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 27th July 2014
  #1021
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
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.
I actually think more tests are good because they increase the PR that digital synths can sound just like analog. But the test done in this thread basically answered the question that it is possible. Any future tests are really meaningless- if a digital sound doesn't equal an analog sound in a future test the comeback will simply be that the digital programmer didn't design the patch with enough care.


Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
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.?
Actually it is a far worse statistical nightmare for you than that. Many of the respondents gave very detailed answers and many have indicated prior experience with analog. This was not a small group but a large minority (maybe over 20%) - this group of experts should have shifted the center well off of 50/50- but they didn't- any many guessed wrong- another blow to your theory that analogue users can tell.

But is gets even worse for your theory-

people who didn't have analog synths could have listened to an OB on the internet in high definition and in fact, they would have had an incentive to do so, as to be correct in the poll. Now the group of experts grows even more and the results should have gone well off of 50/50. And the freak statistical explanation of yours grows even more far fetched- to the level of planets aligning.

But now it gets much, much worse for your theory.

Many people probably listened to the sounds and couldn't tell the difference- so they opted out of voting so as to not look bad in public- those who felt they could tell a difference felt confident and had an incentive to vote. Thus the number of people who couldn't tell a difference was probably larger than the number who actually voted- maybe much larger as those who couldn't tell got cold feet and opted not to vote at all.

Now the freak statistical explanation of yours grows even more far fetched- to the level of planets aligning, and sea turtles swimming upside down in alignment to spell out the US Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
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'?
See above: many stated they knew what an OB8 sounded like- it is also ridiculously easy to listen to an OB8 on the internet, and many stated that the sounds were identical which means, to them, it doesn't matter how they were generated. You have no proof that most went in blindly like you did (for some strange reason.) Given the number of seasoned pros who responded, this is a very weak argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
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?
Agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
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... ?
This absolutely, once and for all, proves you have no idea what you are talking about regarding research. Of course there can be a such thing as "too many contaminating variables"- that's the whole point of good research design- to limit these. Please read this subject before you write- I have taught research design.


Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
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...?
You are not trying to discredit this test? Are you serious? Do you really expect any reader to believe that you are not trying to discredit Swan's test? Do you think people are THAT stupid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prontold View Post
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?
Please point out where I stated that I wanted "everybody else's musical choices conform to your aesthetic". No wait! You can't find this quote- what you wrote is called a "smear" (an overarching one? I will let the experts decide! Russian judges- take your seats)

Listen, am done with this debate. I am confident that if anyone reads my posts and yours, and uses their brain, will figure out who is correct- so you get the last word as I have much better things to do with my time than bat down ignorant statements all day.

I have nothing against people using analogue. If people want to use analogue synths let them- just don't try to come up with BS arguments to discredit a good experiment.
Old 27th July 2014
  #1022
227861
Guest
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]"
Cool.

FYI that was recorded straight to a makie mixer only so I could control levels to a Zoom H4N directly. Also to control the monitors via Aux sends for the player and I. That's it. Lots of patches don't even have the chorus on. I design most of my patches without the Juno chorus because I find too many patches will sound too similar if I do. Just my preference.
1
Share
Old 27th July 2014
  #1023
Lives for gear
 

i just wanna say good track and in my vote (which i just did without cheating and reading ahead btw) i picked first one as software and second hardware because ...

there wasn't really much difference between the 2 sources patch wise honestly. both would work equally well in the track.
my clue was the phasing cancellation in the hardware recording that's why i picked number 1 as diva. i could hear the mixing problem the ob8 was having with phase cancellation from the drifty oscs
Old 27th July 2014
  #1024
Registered User
Attention. Attention.

Would the statistics conversation please take a stroll over to the Jupiter-8 vs Arturia thread, where, at the time the truth was revealed, ten people had guessed, er... answered correctly, while 28 were incorrect.

People are going to stop responding to these 'tests' due to an inability to tell the difference between hardware and software.
Old 27th July 2014
  #1025
Lives for gear
 
Synth Buddha's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
Attention. Attention.

Would the statistics conversation please take a stroll over to the Jupiter-8 vs Arturia thread, where, at the time the truth was revealed, ten people had guessed, er... answered correctly, while 28 were incorrect.

People are going to stop responding to these 'tests' due to an inability to tell the difference between hardware and software.
Nah, I'm not going to stop responding. I mean, this is fun, isn't it? And hey, I actually get it right most of the time. At times it's obvious which is which, other times I'm clueless. I don't know why people feel the need to take this so seriously, to be honest. Then again, I don't think I take anything on these forums - or in life, for that matter - all that seriously.
1
Share
Old 28th July 2014
  #1026
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
another blow to your theory that analogue users can tell.

