compressor with a 10 ms look-ahead delay is another matter.

If you want my honest opinion (ok, didn't expect that), in the end it is about skills. Skills to make a good patch and play a good lick. Mix it well with the rest of the track. Even if a lot has changed the need for skills hasn't yet disappeared.
No. I dont' work for any of these and it is rather cynical to suggest such a thing. Of course these aren't the only dynamics and effects processors. There are many more but I named a few just to illustrate my point. How many should one name to illustrate a point like this? I should think just a few is enough. I have some Rupert Neve stuff as well for example. And Pultec and a number of roland space echos and eventides et al.

Yes, of course there is no substitute for skills and talent. As obvious as that statement is, it is a separate point to the one I've made. Software, as good as it is today, is better value for money than old, unreliable vintage hardware is the point. When paired with some good outboard software can give you a very nice analogue feel anyway. An analogue front end and analogue mix-down goes a long way to liven up software and digital.
Old 27th July 2014
  #999
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
Strongly suggests is OK wording, I don't so much think the 'pretty much everybody' part is supported. Population level data from a single test does not give insight into individual characteristics..
More test are always better and I have asked for this in pervious posts



Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
Random guessing does not always lead to a 50-50 split. Flip a coin 100 times, there's a pretty decent chance you wind up with heads 53 times or more rather than 50. A small population of 'knowers' can easily be obscured by random deviation in your binomial distribution (shape of probability of coin flip percentages)..
Actually- the higher the number of people who respond the more likely a random choice will end up 50/50. There are odds for even how likely this is to happen! And, after many responses are tabulated, the odds of getting a 45/55 are far, far lower than 49/51. Any way you look at it the number of hypothetical "knowers" who knew which sound was analog gets very tiny. My point stands as correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
Is it? I think there are plenty of people here, myself included, who have never heard an OB8 in person. An interesting amendment to this 'test' would be to poll the respondents on level of experience with the OB8 or Diva and see if that has any bearings on accuracy of guesses..
This is a Red Herring- the respondents were given 2 sounds and asked to determine a difference- you can tell if 2 sounds are different even if you do not know how they were made. A review of the comments shows many thought the sounds were identical. Plus, given the often repeated description in GS of analog as being warm, , irregular, smooth and digital as being cold, precise, and not smooth it is likely most knew what they were supposed to be looking for.

I cannot see how you could ever have a mass audience test if you require someone to listen to an analog synth live- if you make this a requirement then you must eliminate older listeners too ( they hear higher frequencies less well than younger listeners and this could affect results) you must factor out experience (some here have argued that you have to play an analog for a while to learn the subtleties of its sound), etc. etc.- once you go down this road you get into too many contaminating variables. This seems like a smoke screen to discredit the experiment done by Swan.

Given the number of people who voted, their experience in music, and the internet (where they could have listened to a real OB easily before voting) I think you are doing backflips to discredit a pretty impressive 50/50 outcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
They were certainly close enough for music, but I'm not sure anybody is saying they were identical. Nor does it matter if they were truly identical in sound, because a musician or producer would have to go through different processes to coax them from either instrument so reasons remain to use one or the other.
This is where I totally agree with you. even if some people could tell for sure which one was the OB (and I am not sure any could)- the number of folks who could do so is so small as to be insignificant- almost statistical noise.

The key here is that digital is far, far superior to analog in terms of price, portability, flexibility, reliability, and tactile control (since you can assign controllers the way you want). Since the sounds are identical or 99.99% similar it is a no brainer to go digital. (BTW- once you add other instruments and FX to your mix the sounds ARE identical for all intensive purposes as any tiny difference is completely buried by the new sounds harmonics).

I guarantee you that writers are generally not arguing on whether or not to use computers or typewriters- there is too much emotional investment around here in instruments- its the sound that matters, not how its made.
Old 27th July 2014
  #1000
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hearteh View Post
Personally I find it so uninspiring to add things like that afterwards. it kills my inspiration and I agree with boards of canada that once said this:

"I think the digital world suffers from being just so literal, so deliberate and sober. As with digital photography, people have gotten used to applying simulated filters onto their pictures just to inject a bit of romance into the thing, because the raw pictures are so flat. But in the analog realm these beautiful things just happen by themselves without your conscious effort. You could say the wobbles and flutters in our music are equivalent to something like weeds overgrowing an old building. Nobody puts the weeds there, but nature comes along and makes the scene very tragic and beautiful".
Ansel Adams was one of the most celebrated photographers of his generation - his photos had a surreal look created by thousands of hours in the darkroom - poring over negatives and dodging, burning, cropping and trying, often dozens of passes on the same negative, many techniques to make his photos more beautiful and more, ummm, "unnatural".

