Diva Vs. Real Analog

[deastman]

Layzer- (quoting is too much of a pain from my phone)

Your analogy is that both give you the experience of driving a car, much like both give you the experience of playing a synth. The problem is that the subjects of your analogy are not actually equivalent. Synths, both analog and virtual, are comparable tools which can be used interchangeably for the purpose of making music. One is not "pretend"- they can both be used to perform the same task in the real world. A real car and a virtual car in a game do not perform the same function. A real car is a tool which physically transports you from one place to another. A car in a game does not. Therefore, there is no equivalency to your analogy.

[aciddose]

I regularly use google streetview (a "virtual car") to check places before I actually go there. In fact I've used it to check out streets in Maui and the like before booking a hotel.

So the analogy isn't completely off in that sense. I'd never have been able to actually teleport to check if my hotel was next to a crackhouse, but I was able to do this thanks to software.

[bmrzycki]

you get in a real Lamborghini, you start the engine, you HEAR, the engine. you SEE the instrument panel, you FEEL the steering wheel.

I agree with layzer: hardware synths are very much like a Lamborghini. They're expensive, finicky, need to be insured, need regular maintenance, and (for analog synths) need time to warm up to perform optimally. Very few people can afford more than one, if at all. Its use is very limited given the harsh realities of real-world physical limitations. And good luck getting replacement parts when, not if, it breaks.

I'm happy hardware does it for you. For me, I'll stick to these so-called inferior virtual instruments. They're relatively inexpensive, sound great, and I have as many instances as my CPU can handle. I don't have to spend time wiring up nests of cables to audio interfaces, worrying about getting the tempo synced to other devices/hosts, dealing with ground hum, spending several minutes dialing in that preset that I wrote down (for the really, real analog stuff). And with my luck after all that I discover one of the keys isn't producing a voice so I have to take it into the shop for a $200 sensor repair that takes 2 weeks to finish.

There's no such thing as a "better sound". There are only different sounds that people prefer one set over another. Even if I preferred the sound of hardware I still would use software instruments for all the convenience they afford me.

[aciddose]

Don't leap into the "sound" arguments which are rarely sound in any sense as arguments.

Should we discuss guitar emulations or flute emulations or so on?

At best we can just consider this a moot point, so it should be avoided entirely in my opinion.

You're absolutely correct, they are "different".

That is why I would never be able to replace some of my hardware with software, because no software exists (nor does it seem likely to be practical any time soon) that could be considered even similar, let alone close enough that I couldn't tell the difference.

[Teksonik]

That is why I would never be able to replace some of my hardware with software, because no software exists (nor does it seem likely to be practical any time soon) that could be considered even similar, let alone close enough that I couldn't tell the difference.

The point that is always lost in these arguments is that I would never be able to replace some of my softsynths because no hardware exists (nor does it seem likely to be practical any time soon) that could be considered even similar, let alone close enough that I couldn't tell the difference.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

That is why I would never be able to replace some of my hardware with software, because no software exists (nor does it seem likely to be practical any time soon) that could be considered even similar, let alone close enough that I couldn't tell the difference.

The point that is always lost in these arguments is that I would never be able to replace some of my softsynths because no hardware exists (nor does it seem likely to be practical any time soon) that could be considered even similar, let alone close enough that I couldn't tell the difference.

[Teksonik]

I agree with layzer: hardware synths are very much like a Lamborghini. They're expensive, finicky, need to be insured, need regular maintenance, and (for analog synths) need time to warm up to perform optimally. Very few people can afford more than one, if at all. Its use is very limited given the harsh realities of real-world physical limitations. And good luck getting replacement parts when, not if, it breaks.

I'm happy hardware does it for you. For me, I'll stick to these so-called inferior virtual instruments. They're relatively inexpensive, sound great, and I have as many instances as my CPU can handle. I don't have to spend time wiring up nests of cables to audio interfaces, worrying about getting the tempo synced to other devices/hosts, dealing with ground hum, spending several minutes dialing in that preset that I wrote down (for the really, real analog stuff). And with my luck after all that I discover one of the keys isn't producing a voice so I have to take it into the shop for a $200 sensor repair that takes 2 weeks to finish.

There's no such thing as a "better sound". There are only different sounds that people prefer one set over another. Even if I preferred the sound of hardware I still would use software instruments for all the convenience they afford me.

Brilliant post. To me no one has yet established the fact that hardware synths sound better. Ok different I'll give you that even if the difference is often tiny but better ? No.

It's the constant repetition of the myth that hardware is the gold standard of synthesis that must be emulated to the very smallest nuance that becomes tiring.

I still own 6 hardware synths but they have been relegated to collecting dust in favor of the superior quality of softsynths.........

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

we have godwin's law to describe the eventuality that a thread will end up with some reference to hitler or the nazis, but what about the eventuality that a kvr thread will end up nuts-deep in a lame car analogy ??

i hereby invoke

CLARKSON'S LAW

[Sendy]

Isn't Clarkson's law that if you don't provide hot food you get punched in the face?

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

you get in a real Lamborghini, you start the engine, you HEAR, the engine. you SEE the instrument panel, you FEEL the steering wheel.

I agree with layzer: hardware synths are very much like a Lamborghini. They're expensive, finicky, need to be insured, need regular maintenance, and (for analog synths) need time to warm up to perform optimally. Very few people can afford more than one, if at all. Its use is very limited given the harsh realities of real-world physical limitations. And good luck getting replacement parts when, not if, it breaks.

I'm happy hardware does it for you. For me, I'll stick to these so-called inferior virtual instruments. They're relatively inexpensive, sound great, and I have as many instances as my CPU can handle. I don't have to spend time wiring up nests of cables to audio interfaces, worrying about getting the tempo synced to other devices/hosts, dealing with ground hum, spending several minutes dialing in that preset that I wrote down (for the really, real analog stuff). And with my luck after all that I discover one of the keys isn't producing a voice so I have to take it into the shop for a $200 sensor repair that takes 2 weeks to finish.

There's no such thing as a "better sound". There are only different sounds that people prefer one set over another. Even if I preferred the sound of hardware I still would use software instruments for all the convenience they afford me.

[/thread]

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Isn't Clarkson's law that if you don't provide hot food you get punched in the face?

...enters, "jeremy clarkson punch face hot food", into google...finds out it's actually a thing ..laments all those times he thought clarkson was just misunderstood

[OutCider]

Isn't Clarkson's law that if you don't provide hot food you get punched in the face?

No, clarkson's law is when a sad old man bigot who gets a little fisty after he's had a drink gets backed up by the establishment, including the pm, whereas the general public get court, a fine and/or jail.

[aciddose]

That is why I would never be able to replace some of my hardware with software, because no software exists (nor does it seem likely to be practical any time soon) that could be considered even similar, let alone close enough that I couldn't tell the difference.

The point that is always lost in these arguments is ...

What is lost? The fact you just said exactly the same thing I said in the text you quoted, then claimed it was lost somewhere?

The only way you could be attempting to argue with me by telling me exactly the same thing I just told you is if you are in some kind of deluded "us vs. them" state of mind.

I think that is what is lost with you people.

Just think about it for a moment please. It seems you're trying to argue with someone who just agreed with you, by agreeing with them!

[OutCider]

I still own 6 hardware synths but they have been relegated to collecting dust in favor of the superior quality of softsynths.........

What are the six hardware synths?

[aciddose]

Brilliant post. To me no one has yet established the fact that hardware synths sound better. Ok different I'll give you that even if the difference is often tiny but better ? No.

Of course nobody can prove anything "sounds better" because that is 100% subjective bullshit.

Simple example: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?fi ... 1233960507

Can you reproduce anything even remotely like this entirely generic sounding typical filter in software?

I'm not being ironic, I genuinely mean to say this is entirely generic, typical for an analog VCF. Have you actually tried using any of the modern analog subtractive synthesizers available today? I don't like the minibrute but you've heard the examples on youtube, right? What about any of the others?

Watch out though. My opinion of the people who demo this stuff is they're clueless. They set up the most generic possible patch without any idea what they're doing and then they give a bunch of subjective BS (genuinely, it's all a lie typically) without making any objective factual statements about the differences.

Urs himself said that the very filter I used in the example clip (flac encoded) I uploaded and linked above is "very difficult" to model. The one I'm using is actually far easier to deal with as the diode clamp is not in the signal path, unlike the KORG35 circuit used in the MS-10.

No it isn't just difficult, it's impossible to anti-alias fully on the current hardware we have in combination with an accurate model, even of the sort used in Diva (not a real circuit model) and just forget about using something like SPICE, in real-time.

I have no doubt that given enough effort they (at U-he) could come up with a model that sounds great. It just wouldn't run on any single core, even the most powerful currently available.

https://soundcloud.com/aciddose-1/analog-example

You can go ahead and claim the example clip "sounds the same as any software" if you want to sound foolish. I'd just like to have you post a flac recording to back up your statement. We can use objective analysis to prove or disprove that they are "the same".

If you want to post anything to compare, only the first 17 seconds really matter. The rest was just to demonstrate some variables (CV and signal feed-through, effect of HF content from noise, more complex inputs, variable feedback and levels) so people can hear how it "sounds", but this isn't practical to use for objective analysis. Just ignore the extended portion after 17 seconds.