Diva versus Ace

[xh3rv]

Broadly: Maybe there are two kinds of software synths - sandboxes like ACE or Zebra (or Alchemy etc), and search engines like Diva (or Sylenth or ...). Diva's got a lot more sandbox potential than I've been able to figure out (e.g. it's multitimbral with several assignments of VoiceMod), and it's not like the sandboxes are interchangeable. It's more about how I think about getting the sounds out of them (or how I imagine people are getting sounds out of them ... I don't think quite that smartly about this stuff ).

Specifically:
Diva has greatly musical components ... not so many knobs but very, very good ones. The analog modeling is technically advanced, but it's also based on some synths with great sonic reputations and developed by people who know what that comes from. I'm really surprised at how often and well this translates into getting something that sounds 'right', and just fits into a mix, as far as I've found opportunities to push that so far.

ACE still stands out with a clean, smooth transparency that is sort of coming from the opposite side - it's a sandbox for developing the musical or aural dynamics in the context of a modular synth that overcomes digital disadvantages, but really isn't extremely interested in gaining analog advantages from specific synth models quite the way Diva does. So it's in a more idealized place sonically, and that's certainly a worthy alternative.

[Fritze]

I disagree (besides Diva sounding great). Zebra is brilliant. There is nothing else like it that has that much diversity, flexibility and sonic potential that is so easy to use. One glance and you know which modules are being used and in which order. It is clear and concise and capable.

What are you disagreeing on besides of not getting my point?
You know, it's like chatting with a Strat player about some of the obvious descrepancies that the Strat has.
Strat lover: " Are you crazy? It's the coolest guitar around. Everybody knows what these threee knobs do and that they make sense."
Welcome to fanboi-land. And no, I won't assure you now that I like Zebra and why and that it's sooooo great (which it is) etc. Blablabla.
I suggest though that you stop thinking that your small and narrow view of the world is the only and correct one and that everyone who dares to disagree is stupid, has no idea what's going on or didn't try to "get it".
Something like that, exactly.
Peace.

[Fritze]

Diva has greatly musical components ... not so many knobs but very, very good ones. The analog modeling is technically advanced, but it's also based on some synths with great sonic reputations and developed by people who know what that comes from. I'm really surprised at how often and well this translates into getting something that sounds 'right', and just fits into a mix, as far as I've found opportunities to push that so far.

ACE still stands out with a clean, smooth transparency that is sort of coming from the opposite side - it's a sandbox for developing the musical or aural dynamics in the context of a modular synth that overcomes digital disadvantages, but really isn't extremely interested in gaining analog advantages from specific synth models quite the way Diva does. So it's in a more idealized place sonically, and that's certainly a worthy alternative.

I like those descriptions.

[JoeCat]

http://soundcloud.com/joe-cat/sad-symphony

Single ACE patch, no automation, mod-wheel, aftertouch, pitch bend or effects except a little verb.

Diva = instant Juno/Moog/Korg goodness.
ACE = that other stuff

for all of it!

[Uncle E]

If that sonic range of FM, Additive, Comb and the Wavetables etc does not interest you sonically, and you are only interested in the classic analog sounds, that is fine and Diva was created for you.

Right, and there you have it. Listen, I completely get that you guys love these synths and, having mastered them, believe that they're great enough that everyone else should want to master them, too. Once they get the sound of DIVA, I might be right there with you!

[mcnoone]

Once they get the sound of DIVA, I might be right there with you!

http://www.box.net/s/2p8e6jqmdc1k1hpt3qv3
That does it for me.

[pdxindy]

I disagree (besides Diva sounding great). Zebra is brilliant. There is nothing else like it that has that much diversity, flexibility and sonic potential that is so easy to use. One glance and you know which modules are being used and in which order. It is clear and concise and capable.

What are you disagreeing on besides of not getting my point?
You know, it's like chatting with a Strat player about some of the obvious descrepancies that the Strat has.
Strat lover: " Are you crazy? It's the coolest guitar around. Everybody knows what these threee knobs do and that they make sense."
Welcome to fanboi-land. And no, I won't assure you now that I like Zebra and why and that it's sooooo great (which it is) etc. Blablabla.
I suggest though that you stop thinking that your small and narrow view of the world is the only and correct one and that everyone who dares to disagree is stupid, has no idea what's going on or didn't try to "get it".
Something like that, exactly.
Peace.

You suggested/implied that the Zebra GUI is hard to get. I disagree with you. And because I disagreed with you, you start making personal insults? Perhaps you might stick to discussing the topic.

It is such an obvious statement to say Diva is easier to learn than Zebra. That is like saying the hammer is easier to figure out than the entire toolbox. Well of course it is. That is not a comment on the quality of the toolbox. For the range of synthesis possibilities it has, the design of Zebra is a remarkable achievement. If you want to refute that statement, show me a modular synth environment easier to use (rather than rude name calling).

[pdxindy]

If that sonic range of FM, Additive, Comb and the Wavetables etc does not interest you sonically, and you are only interested in the classic analog sounds, that is fine and Diva was created for you.

Right, and there you have it. Listen, I completely get that you guys love these synths and, having mastered them, believe that they're great enough that everyone else should want to master them, too. Once they get the sound of DIVA, I might be right there with you!

I don't care if you want to master Zebra. Plenty of people prefer simpler synths. That is totally fine. My point was that Zebra has qualities and sounds Diva doesn't so Diva cannot replace it unless you are only interested in a subset of those sounds.

Oh, and Zebra will not get the sound of Diva anytime soon. The CPU use would be astronomical. Zebra is a full stereo signal path. There is 2x cpu right there. It is also modular so it cannot be optimized the same way as a fixed architecture. More cpu there. It has many more modules, routings, modulations, etc. More cpu use there. Maybe in a decade its possible.

[Fritze]

http://soundcloud.com/joe-cat/sad-symphony

Single ACE patch, no automation, mod-wheel, aftertouch, pitch bend or effects except a little verb.

Diva = instant Juno/Moog/Korg goodness.
ACE = that other stuff

for all of it!

YES!!! Again, as I wrote back then, this is very cool. Outstanding.

[Fritze]

About interfaces of modulars: Some interface concepts are more natural to me than others. This makes it easier of harder for me to get into a certain synth.

I disagree (besides Diva sounding great). Zebra is brilliant. There is nothing else like it that has that much diversity, flexibility and sonic potential that is so easy to use. One glance and you know which modules are being used and in which order. It is clear and concise and capable.

What are you disagreeing on besides of not getting my point?
You know, it's like chatting with a Strat player about some of the obvious descrepancies that the Strat has.
Strat lover: " Are you crazy? It's the coolest guitar around. Everybody knows what these threee knobs do and that they make sense."
Welcome to fanboi-land. And no, I won't assure you now that I like Zebra and why and that it's sooooo great (which it is) etc. Blablabla.
I suggest though that you stop thinking that your small and narrow view of the world is the only and correct one and that everyone who dares to disagree is stupid, has no idea what's going on or didn't try to "get it".
Something like that, exactly.
Peace.

You suggested/implied that the Zebra GUI is hard to get. I disagree with you. And because I disagreed with you, you start making personal insults? Perhaps you might stick to discussing the topic.

Come on, if this is a personal insult then I dunno.
For easier digestion I quoted myself so that you see where I responded to. And for even easier consumption I highlighted your statement that I was referring to. So no personal insult from my side. I just thought that you didn't answer to what I wrote. Instead you tried to raise a universal global standard how intelligent people (and possibly others) have to see things.
No, to me Zebra's interface is not as clear and self-explaining as you say it is and you might mean that it's like that to you. What's so hard to get here? People are different. Accept it and live with it. Makes life a lot easier.

For the range of synthesis possibilities it has, the design of Zebra is a remarkable achievement. If you want to refute that statement, show me a modular synth environment easier to use (rather than rude name calling).

Cool that you find Zebra's interface easy. I don't.
And why do you defend Zebra like a fanboi? I'm not making universal statements like "XYZ is much easier to use" as such statements are nothing but based on personal preference. These things are NOT generally to be answered for all people. That's my whole statement.
And if you would be so kind to refrain of insulting me of name calling here? If not try to quote my name calling. You won't find it to quote it.
Or do you really think that stating the obvious (calling you, and to make you happy myself having a narrow and small world view, which is nothing but the simple fact of being human) is name calling? Then I'm sorry Sir. But for you. Peace.

[Fritze]

Oh, and Zebra will not get the sound of Diva anytime soon. The CPU use would be astronomical. Zebra is a full stereo signal path. There is 2x cpu right there. It is also modular so it cannot be optimized the same way as a fixed architecture. More cpu there. It has many more modules, routings, modulations, etc. More cpu use there. Maybe in a decade its possible.

Your insight is amazing! Are you a u-he programmer? Do you know all of Urs' plans? Maybe you will have to eat your words in a year or so?

[JoeCat]

YES!!! Again, as I wrote back then, this is very cool. Outstanding.

TY
I posted it again not to brag about my sound design skills (whereby good results are typically combination of accident and persistence), but as a testimony to what the instrument is capable of.

Synths are like girlfriends (boyfriends) - we can't understand why everyone else doesn't love them, and everyone else doesn't get what we see in them

(I'm not trying to be "Synth-Confucious", just in a metaphor-kinda mood...)

[bmrzycki]

Just....stop. Please. There's room for differences of opinion here at the u-he forum. Not everyone is going to think the same way and that's OK!

[Fritze]

Just....stop. Please. There's room for differences of opinion here at the u-he forum. Not everyone is going to think the same way and that's OK!

Cool man. For me the thing is said and gone.

[Uncle E]

Oh, and Zebra will not get the sound of Diva anytime soon.

Perfect! In that case, to respond to the topic of ACE vs. DIVA, we merely need to ask the question "are you more inspired by massive flexibility (ACE) or by accurate analog modeling (DIVA)?"