But is gets even worse for your theory-

But now it gets much, much worse for your theory.
I have no theory. I have master plans, but no theory

All's I'm saying is you can't use the results from this kind of poll to say with certainty that nobody can tell the difference. If all you have is a prompt to identify which synth plays the first 4 bars, and a 50/50 split on the answers, you really don't know too much about the processes leading to those answers. Did some of the people who answered correctly know what to listen for? There's no way to prove that they didn't from this poll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
blah blah blah indicated prior experience with analog yadadada people who didn't have analog synths could have listened to an OB on the internet in high definition and ... would have had an incentive to do so, as to be correct in the poll etcetc so they opted out of voting so as to not look bad in public [editor's note - 'o.0']
That's nice. What were their love lives like? Did their children obey them out of fear or admiration? What flashed before their eyes as they made the fateful decision; "Diva or OB8?"

Neither you nor I know at this point what preparation people undertook to vote on a poll on Gearslutz... I don't prepare for these things because I think they're just for fun, but I'll probably regret that someday in the midst of a spontaneous cavity search.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Now the freak statistical explanation of yours grows even more far fetched- to the level of planets aligning, and sea turtles swimming upside down in alignment to spell out the US Constitution.

Who told you about my lovelies?! ****, that's out... Plan B I guess...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
This absolutely, once and for all, proves you have no idea what you are talking about regarding research.
Things are so easily proven in your world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Of course there can be a such thing as "too many contaminating variables"- that's the whole point of good research design- to limit these. Please read this subject before you write- I have taught research design.
I would suggest that you may be confusing the creation of a controlled environment for laboratory testing with analytic strategies for field experiments. In a lab setting, you have the privilege of being able to restrict your observations, subjects, or whatever so that additional factors aside from what you are specifically studying don't influence your outcome. If you want to see how many warts grown on a man's nipple with application of varying number of papilloma viruses, you can choose to have only white, 34 year old, self-infatuated participants. In a field experiment, such as an open poll on a public website with no real membership hurdles, you can't restrict your observations, so your analysis will be far more powerful if you can measure all the variables that could be at play (say degree of experience with analog synths, recent hearing exam results, degree of preparation to answer the poll , age...) and account for their influence on the outcome. That's what we do in epidemiology.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
You are not trying to discredit this test? Are you serious? Do you really expect any reader to believe that you are not trying to discredit Swan's test? Do you think people are THAT stupid?
I'm playing a very, very long game... You'll never discover my true motivations until it is TOO LATE!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Please point out where I stated that I wanted "everybody else's musical choices conform to your aesthetic". No wait! You can't find this quote- what you wrote is called a "smear" (an overarching one? I will let the experts decide! Russian judges- take your seats)
It's on your goddam T shirt. I can smell it from here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lune View Post
Listen, am done with this debate. I am confident that if anyone reads my posts and yours, and uses their brain, will figure out who is correct- so you get the last word as I have much better things to do with my time than bat down ignorant statements all day.
Ok he's gone. Come back my lovelies. Constitution is out. War and Peace is in.

2
Share
Old 28th July 2014
  #1027
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
Attention. Attention.

Would the statistics conversation please take a stroll over to the Jupiter-8 vs Arturia thread, where, at the time the truth was revealed, ten people had guessed, er... answered correctly, while 28 were incorrect.

People are going to stop responding to these 'tests' due to an inability to tell the difference between hardware and software.
Hahaha, now that's interesting...
Old 28th July 2014
  #1028
Lives for gear
 
Zoolook's Avatar
I'm posting this without reading the thread. The 1st 4 bars sound a little heavier and I think it's the Diva. The OB8 I think has a slightly roomier sound. So I voted Diva...

But to be honest, the difference was barely noticeable and if it hadn't been pointed out there was one, I wouldn't have heard it.
Old 28th July 2014
  #1029
Lives for gear
 
Zoolook's Avatar
Working with what works for you is always the best approach, I completely agree. Actually I spent an hour or so this afternoon on a patch (from scratch) on my Radias for a 'string machine' like sound. I have some samples, but didn't like any of them, and have never got around to buying VSM from GFORCE, which is really nice.

So I sat down to program it, thinking it was probably not going to sound that great, but what the hell.

An hour later, I loved the result - but I had to do a lot of fiddling to get it to sound 'old' (LFO 2 using S&H on a low frequency to modulate LFO 1 also on a S&H and modulating pitch of one each of the layers independently (I used 6 layers - 3 saws, 2 PCM 'strings' and a triangle at the bottom end) and then finally set the ensemble effect just about right). In the end, did it sound 'analogue' - no way... but I loved the sound anyway, it was big and lush and practically impossible to get on another instrument. Sitting in the mix I had, it was just what I wanted.

