Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[aciddose]

Assertion: fundamentally there is absolutely no correlation between "classic sounds", "analog" or other subjective concepts to the abstract notion of "that sound".

[IncarnateX]

"Information entropy", "meta-level portions of structure" Yeah right aciddose. For a moment I actually thought you were saying something sensible about your own preferences, thus my response, but now it turns out to be the usual pseudo scientific nonsense. However, sane answers to insane posts are better than insane answers to sane posts, so take your abstract and stuff it where the sun don't shine, you friggin schizo.

[aciddose]

In order to argue this which it seems you've attempted to do and failed to achieve rationally, you'll need to demonstrate rationally a counter-point where "music", "auditory stimulus", "sound" are more enjoyable to a subject when complex as opposed to simple under the axiom relating these subjective stimulus to information entropy.

Essentially, you need to demonstrate a logical fallacy exists in the rationale defining this concept such that the root does not lie on a monotonic contour.

[aciddose]

You may want to consider using a dictionary if you do not understand the words I'm using.

[aciddose]

I'll try my best to re-state the same in the most simple way possible.

The idea is very simple: people have different preferences for sounds, music and so forth.

My preferences are met in ways I would define as "simple". No need to get technical here, essentially if you think of "complexity" as an axis with "stimulating" in a positive sense along one further axis and "muddy" (too stimulating, cancels out positive stimulus) along a third axis the curve is shaped as a simple arch.

If you re-align and "squish" this arch you can think of it as a simple parabola or like curve in 2d.



My argument is that based upon my own experience, the ideal point lies on the tip of that curve. Imagine "complexity" is the X (horizontal) axis and "enjoyment" is the Y (vertical) axis.

In reality this is vastly oversimplified and there are many axes at play here. The rationale of my argument depends only upon the fact that this curve is monotonic. In other words that it does not contain "ripples" or "loops".

The very best music I have ever experienced always demonstrates this clearly. It becomes more and more difficult to make the music "better" by adding anything.

Think in terms of playing a game of blackjack. If you land on 20, the odds of hitting 21 are very low if you play another card. If you land on 12 however playing another card makes far more sense.

[aciddose]

Further on that same line of thought, in many cases I find elements of music distracting or insufferable. By removing these elements or restructuring the piece my enjoyment is increased.

Likewise, there are many cases in which music is "missing something". By adding some additional component my enjoyment is increased.

You can think of these cases as laying on either side of this curve with monotonically decreasing slopes. On the left side you need to add complexity to reach further toward the peak. On the right side you need to trim complexity away to achieve the same.

In this sense you are acting to select the ideal mixture of elements and ideal complexity or in other words adjusting the information entropy.

You may recognize this: "... as simple as possible but no simpler."

[aciddose]

I don't think you're going to impress anyone by tossing insults when you'd best simply say "I don't understand".

If you want to make a rational argument and point out any fallacy I'd be thrilled at your contribution.

I believe if you invest the small effort required to look up some dictionary definitions and read some articles you should understand everything I've said. Someone more capable than I am should be able to point out where I've phrased things in a less than ideal way.

The same balance is required when you attempt to communicate complex topics to those without the capability to deal with that level of complexity. "As simple as possible but no more", beyond this threshold the expression becomes worthless as it no longer effectively communicates the concept without significant loss.

I'm certainly not an expert in this field. I'm certain others may be able to make what I've said far more clear. In other words I suspect my phrasing lies on the right-hand slope of that graph.



My explanations are likely about 2σ.

[aciddose]

Now back to my original point.

There are a wide variety of sounds we can label as "that sound".

... if people don't like "that sound" what would we prefer to call this idea? "Ideal sound", "sound you like most", "couldn't be better", "the right stuff".

When I listen to music I constantly hear details... I'm not hearing the over-all "sound" but rather everything it is built up from. When I hear little taps on a key, little echos, fingers slipping off one key to another... Picking, sliding up the strings, tapping frets, flicking across frets, the thumb striking the neck or bridge...

Nothing annoys me more than a sampled piano. Something about pianos, I'm not sure exactly what it is... but even the best sampled pianos still stand out for some reason. I can go through all the technical issues and we've all covered all those bases in the past and yet for some reason a lot of the piano sample sets and instruments you see today still just don't get there.

This is just one example, you can fill in any instrument in place of a piano. Some are handled better than others. In fact some instruments you can get away using samples and I'd personally never notice, although someone familiar with those instruments might be as bothered by samples/synthesizer for that instrument as I am by the same for pianos.

The same applies to synthesizers. Ah ha, and now back on-topic!

Mutant already said what I wanted to say here so I don't really need to repeat it. There are particular sounds, particular synthesizers, particular modules and so on that are unique. It isn't as simple as "connect the LFO here and use this filter!"... what makes up the sound is more complicated than that. Just like a piano, there is no real reason we shouldn't be able to perfectly recreate a piano either by synthesis or given enough samples combined with other techniques. It just remains impractical to achieve the same result you'd get simply sitting down and hitting the keys!

All these instruments, whichever instrument you want whether you're talking about drums, a banjo or the human voice have this same property. When we're talking about "that sound", the one you've selected out of every other possibility, the one that is "perfect" is going to be far easier to achieve with the instrument and method you achieved it by in the first place!

Once we sit down with software... I've read back a couple pages and couldn't find the quote... someone has already said something like "software has its own unique set of sounds", possibly zerocrossing.

If you're using a different instrument in an attempt to emulate another instrument though, no matter what this is always going to be a lot more effort and way more complex (if even possible to achieve) than using the original. Rather than taking advantage of the unique properties of that instrument, you're fighting against them in an attempt to mimic the unique properties of something completely different.

So, finally the point I was making; I think it boils down to people overlooking the fact that there are unique properties of every instrument. If you simply lump synthesizers into "synthesizers" and guitars into "guitars" or even worse "strings" of course you're not going to understand why on earth someone loves that Fender. I think it is simply a mistake people make because this isn't "their thing", "that sound" isn't "their sound".

If you've never played a Rhodes for example I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between a real one and samples. Of course not, you have no idea what you're dealing with and "that sound" for you is a simple generalization rather than something concrete. Yes! Of course if piano is not your thing you'll be entirely satisfied by the average sampled piano and probably won't understand why it bothers me so much.

Not that I'm innocent. I disparage others just as much as anyone due to my ignorance. In fact for all my ranting on the unique properties of a Rhodes piano, years back I argued the opposite "I have no idea why anyone would want to invest so much just for a Rhodes".

To be honest I still feel that way. I think he paid to ship a Rhodes suitcase all the way from California to Germany! Not for studio use! My arguments back then were identical to the arguments I'm opposing now.

Anyway, if you don't understand why people say "X doesn't replace Y" just consider the fact that you may not really understand X or Y at the same level they do. There may be something more to it than you're aware.

[aciddose]

More on that though. When I say "it isn't as simple as connecting the LFO here and using this filter"... In many cases it is, actually.

(This is why the example in this thread is dumb, in my opinion. It's a generalization. Yes, of course you can make 90% of the same or better sounds with Diva as you can with synthesizer-X... what about the 10% of sounds you can't?)

This is another example of where people aren't all that familiar with the specifics and while you're generalizing, "synthesizer" for example, you can probably get just about any sound with any other synthesizer that has the same features.

Where things become really unique are more in corner cases. For the vast majority of sounds, even those you hear in great music, these are still in the 90% of everything category. They're not outstanding or special!

Remember what I said about the 10% that is special though. Or if you're incredibly talented maybe you can identify the 1% that is extremely unique. Or even more perhaps?

Again, think abstractly. Don't confuse yourself by conflating multiple ideas here. What makes up "that sound" for me or anyone else may not be "that sound" for everyone. "That sound" doesn't mean music using this sound will become a hit.

In my own experience for example the sounds I love most don't seem to excite anyone else. At best maybe 1/10 or 1/20... probably far worse! This sucks!

If your tastes are unique it means not only do you suffer "90% of everything is shit", but you have to multiply these fractions together.

If I'm loving "that sound" in the 1/20, and I'm also dealing with 1/10 is good (9/10 is shit) the total is actually 1/200!

So now no wonder I sound so damn pessimistic or negative about everything. 99.5% of everything is shit.