The problem is not the content of the message, it is the intention. This is a "thing" that has been festering over several threads for months now, and if you haven't caught up with that then I appreciate you not knowing what "it" is all about. I won't rehash it now, the individual in question knows what "it's" about, and methinks he doth protest too much. But if you like to be fooled by that, then go ahead.

Once again, I'm not debating the content. Now let's hear some audio examples of your tests.

there is no hidden intention other than the one you are creating.. and i have read ALL the back stories and topics related to what you are insinuating.. So please STOP trolling an information thread!

I didn't see that it was days ago, in that case i am sorry. I honestly just saw fresh posts and did not think to look at your particular posting date. That is no BS, that is true.

Peace.

I do really feel Laurent was only at least trying to be helpful though..,

Does the test can prove with 100% accuracy that a synth use zero delay filters?

problem with zero-delay filters is they don't solve the aliasing issue. it still requires massive over-sampling of about 8x-16x to get anywhere near where you want to be. by that time the filter is so expensive you might have considered using an analog one instead.

No. It's next to useless - many standard, non-0df filters will "pass" the test.

I havent played with ZDFs yet, but if they will still require high oversampling rates (>= x4), then in that case why would I use them? Because if there's oversampling (>=x4), then that'll compansate for the z-1 delay/phase errors to a certain extend, as nyquist frequency is divided by the oversampling

When you say ZDFs are you thinking about zero delay filters or zero delay *feedback* filters?

From what I understand, in the second case 0-delay makes a considerable difference as the effect of nonlinearities (=feedback) can be more accurately modelled.

I am very aware of the difference in sound of the filter in Diva at different quality settings, particuarly the difference between draft - fast/great/divine. No additoinal tests required

My point is that for me personally I really don't care what goes on under the hood, unless its part of a bug solving thing for example if there was say a DC offset issue with a synth I might analyse n try and help the developer get to the root of the problem.

I will also go one step further and say that for some particular types of sounds, draft mode in Diva works can work better than the higher quality modes. And by better I mean in getting a particular kind of sound suited to genre and taste, not authenticity to some old vintage piece of equipment.

One mans awesome bright trance lead is anothers horrible plasticy lifeless sound, and vice versa. To argue that one particular way is the 'correct' way when it comes to something as subjective as sound and music in this instance is a bit silly. Maybe something as obvious as hideous amounts of aliasing sure, but this is different in my view.

For example, BigTones presets were designed in draft and thus to work at their intended filter response ideal in draft mode .But again its a matter of taste, we have the choice, of multiple quality settings, which is a nice touch.

There are times I want a really organic filter sound that sounds like its running through big chunks of hardware, and there are times I want a glassy pure filter sound, or a very resonant sharp filter sound, or a warm but very smooth analog/digital hybrid sound, or a very bright digital filter sound. Depends what mood I'm in, what I'm trying to accomplish, how I feel it'll suit a sound in a particular mix. No right or wrong way here.

Got nothing against marketing, its part of business, and it works, I'm just saying for me personally, I just play, I just listen, if I like the sound of it, thumbs up from me.