I'm rambling, but my view is that pretty much all synths can be really excellent instruments if they're allowed to be true to their own nature.
Old 28th July 2014
  #1030
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post
Working with what works for you is always the best approach, I completely agree. Actually I spent an hour or so this afternoon on a patch (from scratch) on my Radias for a 'string machine' like sound. I have some samples, but didn't like any of them, and have never got around to buying VSM from GFORCE, which is really nice.

So I sat down to program it, thinking it was probably not going to sound that great, but what the hell.

An hour later, I loved the result - but I had to do a lot of fiddling to get it to sound 'old' (LFO 2 using S&H on a low frequency to modulate LFO 1 also on a S&H and modulating pitch of one each of the layers independently (I used 6 layers - 3 saws, 2 PCM 'strings' and a triangle at the bottom end) and then finally set the ensemble effect just about right). In the end, did it sound 'analogue' - no way... but I loved the sound anyway, it was big and lush and practically impossible to get on another instrument. Sitting in the mix I had, it was just what I wanted.

I'm rambling, but my view is that pretty much all synths can be really excellent instruments if they're allowed to be true to their own nature.
This is what it's all about - great post!
2
Share
Old 28th July 2014
  #1031
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post
I'm rambling, but my view is that pretty much all synths can be really excellent instruments if they're allowed to be true to their own nature.


Well said.
1
Share
Old 28th July 2014
  #1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synth Buddha View Post
Nah, I'm not going to stop responding. I mean, this is fun, isn't it? And hey, I actually get it right most of the time. At times it's obvious which is which, other times I'm clueless. I don't know why people feel the need to take this so seriously, to be honest. Then again, I don't think I take anything on these forums - or in life, for that matter - all that seriously.
Yes.

I will always take part and take it on the chin when I get the wrong answer, which is often. It's fun, kind of. Down side is it fuels the fires of a vs d. The software evangelists gain more ammo every time. It's clear that these small tests are very persuasive... there is no need for expensive hardware synths. If they sound the same what's the point?

Well a test is one thing, using the gear everyday is another.

And again I'm sure that I can create sounds on my jupe, you can't in software.
Unfortunately, I don't think diva has the modulation architecture to do an a vs b test in this case. The arturia clone maybe does... I'm sure the software would not be able to duplicate these patches... And vice versa
4
Share
Old 28th July 2014
  #1033
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
betterbox == audioconsult ?
1
Share
Old 28th July 2014
  #1034
Lives for gear
 
Acid Mitch's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post
betterbox == audioconsult ?
Unless he's been for English lessons, it's not him.
Old 28th July 2014
  #1035
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
i checked all of his 5 posts so far, before saying that
sure, the english is less broken, but i still sense the audioconsult taste very strongly in some spots
this one for example: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10293321-post105.html
Old 28th July 2014
  #1036
Lives for gear
 

Next test-audio consult vs betterbox!!!
1
Share
Old 28th July 2014
  #1037
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
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.
Interesting. That mp3 sounds fine, but "never be matched by software..." Hm, I think no, even with the cheating.

That brings up a good point though, and that's that nearly all the time some processing is going to be used on an analog synth track. Processing that is rarely included on an analog instrument (except for the Analog 4) but almost always included in a commercial software instrument... except for dynamics processing... that still seems rare, but there are tons of good software dynamics processors out there too.

Anyway, when I started to look at the modern crop of analogs it was clear they all benefited from some "help" in the processing world, whether it a touch of reverb or compression and delay. While I started with analogs, by the time software was coming into it's own I was fully immersed into hardware VA, a Virus included, which has excellent built in effects. I think I did remark several times that the sort of dry unprocessed sound of analogs, especially vintage analogs didn't interest me that much, though I've since learned to appreciate it more.

So, that brings us to an interesting impasse. We spend an awful lot of time doing a/b tests of dry unprocessed instruments, yet we never seem to a/b these instruments in a full on modern production. I wonder if the differences would be more or less apparent in a test where the instruments were presented in that context.
Old 28th July 2014
  #1038
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
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.
Can you tell us/me which soundset is that from? It does sound nice for a virus... lol

Anyway you are correct about the processing part often enough. It kinda sucks though that the filter is before all the saturation usually. Welcome crackle...