None of those things happened "naturally", Adams was an artist and the darkroom was his canvas - it was all deliberate, and it was all analog.

If Adams were alive today, he'd be doing all that stuff using digital tools, in fact, he predicted photography would one day be fully electronic and welcomed the concept ... he just didn't stick around long enough to see it.
1
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1001
Lives for gear
Wow..
Is this gear slutz or statistics slutz? I think my browser redirected me.
4
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1002
Lives for gear
 
m127f's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
Also, this was just a couple of sounds for a few bars. I cannot believe the amount of debate and discussion of minutiae that has resulted from this extremely narrow and limited "test."
yeah, that's sort of my point.
Maison is crying for the death of his P10 and has been all drama like some others, like if they are all personally hurt for some reason. Also many are drawing puzzling conclusions apparently ONLY based on the test. Let's take it easy gentlemen. It was only an exercise of appreciation. World won't end just yet.

On my part, I did try the OB8 for several hours and I just tried Diva.
OB8 is instant pleasure, power and etc.
Diva is not that instant whatsoever, yet you can design some awesome stuff with it.
It's like good guitars vs OK guitars. OK guitars have to be played a certain way, but there are guitars that distilled mojo no matter what you do. Same case for synths like the OB8 or the Jups. Hence that's why in my opinion I deem the OB8 a superior musical instrument. Yet Diva is in fact a great solution to all the problems the OB8 represents. Hence, Diva is a great buy... Actually, it's probably a superior buy all things equal.

It's just my honest POV. Won't try to impose it. Just sharing it, and I guess it sort of helps balance some of the drama.

I could not buy an OB8 due to many reasons, but Diva is an instant buy imo. Outstanding piece of software.



.
3
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1003
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
More test are always better and I have asked for this in pervious posts

I think this test has done fine in demonstrating that Diva sounds good enough to use for poly analog sounds for many people, and in application that's really the only useful thing to take away from this for the sake of making music. Not sure why you need more tests, though you do seem to have an agenda about what types of synth people should be using, which could be reason enough I suppose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Actually- the higher the number of people who respond the more likely a random choice will end up 50/50. There are odds for even how likely this is to happen! And, after many responses are tabulated, the odds of getting a 45/55 are far, far lower than 49/51.
Sure, but you can't be certain from a 50/50 outcome here that nobody could hear a difference. There's a 1 in 20 chance that your random coin flips at 100 guesses get you 60% or more. To conclude that there is no difference to any listener is presumptuous on many levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
This is a Red Herring- the respondents were given 2 sounds and asked to determine a difference- you can tell if 2 sounds are different even if you do not know how they were made.
UUUUUH... No. Respondents were asked to identify which sound was an OB8 and which was Diva. Otherwise the poll would have been 'Are the first four bars played by the same synth as the next four bars? Y/N'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Plus, given the often repeated description in GS of analog as being warm, , irregular, smooth and digital as being cold, precise, and not smooth it is likely most knew what they were supposed to be looking for.
Well, that's not how I think of the differences, when they do exist... To me analog may be associated with more musical saturation characteristics, absence of aliasing, quantization error and band limiting, sometimes electrical glitchiness. I chose DIVA as the analog sound, so Urs is doing something right. Anyway, warm, smooth, cold, and precise are extremely difficult to define discretely within audio, and can mean different things to different people

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
I cannot see how you could ever have a mass audience test if you require someone to listen to an analog synth live- if you make this a requirement then you must eliminate older listeners too ( they hear higher frequencies less well than younger listeners and this could affect results) you must factor out experience (some here have argued that you have to play an analog for a while to learn the subtleties of its sound), etc. etc.- once you go down this road you get into too many contaminating variables.
No, you reveal the effect those variables, previously hidden, have on the outcome. There's no such thing as 'too many contaminating variables' if all those variables are actually likely to have an effect on your observation. But like I said, there's no reason to go any farther unless you have something to prove beyond the utility of Diva...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
This seems like a smoke screen to discredit the experiment done by Swan.

Given the number of people who voted, their experience in music, and the internet (where they could have listened to a real OB easily before voting) I think you are doing backflips to discredit a pretty impressive 50/50 outcome.
Not trying to discredit anything that this test shows. You are trying to extend what the results actually show into overarching, and sometimes obnoxious statements that do not necessarily follow. See below...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
The key here is that digital is far, far superior to analog in terms of price, portability, flexibility, reliability, and tactile control (since you can assign controllers the way you want). Since the sounds are identical or 99.99% similar it is a no brainer to go digital. (BTW- once you add other instruments and FX to your mix the sounds ARE identical for all intensive purposes as any tiny difference is completely buried by the new sounds harmonics).

