you are just pretending that we are fooled, we need your help to see the true !
instead of insulting everyone, the poster and people agreeing, you should make more music, you will see all the love around

there won't be one as long as someone is willing to produce those modules. more likely they'll become commercial in the future with only low tech modules available for free. once in a while you'll find someone willing to produce the good stuff but as the time investment increases we'll need to see more open-source reference implementations if we ever hope to maintain free software.

you'll start to see patents on this stuff soon.

I never mentioned "truth", I'm just giving my POV; I'm sure you don't need my help for anything. You don't see it my way, I'm fine with that. I see BS, I call BS. Simple.

Last post in this thread, promise. I'll let you get on with your fascinating technical discussion - may it help you make better music. I also solemnly vow never to post anything regarding Mr. Shrug or his dealings here ever again. Best for all concerned, I'm sure.

This seems less like a scenario where only the very skilled are putting out stuff, than only those with the most buying power.

thank you, it's fine, i just felt that you were a bit rude or harsh, it's obscuring your goal, but i appreciate your POV

But the very creators of SynthEdit and SynthMaker are advanced producers. Those modules will ship with the future versions of the software, once the technology becomes common.

Its a bit of an off topic discussion, but I think that freeware developpers will also benefit of such technical points debated as the ones discussed in this thread. Its probably more easy to solve a problem when you're aware that there is a problem, and when it is documented.

Otoh, a synth developement cycle for us is around one year long, sometimes more. So its true that even for very dedicated freeware developers, it might be a bit hard to spend so much time and work on a project. This said overskilled/genius developers can exist in both worlds, freeware or commercial, maybe the commercial way allows them to better their ideas and refines them over time in a less painless way. I can only speak for myself, but I dont have the same POV on VSTI than I had years before, and its just because I was able to spend a lot of time to think about them ( of course I'm not including myself in the genius category ) and this time was autorised to me by the fact that I could get paid for the time I used to think about new concepts, new approaches of the modulation schemes, of the musical gesture etc when I was doing soundbanks for various manufacturers. Spending 8 hours a day on synths for some years is not a bad experience.

LtZ

Maybe people who don't really understand DSP programming (me included) originally read a bit too much into the term zero-delay-feedback filters and attributed too much of DIVA's sound to this particular feature.

Here's the blurb from DIVA:s page (emphasis by me)


It doesn't say anywhere that DIVA is the first or only synth that uses zero-delay-feedback filters. It doesn't even say that this particular feature is what causes the high CPU usage or produces the great sound quality.

The way I interpret this text, is that the big feature, is the implementation circuit simulations in realtime. Then it goes on to mention the behavior of zero-delay-feedback filters (used as a general term, not as a feature unique to DIVA) as a great way to demonstrate the advantage of the technology described in the previous sentence (which doesn't even mention ZDF-filters at all).

So here's how I read the text:

1. DIVA applies methods from industrial circuit simulators. This gives it excellent sound quality, but also a high CPU usage.

2. The behavior of its ZDF-filters is a great way to demonstrate #1.

Does anybody know if Fabfilter's filters are zero delay feedback? I'm assuming not since they've been around since about 2004.

Why don't you test it?

My idea of a good filter, I press a note on the keyboard, I hear the sound, it sounds good to my ears. That's a good filter.

It sounds unpleasent to my ears, its a bad filter.

Draft mode is 1-delay filters, so that gives some sense of how Diva's filters trades CPU cycles for sound quality/qualities.

The filter technology is necessary for certain sonic properties, but OTOH not necessary or sufficient for a more casual, less definable sonic 'goodness'.

Do some tests with Diva in draft and divine mode. Might notice something you weren't aware of before. The z-1 draft has this comic/cartoony quality to it, while the zdf divine sounds more audio-realistic.

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.

just like to add on the flipside,


i only buy stuff now that HAS dongles, for ease of use with installation, and protection for my investment from the warez kiddies (at least i get to use it for a much longer time before it's "hacked")