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 29th July 2014
  #1051
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wendell r. View Post
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 experience of sitting down with and listening to a hardware analog synth and software was indistinguishable, there would simply be no major new or vintage analog market in 2014 - it's that simple.
So what would it take to prove to you that the opposite is true? How many ABX tests wound have to find there there's no difference before you would stop believing there's a difference?
Old 30th July 2014
  #1052
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
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.
I don't know why some even bother. If it's not "good enough" for them, it's not good enough for them. Doesn't stop those in the know from enjoying the benefits of digital synths.

I suppose it's in our nature to have others agree with us, to "be in the pack" so to speak.

I remember there was a time when the most prevalent belief was that a sampled piano would never be a viable option to the real thing. Then came Ivory.

Then Scarbee & Neo-Soul Keys brought us viable options to the coveted Rhodes.

It's only a matter of time before your "pack" will be The "pack"
Old 30th July 2014
  #1053
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
For what its worth, I played this for my wife. She asked "what am I listening to?" Told her one was Diva (which she has used a bunch) and one was an Oberheim, alternating every 4 bars. She then said "oh, that was the analog one just then." She was right.

We still listened to the whole thing though, and agreed that when the drums come in theres no way in hell it would even begin to matter. Anyway, just brought it up as some people seem to be able to clearly hear it! I was not one of them though.
1
Share
Old 30th July 2014
  #1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderkyss View Post

I remember there was a time when the most prevalent belief was that a sampled piano would never be a viable option to the real thing. Then came Ivory.
I thought Ivory was a physical model of a piano rather than a sample set?
Old 30th July 2014
  #1055
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
I thought Ivory was a physical model of a piano rather than a sample set?
I think you are probably just confusing it with pianoteq
Old 30th July 2014
  #1056
Yea prolly
Old 30th July 2014
  #1057
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
Yea prolly
Written before your edit:

You're welcome!

Yes we all are somewhat great friends of music...

Happy Jupiter to you my respected friend!
Old 30th July 2014
  #1058
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
(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
That sure does sound pretty. It does make me think that I'm still on the side of, "VA is good, and even great, for many things but true good analog still has an edge in a lot of important ways."

Of course, what I like to throw in about now in these threads is, the importance of composition. All the best software or hardware in the world is nothing if the music isn't there. What's good about your example is that both elements are there in abundance.
3
Share
Old 1st August 2014
  #1059
Lives for gear
 

I think that expecting (some actually do i think)that a software programme is going to be able to actually emulate exactly an analog synth is like expecting a clone of a human to behave like a real human.Nonesense of course.But its still amazing to get this close.Would i replace an lovely old warm alive vintage synth with a plug?no!!sacrilege.....but it could be a good stand in....and could provide uses not available to the original units.Oh yeah!!!!!
Old 1st August 2014
  #1060
Lives for gear
 
Zoolook's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by betterbox View Post
I ve a Diva challenge here.. Sounds outside the comfort szone. a sound travel with parameter changes.

I tried for hours now to make a typical juno 106 sound with diva.. And while diva really sounds very analog.. really more like any digital synth plug i ve heard yet, and certainly has the range for some deep and explosive sounds, i cant even get close to my juno 106 testfile.

I dont post my diva version because in comparison it sounds as i would like to take the piss about diva..and most certainly.. a expert diva user might get way closer than me that just tries the demo for a few hours..

So the challenge for diva experts.. can you do such a juno 106 sound?
Why is the benchmark for any soft synth, considered to be replicating [insert your choice of hardware synth here]? Can your Juno 106 replicate a CS80? No? Well it must be crap then.
5
Share
Old 1st August 2014
  #1061
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post
Why is the benchmark for any soft synth, considered to be replicating [insert your choice of hardware synth here]? Can your Juno 106 replicate a CS80? No? Well it must be crap then.
Agreed. Not everybody played basslines on a Moog mini back in the day.
Old 1st August 2014
  #1062
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post
Why is the benchmark for any soft synth, considered to be replicating [insert your choice of hardware synth here]? Can your Juno 106 replicate a CS80? No? Well it must be crap then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderkyss View Post
Agreed. Not everybody played basslines on a Moog mini back in the day.
I don't think it is, nor do I think it was the point of the challenge. I enjoy a lot of synths I consider good "analog emulations" that don't emulate any specific synth. DCAM, Vaz Modular, Poly-ana, etc. Urs has stated clearly that even the emulations contained in Diva were purposely changed to suit his taste.