"Never matched by software"... Was that a marketing forum or a sound design forum? Although come to think of it not many softs can match the high quantity of aliasing in the virus.
Old 28th July 2014
  #1039
Lives for gear
 

At some point you have to ask yourself what it would take to prove to some people that digital synths actually can sound indistinguishable from analogue. It sort of seems that no amount of evidence can ever be enough to convince them so really we're back to that creationism simile from earlier.
Old 28th July 2014
  #1040
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
oh ffs..it's back to the top again...????
1
Share
Old 28th July 2014
  #1041
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Risc_Terilia View Post
At some point you have to ask yourself what it would take to prove to some people that digital synths actually can sound indistinguishable from analogue. It sort of seems that no amount of evidence can ever be enough to convince them so really we're back to that creationism simile from earlier.
Exactly, musicians aren't generally very rational about these things.
Old 29th July 2014
  #1042
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

1
Share
Old 29th July 2014
  #1043
Lives for gear
 
erdi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urs View Post
I admitted I'm wrong regarding the architecture. I have never opened an early JP-8 or even played one.

Yet I find that our JP-8 does not sound as juicy as those certain examples that were posted over and over, again and again. If find that the examples sound as juicy as our JP-6.

There is nothing to admit about. This is plain truth.
So the rumors that state the 12-bit JP-8s do sound better than the newer 14bit version are true?
Old 29th July 2014
  #1044
Gear Nut
 
benelli's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post
Attention. Attention.

Would the statistics conversation please take a stroll over to the Jupiter-8 vs Arturia thread, where, at the time the truth was revealed, ten people had guessed, er... answered correctly, while 28 were incorrect.

People are going to stop responding to these 'tests' due to an inability to give a flying ****.
fixed.

<3 u BB's
1
Share
Old 29th July 2014
  #1045
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
audioconsult likes software VA synths now, oh WOW ;]
Old 29th July 2014
  #1046
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace Clef View Post
I'm all for that, but I think Diva's earnt its right to be copied as well. How about creating a few sounds on that and seeing if the war horses can match it? Seeing as the filters and oscillators are interchangeable then I'd imagine it would be a bit of a trick for them, which would lead to the conclusion that we should be looking at Diva as a synth in its own right rather than as some chameleon wannabe.
+1. Urs really challenged himself since Diva has never claimed to be an exact replica of any vintage synths but a synth of its own right. To be compared to the most classic synths ever is a real compliment but seeing it can actually sound more musical than them is something outstanding!
Old 29th July 2014
  #1047
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Risc_Terilia View Post
At some point you have to ask yourself what it would take to prove to some people that digital synths actually can sound indistinguishable from analogue. It sort of seems that no amount of evidence can ever be enough to convince them so really we're back to that creationism simile from earlier.
As repeated wearyingly often, a decisive part of trend back towards analog has been the generation now coming up to or in their 40s, who grew up with extensive experience of both hardware digital and then software. If enough of this group had found that the experiences of sitting down with and listening to a hardware analog synth and software were indistinguishable, there would simply be no major new or vintage analog market in 2014 - it's that simple.
4
Share
Old 29th July 2014
  #1048
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
audioconsult: and to make it more interesting heh .. a challenge for you as well

1) take your Juno 106
2) scramble all the knobs
3) perform this same challenge

can you recreate the recording?
Old 29th July 2014
  #1049
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
i think it's obvious that the "interface" makes a difference (more or less) in how you work with a given synth
that's important for when you're experimenting, or "performing" (that is, beyond just playing the keys), or don't have a clear goal at the moment and you're just trying something out till you get some happy accident or inspiration

so, in those cases, the interface and parameter response would probably make a difference

but if you're familiar with a synth, and you're going to program something very specific on it - it won't really make a difference whether it was via actual knobs or mouse or joystick

the computer mouse/joystick on a computer is more or less taken for granted, you already have it
so for plugins - i would always like to have a controller in addition to that
whether i'll use it all the time is another question, but it's good to have it

and one more thing, you can't really change the parameter response on an analog synth (unless you change the potentiometers, but that may be very difficult)
you can for plugins, you can also record your actions as automation, and "correct" any flaws in the performance you did, so that's a bonus
Old 29th July 2014
  #1050
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Elegy

(Off-topic)

Thanks for all the positive feedback regarding the Prophet-10 Elegy. A few people have contacted me with some questions so I thought I'd share the answers here. The phaser on the left channel is a Moog MF-103 and the delay on the right channel is an MF-104z. Concerning the music, it's an improvisation inspired by the works of Debussy, Ravel, JM Jarre and some others.

By the way, the balance between the two channels was off in the original recording. Below is a corrected version which better represents what I had in mind.

Cheers,

Clark
Attached Files

Elegy.mp3 (3.49 MB, 204 views)

5
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump