KVR Audio

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:06 pm

Destitute wrote:3 pages until the Hans Zimmer name-drop.

Not bad!

Actually, that does not count cause the guy who mentioned Zimmer was being critical.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:11 pm

jupiter8 wrote:
chacka wrote:
jupiter8 wrote:
Kruddler wrote:I often feel like I'm cheating by using VA synths, and I'm always afraid that some other producer with a good ear will call me out and say "Hey! You're just using a cheap-ass VA synth! - How dare you promote your music in the same league as people who own real analog synths!"
This is your main problem. Work on that instead of obsessing over minute details no one really gives a shit about.
Good ears and a cheap-ass are minute details?

Maybe that didn't come out as it should have but i needed some profanity in there.

Anyways the problem isn't the synths but the insecurities. Work on that and he'd not only be a better musician but a better person as well. WINNING!

Indeed...

randyandyvandaman · Post by **randyandyvandaman** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:19 pm

while everyone is dropping names to justify their personal choice/opinion here are a few others.

For the 2009 film Sherlock Holmes, "The Daily Variety" reported that Zimmer purchased an out-of-tune piano for 200 dollars and used it throughout the scoring process because of its "quirkiness

I'm sure he's given Zebra a go but I bet he uses the real orchestra more than EWQL or others

Please dont ask Vince Clark to give away his collection so he can use more software.

http://www.vinceclarkemusic.com/thestudio/index.html

Then there's John Foxx.

Cheers

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:35 pm

Your arguments are invalid.

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:08 pm

pdxindy wrote:
chacka wrote:
Really, that Hans Zimmer uses Zebra doesn't make it a tiny little bit better or more interesting to me.
Nor did I (or anyone else) say it does or that it should interest you more. I mentioned it solely as one example of fitting in with other instruments because one poster implied that it does not do so well. Just cause a person finds it does not fit well for their uses, does not then mean that is necessarily a general characteristic of the synth.

But the same could be said about just every other synth. So you're not defending any specialty of Zebra. And it has quite some.

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:09 pm

pdxindy wrote:
Destitute wrote:3 pages until the Hans Zimmer name-drop.

Not bad!
Actually, that does not count cause the guy who mentioned Zimmer was being critical.

Right!

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:13 pm

Why does DIVA sound better? Has coding advanced so that analogue can be replicated more authentically or is it just adding a nice sheen over the sound? Why couldn't programmers do this 10 years ago? Has programming advance so much in this time or is it just that computers can cope with it now?

Lot's of questions...

ariston · Post by **ariston** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:23 pm

munchkin wrote:Why does DIVA sound better? Has coding advanced so that analogue can be replicated more authentically or is it just adding a nice sheen over the sound? Why couldn't programmers do this 10 years ago? Has programming advance so much in this time or is it just that computers can cope with it now?

Lot's of questions...

Lots of answers: Real-time calculation of analogue idiosyncrasies. Yes to the first part. They probably could, but machines at the time weren't up to it so they had to sacrifice precision for usability. No, probably not to the first part, yes to the second part.

Destitute · Post by **Destitute** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:30 pm

[drumtarded's latest sock puppet]

Polybius · Post by **Polybius** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:51 pm

Destitute wrote:
ariston wrote:Real-time calculation of analogue idiosyncrasies.
Ironic then to note that the average user will have to use his/her DAW's freeze feature to really reap the benefit!

And for live (as in live performance to an audience) usage will the benefits be there ? even with a high-end soundcard, would the benfits of the 'divine' setting be noticeable in the venue ? That question aside, would the performer be brave enough to put his CPU to that task at the risk of glitches or drop outs ?

lots of questions indeed!

I'll take your glitches and drop outs, and raise them with a detune!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmAOLsMFRJo

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:56 pm

Destitute wrote: And for live (as in live performance to an audience) usage will the benefits be there ? even with a high-end soundcard, would the benfits of the 'divine' setting be noticeable in the venue ? That question aside, would the performer be brave enough to put his CPU to that task at the risk of glitches or drop outs ?

lots of questions indeed!

Good question. With my notebook (Core 2 Duo 2 x 2.53 GHz CPU) i would get trouble playing polyphonic presets of Diva live. In Divine setting even my Core 2 Quad Q6600 desktop CPU has sometimes problems which is why i usually use "fast" quality. I guess for Live use the "fast" quality should be enough.

Anyway for Live use i would recommend an intel i7 notebook or desktop computer.

No such problem with my Moog Slim Phatty but it has to warm up (around 15 or more minutes) to get a stable tuning.

Ingo

Synthbuilder · Post by **Synthbuilder** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:10 pm

Because of DIVA I'm selling my Jupiter-6. It won't replace my modular nor some of my other esoteric gear but I'm more than happy to swap my JP-6 for DIVA in my tracks.

Tony

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:46 pm

munchkin wrote:Why couldn't programmers do this 10 years ago? Has programming advance so much in this time or is it just that computers can cope with it now?

It's just computers. Anything before Gulftown or Sandybridge is basically too slow to run this stuff. What we do is numerical integration of non-linear circuit equations. We have to "predict" samples, run them through the filter, compare prediction and result and adjust the prediction to get closer to the result. Thus we need to calculate each sample a dozen times until prediction and outcome converge. UAD, IK Multimedia and other companies use similar methods for other things.

The difference to commonly used methods is, uhm, audible.

Happy New Year,

Urs

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:54 pm

randyandyvandaman wrote:I have never seen such fanboijism over software than from you lovers of URS software.

I don't like the word, because it belittles paying customers. Nevertheless, we might have perceivably more loyal fans here probably because the other guys don't communicate as much.

You can however go to other forums such as Gearslutz or Ableton where I don't communicate as much, and you'll see that there is hardly any such "fanboijism" there. Yet my plugins get similarly good reviews.

I've been accused several times of "orchestrating attacks against competition by a legion of sockpuppets". That's kind of stupid. I don't need to do that.

Polybius · Post by **Polybius** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:58 pm

Urs wrote:
munchkin wrote:Why couldn't programmers do this 10 years ago? Has programming advance so much in this time or is it just that computers can cope with it now?
It's just computers. Anything before Gulftown or Sandybridge is basically too slow to run this stuff. What we do is numerical integration of non-linear circuit equations. We have to "predict" samples, run them through the filter, compare prediction and result and adjust the prediction to get closer to the result. Thus we need to calculate each sample a dozen times until prediction and outcome converge. UAD, IK Multimedia and other companies use similar methods for other things.

The difference to commonly used methods is, uhm, audible.

Happy New Year,

Urs

That's a lot of predictions that need to be processed, for something that in the end should sound unpredictable, like an analog synth

Diva Vs. Real Analog