I think the point of emulating the 106 clip is a simple but important one. We saw Diva get very close to an OB8, but the examples were standard fare bread and butter types of sounds. On his clip he illustrated how when you use a very dynamic sounds with lots of large modulation changes the analog transitions in a very beautiful way, where the software has trouble. The Juno 106 is a very simple synthesizer in terms of it's architecture. Diva should be able to get in the ballpark so why not?

This is what I mean when I say that software synths are great for 80-90% of the sounds one would want for standard pop music. But for those sounds outside their capabilities, hardware is still king. For those who use a lot of sounds outside the basic kind of bread and butter synth sounds, I could see software being unacceptable.
1
Share
Old 1st August 2014
  #1063
Lives for gear
 

Last post from me.Analogs buzz with energy.Plugs dont.End of.But we cant afford the luxuary/space anymore for the big synths so thats where the softies take over.Put them through some analog and.............your nearly there.Good bye
Old 1st August 2014
  #1064
Lives for gear
 
Zoolook's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post

I think the point of emulating the 106 clip is a simple but important one. We saw Diva get very close to an OB8, but the examples were standard fare bread and butter types of sounds. On his clip he illustrated how when you use a very dynamic sounds with lots of large modulation changes the analog transitions in a very beautiful way, where the software has trouble. The Juno 106 is a very simple synthesizer in terms of it's architecture. Diva should be able to get in the ballpark so why not?

This is what I mean when I say that software synths are great for 80-90% of the sounds one would want for standard pop music. But for those sounds outside their capabilities, hardware is still king. For those who use a lot of sounds outside the basic kind of bread and butter synth sounds, I could see software being unacceptable.
It's actually incredibly difficult to emulate anything. I've had a lot of experience working with reverse engineering chips for games consoles (specifically 68000 based and ARM based) to emulate classics like the Amiga, Atari ST, SNES and original PlayStation.

Getting the basic documented functions to work is easy... getting it to emulate accurately the micro-code 'bugs', OS hacks and other back-doors is practically impossible - and these are digital machines... there is a finite number of operations possible (albeit in the billions). So I am actually more surprised when a soft-synth gets close, than when it can't.

But I don't agree with your conclusion on this. You state that for this reason, anything outside of these 'bread and butter' sounds means the software is disadvantaged. On the contrary, the more absurd (and perhaps precise) the sound needs to be, the more advantage the software has. For nuanced and uniqueness, analogue hardware (specifically) has an advantage, because the precise signal path at any given time will be entirely unique and impossible to emulate.
Old 1st August 2014
  #1065
Registered User
There is a fair amount of talk on these threads about the differences that some people hear between analog and software instruments, vintage analog vs new analog, Example A vs Example B, etc.

Some people write as if these differences are profound.

Guys, I don't hear it. Any differences I hear are small. Virtually immaterial. Often barely audible, if at all. And I've been playing synthesizers since about 1974. At their most significant, I might sometimes say that the sounds are 'only' 98% the same. And it's not like I'm not finicky... I spent a year and a half shopping for a new acoustic piano. When I go out shopping for a new pair of shoes, I have to visit every store in the mall.

And we're not talking about minor differences in prices here. A new hardware synth can be 10x the cost of a software instrument. And a vintage synth can be triple the cost of a new one, or 30x the cost of a soft synth.

To me, these prices begin to justify themselves if you're looking at things like interface, gigging situations, and certainly nostalgia. But if you're simply talking about the sounds that end up in a recording, to be listened to by Zach and Zoe Consumer, it's becoming more and more difficult to justify the expense.
1
Share
Old 1st August 2014
  #1066
Quote:
Originally Posted by betterbox View Post
good point..what does buzz with energy means? i know exactly what you are talking about.. but its not only highs that buzz..its lowend energy that buzzes to as the b in buzz indicates. With the juno 106 even soft envelope setting with closed filter bubble out the mid bass drones like bubbles out of champagne.. And when you increase the modulation amount it really bounces and snaps..kicks like a mule.. thats typical . And even when diva gets the low end way better than many plugs.. it dont kicks like a real analog. You hear that it tries to do that..something is already modeled in that direction.. but its not as articulated.

But what is it that gives the analog synth that better articulated enveloping?..and that vibrant quality in the release phase where you really get a defined sub range. Like a bassi reverb. Something in the release phase of analog synths gives that release a dimensional quality. It buzzing does sound more 3D,
I know exactly what you are talking about. However - when it comes to actual recorded audio - isolating these things is very difficult. The demo I made for this thread was actually an aside to the series of A/Bs I was making to try to pin down these audio things you describe. The problem is - its been very difficult...the only thing I can repeatedly show iN Diva I believe - is the lesser low-mid weight. But its actually very difficult to spot in a blind test.
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1067
Lives for gear
 
Zoolook's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post
wow! that was very poetic so far!
i just don't get why you put those synthesizer names into that otherwise nice story about mules kicking the champaigne bubbles of the buzz..


i know what!
it's the capacitors! and the auxilary circuits, and some cosmic radiation from the big bang that makes its way into the PCB traces
probably also the dark energy which goes right thru the transistors
yeah, that must be it
You know he's yanking your chain, don't you? Or don't you?
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1068
Lives for gear
 

And as with all threads, people talk in circles into oblivion. Bla bla bla.
2
Share
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1069
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stallone View Post
And as with all threads, people talk in circles into oblivion. Bla bla bla.
All A vs D threads, that is
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1070
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by betterbox View Post
not interested or not able? I talked up in this thread because i think that the stupidity that many people on this forum show hurts the further development of the technology. Theese statements like "digital has won" "hardware synths ar.e obsolete" aso.. All false conclusions that lead into a trap where you see threads popping up of people that get frustrated by theire unability to patch a syntheziser..but are actually reffering to plug ins because they dont know anything else.. Are they unable or is the plugin just reacting to stiff and unmusical to inspire a way to a pleasing result.?

You say nobody is interested , so nobody is interested in the areas where plug ins fail to compete, but everybody was very intersted when a plug in manages to sound like a analog synth on static sounds? isnt that a bit odd, what does that tell about the people in this forum. plug in victims that are only interested into reassuring themsef but not so much in synthezisers and theire abilitys? better the illusion of a perfect emulation than developing the emulation to perfection or at least to a state where it can compete with a 250.- synth ( thats what i payed for my juno in 2011).
That is sad and just shows that people prefer to protect a lie than learning that there is still a way to go for plug ins before they can be taken as serious competition for hardware synths

It was intersting hearing diva getting the static sounds of the ob8 so close.. but would have been more interesting whe it rally would replce a real analog hardware synth.. but ..it is not doing. that.
It would be as interesting to see it getting close to the simple modulations of a juno106..but sadly..it cant do that.

to bad.. making your statement about virtual immaterial differences a bull**** one.

There are differences. Foccusing on that differences and naming them helps development.. ignoring them and just putting the head in the sand is not helping anybody.
Apparently you'd like to return to 1983, before the era of multi stage time-based envelopes and multiple modulation routings. Before synth designers learned how to make sound less "static" and more alive with nuances that more accurately reflect what sound does in nature (ironic, eh?).

If so, be our guest, but stop trying to tell people your preference is "better".
1
Share
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1071
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by betterbox View Post
The cheapest plug in has more features than a juno 106, more osc..more lfo, more envelope...but way less musical ability.

Thats really an important point to note and to take into consideration for instrument design
Musical instruments of all kinds have no "musical ability" of their own, however, musicians do - if you can't make great music and sound design with what's available today, then you're talentless.

That's the "important point to note".
2
Share
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1072
Lives for gear
 
gremlin moon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by betterbox View Post
yJust holding the soundengine in the middle of the road is no expressive driving.its a different thing to drive plug ins than driving real analog hardware synth.. the look alike only looks alike..but dont drives alike and falls heavily behind once we are on the road. As you would see if you had the balls to just grab the diva demo and try to make a few adistmets on the filter while playing just simple one or 2 finger keyboard lines..

since that challange should be easy i am surprised that nobody even tried it?.
Or have they tried it but just couldnt get anywhere remotly close?
I think Urs has been addressing that issue and has been quite upfront in the forums about it. Essentially, in some of his instruments, he is working on integrated baked-in behavioral characteristics instead of the user having to use mods and fx to achieve a particular character. At the present it may not be what you want-- but it also shows that you don't like the experience of programming on the computer because using modulation and fx one can certainly get a very responsive and expressive sound going.

A lot of today's youth are not intimidated or uninspired by programming/ modulating the characteristics that they want.

What upsets the older generation is that they are not trying to sound like something in the past nor as consumers are they pushing products into that direction. If the vast majority of consumers wanted something akin to the greats of yesterday then the market would evolve to support it. NI, which definitely has a marketing department, seemingly spent more time and money on Molekular than they did Monark.
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1073
Lives for gear
 
gremlin moon's Avatar
 

I will say this: I do not believe that Betterbox/AC/3P is ever trolling -- I think he really cares for the future of electronic music, the evolution of technology, musicians over "lamers," etc.. sort of like a hacker publicly exposing security flaws. The original controversy was that he spoke out against presets, loops and construction kits. [And the fact that it became controversial was somewhat disturbing.] In the case of Live -- he had sunk $$ from v1 on up -- so he has paid for the right to complain about features.
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1074
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
he may be talking so broken on purpose!
i can certainly write more broken than i normally do, if i wanted to
and i can also put some more effort and write slightly better than normal (i reserve that for when writing manuals/documentation, or product descriptions/specifications)
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1075
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gremlin moon
I will say this: I do not believe that Betterbox/AC/3P is ever trolling -- I think he really cares for the future of electronic music, the evolution of technology, musicians over "lamers," etc.. sort of like a hacker publicly exposing security flaws.
okay, good point

however, you need to know quite a lot about programming, machine code, low level, and so on, to be a hacker, or am i wrong?

and as far as audioconsult goes, to my knowlage, he only knows how to perform music, twist knobs, make hits and sell his great records succesifully
that's all nice, but when i try to explain some simple concepts related to signal processing (digital, especially) he seems to not get it

do you know if he has any clue about coding?
because he claims that he repairs vintage gear, he pretends he understands electronics - okay, lets assume he knows all that

tbh, after so many posts with him, i don't really see any benefit
he is very critical, unfair, complains, doesn't help, doesn't listen, it's like a oneway phone
he answers only the convenient questions
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1076
Lives for gear
 
Acid Mitch's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post
okay, good point

however, you need to know quite a lot about programming, machine code, low level, and so on, to be a hacker, or am i wrong?
To be a good hacker ,yes.
To mess around and get some results, not so much, which is where the term "script kiddy" comes from. They are hackers who know a few basic tricks but on the whole don't really know much about what they are doing.
You can even buy kits that allow pretty much anyone who can use a computer to hack systems or spread viruses.

And I don't think Gremlin Moon is saying 3face is a hacker, just that he sort of acts like one,with the stuff he exposes.
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1077
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
i mean, your post sounded to me almost like you're saying that he is a sort of hero, for being critical towards VA plugins (or whatever else he usually argues about)
and i really don't see it that way
technology is bound to progress, regardless whether one person complains all the time on forums under different names and insults the developers, product designers, and the normal users
just think about it
the success of recent VA plugins (as they were called, 3rd gen..) is NOT thanks to people like him
it's because of many other factors, mostly the developers who wrote the code, those who did the design, those who gave ideas, and the improvement in computer hardware

lots of time he talks about stuff using technical terms, but if you actually try to follow what he writes - most of the time, he's a bit wrong, or doesn't make any sense, or just oversaturates the truth in favour of his position, or writes with lots of poetic flavour which is not very useful
then if you try to question him - he insults you ;]
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1078
Lives for gear
 
gremlin moon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post
i mean, your post sounded to me almost like you're saying that he is a sort of hero, for being critical towards VA plugins (or whatever else he usually argues about)
and i really don't see it that way
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that! I just wanted to maintain the basic "troll" definition which usually is under the guise of playing innocent, and a good troll is somewhat harder to spot until chaos has already ensued. He is outright argumentative.
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1079
Gear Maniac
 

First one is Diva.

Edit: Damn i'm good.
Old 2nd August 2014
  #1080
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
I bet Urs is working on making a better VA, one that captures what is missing.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump