i believe a cynic is a must when rating anything. problem is most people will be optimistic instead and call that "fair and balanced". "focus on the good things, not on the bad" is not fair and balanced. fair and balanced is to give your impression of a thing honestly. you don't need to think or invent anything - just state the facts. "well, i wanted to make a kick-drum preset but the oscillators didn't support adjustment of key-sync phase". this is the important stuff that deserves mention in a review.

"all around fair quality and a good investment for the money" is bullshit, pointless and belongs nowhere close to a good review.

ghetto, i'd love if you could rate xhip for example. give in to your hate, mwahaha.

Really reviews need to be given a context too, the musical style your work with. I needed a gritty bassline for my dubstep but Sylenth just doesn't go there for example, or I like really clear crisp short stabby bass line attacks and DIVA isn't fast or stable sounding enough as another example. I will try to be more specific about this in later reviews.

But there is an argument against that.
Being that the skill of the user in producing those types of sounds, may not make the sound possible on some synth reviewed, but that another user can produce those exact sounds using the synth another says, that can't produce those sounds.
For instance.
User1: Synth A- sounds dark and never is bright enough.
User2: I've produced a brighter sound with it, than user1 mentioned, that SYnth B produced...and here is the patch to prove it.

Now you've made a review with a false statement.
Synth A is as bright as Synth B, but user1 simply could not create a bright patch using Synth A, so his review is false.

My opinion is any synth from a given level of design (ie; similar level) can produce any sounds for any genre, given enough time, effort, and care.
They may not sound the same, but they will fit a verbal description and a genre of music.

Then again, so long as the level of design, and features of any two given synths, are similar. Then this can apply.
I mean One Ping Only, will not make super saws or whatever.
I just think too many users, say this and that can't produce this or that sound, are simply stating, that "they can't produce this and that sound" using it. Not that the synth itself is incapable of doing this or that sound.

Which synths can do what Diva does? I'm talking specifically about the technology behind the components, not the component switching, nor the fact that it emulates several types of hardware.

I'll try synths that people think are that good, but, if they're not, I will give them a horrible review and will drone on endlessly about the comparison, forever, and ever, and ever, and ever....and ever.

So, who's as good as Diva?

This is why people need to at least state what type of music they make and what they are trying to achieve. Readers have to take read it with a pinch of salt, looking at who the reviewer is if at all possible, what music he's made, what level of programming skill he seems to have.

I personally think DIVA sounds excellent but some other synths I have excel it for certain VA sounds on the less analogue side.

Yeah, the review system is busted, which is a shame.
I can't even figure out how to dual class my half-elf brostep mage.

This goes for any forum posts discussing synths or effects where someone says anything positive or negative about a certain product..

when we read someone say owning compressor X and Z covers their needs it isn't really helpful to the reader.. because those compressors might excel at certain things specific to that person's genres. If you're writing (for example) 60s throwback rock n roll and I'm writing modern, electro house.. well your audio compression needs are probably a lot different than mine!

Exactly, I've seen all kinds of comments about things, only to find that the user produces some kind of acoustic music, which is a completely different area than electronic music with very different objectives. If there is no context the comments really are not much use at all unless they are some kind of factual statement about the device in question.

As I said, I'm talking about the technology, genre doesn't matter. If you think that your synth has a more convincing analog sound, then I want to hear about it.

I guess that this all is a mater of what we define as "analog" sound. Back in 2004/2005 i had e.g. an Oberheim Matrix 1000 and a Roland MKS-50 and IMO both did not sound as "analog" as e.g. the Jupiter 8 and the Minimoog which i also had during that time (or the Moog Slim Phatty i got now). Still the question is: What defines an analog sound? I still have problems describing that myself.


Ingo

Even more reason to give background information, such as what you have used and what you are comparing it to.

i guess my point would be that 10 is perfect, and NOTHING is perfect

without getting into arguments about other plugs (or make this another diva thread), it seems that for many people this synth was the first plugin that gets really close to real analogue...

so, how could any other analogue emulation have got a 10 ?? surely an analogue emulation is about the end sound, so if it is still slightly lacking in that department (however good it might be, or how much better than prior tech), then it shouldn't qualify for a 10

and if diva is still not quite perfect then it doesn't deserve a 10 either

i think the idea of the 5-as-average is a worthwhile thing to get back to otherwise we might as well mark out of 3 - perfect, ok, and shit

All 10 reviews currently displayed in the Reviews overview section have 10 out of 10

i have zero idea what any of that means, but it made me laugh anyway

haha, but I still think that many people that do the reviews are doing them while the "gas" is fresh