I guarantee you that writers are generally not arguing on whether or not to use computers or typewriters- there is too much emotional investment around here in instruments- its the sound that matters, not how its made.
Well, depending on how each musician works, some sounds get made on certain instruments and not on others. Why nag other people about their workflow/choice of instruments? Why not just choose the bang for buck digital stuff for yourself if that's what you like and recommend it if somebody solicits input, rather than insisting that everybody else's musical choices conform to your aesthetic?
3
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1004
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by m127f View Post
yeah, that's sort of my point.
Maison is crying for the death of his P10 and has been all drama like some others, like if they are all personally hurt for some reason. Also many are drawing puzzling conclusions apparently ONLY based on the test. Let's take it easy gentlemen. It was only an exercise of appreciation. World won't end just yet.

On my part, I did try the OB8 for several hours and I just tried Diva.
OB8 is instant pleasure, power and etc.
Diva is not that instant whatsoever, yet you can design some awesome stuff with it.
It's like good guitars vs OK guitars. OK guitars have to be played a certain way, but there are guitars that distilled mojo no matter what you do. Same case for synths like the OB8 or the Jups. Hence that's why in my opinion I deem the OB8 a superior musical instrument. Yet Diva is in fact a great solution to all the problems the OB8 represents. Hence, Diva is a great buy... Actually, it's probably a superior buy all things equal.

It's just my honest POV. Won't try to impose it. Just sharing it, and I guess it sort of helps balance some of the drama.

I could not buy an OB8 due to many reasons, but Diva is an instant buy imo. Outstanding piece of software.



.
Yes. I like this guy.
Old 27th July 2014
  #1005
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futureman84 View Post
Wow..
Is this gear slutz or statistics slutz? I think my browser redirected me.
Slutistics!
2
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1006
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
More test are always better and I have asked for this in pervious posts





Actually- the higher the number of people who respond the more likely a random choice will end up 50/50. There are odds for even how likely this is to happen! And, after many responses are tabulated, the odds of getting a 45/55 are far, far lower than 49/51. Any way you look at it the number of hypothetical "knowers" who knew which sound was analog gets very tiny. My point stands as correct.



This is a Red Herring- the respondents were given 2 sounds and asked to determine a difference- you can tell if 2 sounds are different even if you do not know how they were made. A review of the comments shows many thought the sounds were identical. Plus, given the often repeated description in GS of analog as being warm, , irregular, smooth and digital as being cold, precise, and not smooth it is likely most knew what they were supposed to be looking for.

I cannot see how you could ever have a mass audience test if you require someone to listen to an analog synth live- if you make this a requirement then you must eliminate older listeners too ( they hear higher frequencies less well than younger listeners and this could affect results) you must factor out experience (some here have argued that you have to play an analog for a while to learn the subtleties of its sound), etc. etc.- once you go down this road you get into too many contaminating variables. This seems like a smoke screen to discredit the experiment done by Swan.

Given the number of people who voted, their experience in music, and the internet (where they could have listened to a real OB easily before voting) I think you are doing backflips to discredit a pretty impressive 50/50 outcome.



This is where I totally agree with you. even if some people could tell for sure which one was the OB (and I am not sure any could)- the number of folks who could do so is so small as to be insignificant- almost statistical noise.

The key here is that digital is far, far superior to analog in terms of price, portability, flexibility, reliability, and tactile control (since you can assign controllers the way you want). Since the sounds are identical or 99.99% similar it is a no brainer to go digital. (BTW- once you add other instruments and FX to your mix the sounds ARE identical for all intensive purposes as any tiny difference is completely buried by the new sounds harmonics).

I guarantee you that writers are generally not arguing on whether or not to use computers or typewriters- there is too much emotional investment around here in instruments- its the sound that matters, not how its made.
Your efforts are laudable - but you are basically arguing with a group of people that, if this were religion, are the creationists of GS.
Old 27th July 2014
  #1007
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by m127f View Post
Maison is crying for the death of his P10 and has been all drama like some others




Sorry, but I thought it would be obvious to everyone that I was only joking about the P-10.

As for the drama, I won't deny I'm into theater.

Anyway, all I really want is for others to be happy with their instruments just as I am happy with mine.

When everyone is making music with instruments that inspire them, perhaps then will this debate end.
3
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1008
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
the respondents were given 2 sounds and asked to determine a difference
They actually were given multiple tasks:
- listening for all differences they could find
- linking all of the differences they perceived to the correct device
- determining which of the differences would be the most important ones, picking one device as A and the other device as B, even if some of the perceived differences had made the listener think "it's rather A" while other perceived differences might have been linked to the assumption "it's B".

It's not like the user had been asked "do you perceive a difference at all?". This aspect cannot be isolated from the existing poll by any means.


BTW: Having a 50:50 outcome which contradicts some none-50:50-outcome it cannot be seen isolated from is what happens in tests all the time (the question whether such things did happen is used as a measure that helps to identify flawed tests that have to be re-designed). Such co-dependent questions are build into test designs on purpose to get a sign whether there was a flaw with the test design.

E.g. it would be possible to get a 70:30 outcome on the question "which one did you prefer" concerning the same material. That would be a sign that there may have been a problem with the test which had a the 50:50 outcome, as it would mean that there were perceived differences while the test design may have failed to allow the user to categorize them, using the same category like all other users with a similar impression also would use, not allowing different users to link their finding to different categories. But such a result could also be something one might get from an uncluttered test, which basically would mean that there is no such thing as a distinct sound of OB8 or DIVA (at least within the examples given).
If there was a 50:50 split on a question "which did you prefer" concerning the same examples, this would indeed be a sign that people failed to tell a difference at all. However, to be somewhat sure they failed to tell a difference at all, i would be best to have multiple categories what one perceived (such as "brighter - more dull"). If people really can't tell, there should be a 50:50 split (if the number of participants is large enough) on every single of those categories. But it takes a broad palette of sound samples for such a test, to make sure it's not just that one patch-adjustment which was accountable for some brighter or duller perception of the sound.
Old 27th July 2014
  #1009
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
well, when i listened, i was left with the impression that the two synths are alternating in 8 bars, because that's what it said in the poll question
so i'm confused
anyway, i am not familiar with both synths, i know more about santa claus than about OB8 and diva
i certainly liked the "PWM" character more on the first synth (i think, can't be sure, is it 8 bars or 4 bars?)
but overal, this type of sound is not my thing, i prefer supersaws ;P~
perhaps i shouldn't have participated in this poll (and guys in similar position to me, not knowing the two synths)

i still think the point of this test was to see if people can identify the non-analog, and most couldn't
because lots of the debates are about "software can't sound like analog"
while in this specific test, the softsynth doesn't sound *exactly* like the analog - that's okay because the softsynth isn't anywhere near an emulation of that specific synth, so you can't expect it to be that close, yet it's close enough, that if you listened to one of the versions, then did a 10 minute pause and listened to the other version - you might not notice that anything changed

i think the poll should have had a few more options
- diva is first, i'm 100% sure
- diva is first, i'm 75% sure
- ..... 50%
- OB8 is first, i'm 100% sure
- .....
- .....

you get the point
then in the results you could see how many "experts" guessed it right and how many "mortals" (myself included) voted randomly
Old 27th July 2014
  #1010
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Ansel Adams was one of the most celebrated photographers of his generation - his photos had a surreal look created by thousands of hours in the darkroom - poring over negatives and dodging, burning, cropping and trying, often dozens of passes on the same negative, many techniques to make his photos more beautiful and more, ummm, "unnatural".

None of those things happened "naturally", Adams was an artist and the darkroom was his canvas - it was all deliberate, and it was all analog.

If Adams were alive today, he'd be doing all that stuff using digital tools, in fact, he predicted photography would one day be fully electronic and welcomed the concept ... he just didn't stick around long enough to see it.
Very interesting.I knew all that (except the electronic bit at the end)He still would have made great photos but a certain kind of 'light' magic would be missing.Since photography depends on that light process,some of the 'process'would be missing too.Back in 1995 i went 'back' to study photography in the darkroom OG style.Me and my whole class rebelled against the 'mac' revolution creeping in on us.In many respects RIP chemicals and darkrooms!!!! i had some of the best times there.

edit-i might even start processing analog again.Ill be unique!!!

edit 2-well done URS.Id try this plug synth without a doubt.You present it very well.
Old 27th July 2014
  #1011
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
When everyone is making music with instruments that inspire them, perhaps then will this debate end.
Word, Yoda.
2
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1012
Lives for gear
 
Nigel99's Avatar
 

Magnificent, Clark.

Soooo...now you are done with the Prophet 10 I should look into shipping?

Cheers,
N


Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
Face it. It's over. Digital has won.

So I've composed

an Elegy

for

Solo Prophet-10

Improvised in one take

Because that's all it took

To recognize

His time had come

And gone.

Fare thee well, my friend!

1
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1013
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumphh View Post
Your efforts are laudable - but you are basically arguing with a group of people that, if this were religion, are the creationists of GS.
You know, I finally looked over all your posts in this thread and I pretty much agree with what you had been saying prior to the whole '50/50 = random' argument. My science nerd senses just got dinged by your interpretive statements once that came in, not so much because it was totally off base, but because in the world of statistics it would be incautious and unsupported (lack of evidence does not equal evidence to the contrary yada yada)...

EDIT: Specifically, it's also still presumptuous to say that because the distribution of responses resembled 50/50 guessing, every individual was just guessing. Population level data gives you information on populations, not the individuals that comprise them. Different analytic techniques are required if you want to make supported statements about maisonvague

As for Lune, I can't agree with him because he seems to fall into the category of one obsessed by the A vs D BS coming down on the side of digital, and is evangelizing his point of view by stretching the poll results to say more than they necessarily do.
1
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1014
Absolutely awesome work with the programming, they sound soooo close! Very cool test.

Did you have to work harder with one synth than the other to get the results you wanted?

Poll result seems very clear: there is no winner (except for all Diva-users of course )
Old 27th July 2014
  #1015
Very interesting that it sounds so close... Hmm...
I think that there are also some similarities with the OB SEM?
Old 27th July 2014
  #1016
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 View Post
Not sure what you're implying by this? Good or bad?
Implying nothing. To me, the Juno 60 in that video sounds fatter, more saturated, more present than my own Juno 60. Therefore I don't think that Diva would sound like this out of the box. You'd need some sort of saturation plug-in or outboard gear to achieve that sound.

Or maybe the artist wa sjust lucky to have one that could be overdriven on the VCA without screeching.
Old 27th July 2014
  #1017
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
Implying nothing. To me, the Juno 60 in that video sounds fatter, more saturated, more present than my own Juno 60. Therefore I don't think that Diva would sound like this out of the box. You'd need some sort of saturation plug-in or outboard gear to achieve that sound.

Or maybe the artist wa sjust lucky to have one that could be overdriven on the VCA without screeching.
A good point and something I've been trying to convey in many of these threads - that the sound of synths people hear on records (and videos etc.) have a lot more to do with many factors having nothing to do with the particular instrument, but a lot to do with how it was recorded, mixed, programmed and arranged/composed.

People repeatedly ask the wrong questions in 99 percent of these threads, instead of asking "what synth for this sound", they should be asking " what resources for learning how to get that sound [or better yet, how to develop a sound]"
Old 27th July 2014
  #1018
Urs
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
A good point and something I've been trying to convey in many of these threads - that the sound of synths people hear on records (and videos etc.) have a lot more to do with many factors having nothing to do with the particular instrument, but a lot to do with how it was recorded, mixed, programmed and arranged/composed.

People repeatedly ask the wrong questions in 99 percent of these threads, instead of asking "what synth for this sound", they should be asking " what resources for learning how to get that sound [or better yet, how to develop a sound]"
Yeah, it's like this mp3:

http://gsotosite.googlepages.com/virus1.mp3

This went through forums as an example for the superior sound quality of the Access Virus, whch could never be matched with a software synthesizer. It is also a demo for a commercial soundset. But when I bought a Virus and the soundset, I sure enough had to add dynamics processing to get there. I use the term "Not even the Virus sounds like this!" to describe the problem.
1
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1019
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
the Juno 60 in that video sounds fatter, more saturated, more present than my own Juno 60. Therefore I don't think that Diva would sound like this out of the box
That "more present" sound is probably the biggest single reason people stick with OTB gear sonically. Despite knowing for years that it can be added, just by sending software through a wide variety of outboard things, people still want to hear those qualities straight from the synth. Do you have any plans or interest in exploring VCA's more to answer that sort of thing?
Quote:
This went through forums as an example for the superior sound quality of the Access Virus, whch could never be matched with a software synthesizer.
Haha. I would've known who you meant even without the mp3. So how long did it take you to figure the demos were actually for an SPL product, if I remember right?
2
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1020
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enecosse View Post
That "more present" sound is probably the biggest single reason people stick with OTB gear sonically. Despite knowing for years that it can be added, just by sending software through a wide variety of outboard things, people still want to hear those qualities straight from the synth. Do you have any plans or interest in exploring VCA's more to answer that sort of thing?
Haha. I would've known who you meant even without the mp3. So how long did it take you to figure the demos were actually for an SPL product, if I remember right?
I send/return OTB and ITB and have been doing it for years now - for example, I'll sometimes use my (hardware) Pigtronix Echolution as a delay effect for creating cool drum beats - resample, then use the excellent (software) Soundtoys Echoboy for further exploration. One doesn't necessarily sound "better" than the other, but both offer different ways of working ... ultimately, to arrive at a single place.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump