File 1 hw file 2 sw
indistinguishable from hardware ??
-
- KVRAF
- 4279 posts since 14 Nov, 2008 from UK
-
- KVRian
- 781 posts since 25 May, 2006
-
- KVRAF
- 4279 posts since 14 Nov, 2008 from UK
Peter999, it looks like Izonin doesn't want to play ball, what are the answers? I'm interested to know - I found your test a tough call tbh...
OP-X was my first VST synth btw - still own it, now on Pro II!
OP-X was my first VST synth btw - still own it, now on Pro II!
-
- KVRAF
- 1767 posts since 20 Feb, 2003
I thought it was entirely obvious that I meant any of the 5 audio examples Peter posted. The more of them the merrier. Alternatively you can go to his audio examples page here http://www.sonicprojects.ch/opxpro2/audioclips.html . Suggestion? Pick something simple and easy like the "99 Luftballons" Strings example and copy that. Looking forward to itaciddose wrote:give me a specific example with a technical description and i'll satisfy your request. otherwise, why would i waste my time?
Since your synth can easily do these sounds, it shouldn't be difficult for you to recreate them with your synth to a standard where people will struggle to tell them apart.what was the point?
Last edited by PAK on Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
well we know what the id3 tags on the first pair say...
i didn't say people should struggle to tell them apart. does anyone struggle to recognize an obvious difference between any of the examples given? the differences seemed enormous to me.
what i intended to say is that you can accomplish the same with pretty much any generic synthesizer having the same feature set.
accomplish what? more or less nothing, honestly.
while you're throwing around unreasonable and ridiculous challenges forming straw-man arguments as a basis for ad hominem, why don't you emulate this http://xhip.presetexchange.com/temp/stringpad.mp3 using any synthesizer on earth. no extra-terrestrial synthesizers allowed.
i didn't say people should struggle to tell them apart. does anyone struggle to recognize an obvious difference between any of the examples given? the differences seemed enormous to me.
what i intended to say is that you can accomplish the same with pretty much any generic synthesizer having the same feature set.
accomplish what? more or less nothing, honestly.
while you're throwing around unreasonable and ridiculous challenges forming straw-man arguments as a basis for ad hominem, why don't you emulate this http://xhip.presetexchange.com/temp/stringpad.mp3 using any synthesizer on earth. no extra-terrestrial synthesizers allowed.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
-
- KVRAF
- 5234 posts since 25 Feb, 2008
The differences are fairly obvious - Peter said said as much when he first posted them.aciddose wrote:does anyone struggle to recognize an obvious difference between any of the examples given? the differences seemed enormous to me.
-
- u-he
- 30188 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
sheesh, missed the whole fun... wouldn't base my findings on the iPad speaker. Might try it tomorrow
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
http://xhip.presetexchange.com/temp/that_s_stupid.zip
here we have four examples.
the first is a naive sweep, 100% software. this sounds most like the software ob-x emulation because, gasp, it's naive.
(this is "file1.mp3" - although it also sounds like a much more linear envelope is used in the ob-x software...)
sat_x has the same amount of amplitude modulation as the analog ob-x, but it's slightly more harmonically rich.
sat_y sounds closest to the analog ob-x, but lacks some a-symmetric harmonic. this is difficult to achieve without hand-tweaked code. i could do it, but why would i waste such time? partially this result is due to a-symmetric slew _before_ the filter's input as well, so it requires different oscillator code. i don't currently implement this in xhip, although i have the code laying around (which i used in vanguard-2, but never bothered to actually put into xhip)
(this is "file2.mp3")
sat_z sounds like a different flavor of sat_x, with even further moderation of amplitude modulation.
anyone should agree - the variation between all these examples is equal to or less than the variation between the original two.
now, please stop wasting my time.
let's assume i'm wrong and 1 is the ob-x, while 2 is the software. we would have quite a hard time explaining the presence of the a-symmetric slew in the emulator when it isn't present in the emulatee. let's think of possible explanations... the code was re-used from some other implementation without actually caring about emulation accuracy? the software rather than trying to accurately emulate the electronics decided to do things in a completely different manner because of the personal preference of the author? the author became drunk one night before deciding to randomly insert polynomials in various places in the filter signal path.
here we have four examples.
the first is a naive sweep, 100% software. this sounds most like the software ob-x emulation because, gasp, it's naive.
(this is "file1.mp3" - although it also sounds like a much more linear envelope is used in the ob-x software...)
sat_x has the same amount of amplitude modulation as the analog ob-x, but it's slightly more harmonically rich.
sat_y sounds closest to the analog ob-x, but lacks some a-symmetric harmonic. this is difficult to achieve without hand-tweaked code. i could do it, but why would i waste such time? partially this result is due to a-symmetric slew _before_ the filter's input as well, so it requires different oscillator code. i don't currently implement this in xhip, although i have the code laying around (which i used in vanguard-2, but never bothered to actually put into xhip
)(this is "file2.mp3")
sat_z sounds like a different flavor of sat_x, with even further moderation of amplitude modulation.
anyone should agree - the variation between all these examples is equal to or less than the variation between the original two.
now, please stop wasting my time.
let's assume i'm wrong and 1 is the ob-x, while 2 is the software. we would have quite a hard time explaining the presence of the a-symmetric slew in the emulator when it isn't present in the emulatee. let's think of possible explanations... the code was re-used from some other implementation without actually caring about emulation accuracy? the software rather than trying to accurately emulate the electronics decided to do things in a completely different manner because of the personal preference of the author? the author became drunk one night before deciding to randomly insert polynomials in various places in the filter signal path.
Last edited by aciddose on Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
-
- KVRAF
- 9854 posts since 15 Sep, 2005 from East Coast of the USA
When will we know which ones are which?raintalk wrote:Orig is
2 1 2 1 2
I'll take "This is an incredibly cool software synth" for $159 Alex
-
- KVRAF
- 1767 posts since 20 Feb, 2003
No. But that wasn't what was being discussed. Or are you at page 23 on a thread and don't know what it's about? The discussion is about whether or not those differences are enough to identify which one is the hardware source.aciddose wrote:does anyone struggle to recognize an obvious difference between any of the examples given?
If you're making a statement that you can achieve "similar sounds" on other synths then you're stating the extremely obvious (again).what i intended to say is that you can accomplish the same with pretty much any generic synthesizer having the same feature set.
If you're saying you can make your synth sound just like an Oberheim OB-X, and people will consistently struggle to tell your VST apart from a hardware OB-X, then I invite you to prove that with audio examples. Such claims are extremely easy to make in text, but are considerably harder to demonstrate through audio examples.
Or do you just randomly interject in every thread to announce "my synth can do that and 10x more"? Because, by making such a statement, anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension makes the reasonable assumption that you're stating that it can sound just like a hardware OB-X, because that was the topic being discussed at the time! So, if your synth can sound just like an OB-X then feel free to post your copy of the "99 Luftballons" Strings. It's a very simple sound, so it shouldn't take you long to copy exactly on your synth.
If that's not what you're saying then what the hell was your point? That you can read schematics and the OB-X, a synth you've apparently never tried, "sucks balls"? Well done you then.
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
i've already wasted my time. the issue is that i'm sure you'll apply your own subjective criterion to this subjective issue and argue that my examples are in fact not qualified.
start using objectivity in your arguments if you ever want to be taken seriously.
start using objectivity in your arguments if you ever want to be taken seriously.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
-
- Banned
- 2033 posts since 19 Jun, 2011 from a world of Black Thunder chocs
I say original HW is 2,2,2,2,2.
I'm no expert.
The above examples show to me how indistinguishable many software synths (such as the great OP-X Pro II) are from hardware synths now, and how brilliantly SW has been developed particularly in the past 7 years or so.
More pertinently, SW is (usually!) easier to carry, cheaper and unnoticable in most mixes as being different from HW nowadays.