u-he

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:01 pm

Uncle E wrote:"are you more inspired by massive flexibility (ACE) or by accurate analog modeling (DIVA)?"

I so definitely would like to have both in one synth!

Bronto Scorpio · Post by **Bronto Scorpio** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:31 pm

I somehow get the feeling that people think that ACE and Zebra suddenly sound bad since Diva is released. They are still amazing. Diva doesn't sound "better" in my opinion. It really sounds like the synths from yesteryear but that's not always (very rarely actually) what I want.
All this new technology is very nice and Urs and the team have done a great job but that doesn't make Zebra and ACE "bad" sounding.
I like all U-He synths! I couldn't live anymore without any of them.
But Zebra and Bazille will always stay my favorites (even if they don't get shiny new filters). Maybe that's because my main goal is to find NEW sounds and not cheese from 30 years ago which we've all heard a million times (Nothing wrong with the opposite approach either)

All the great sounds which people made with Zebra and ACE don't suddenly sound bad.

Cheers
Dennis

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:41 pm

chacka wrote:
chacka wrote: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.

So give me the example of a modular environment you think is easier than Zebra...

JoeCat · Post by **JoeCat** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:45 pm

Bronto Scorpio wrote:I somehow get the feeling that people think that ACE and Zebra suddenly sound bad since Diva is released.

+1
I love Diva, but it is what it is, and I've always wondered why many subtractive are judged solely on their ability to replicate analog models.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:50 pm

chacka wrote:
pdxindy wrote: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?

Besides the decade guess which is mine based on single cores not increasing all that much in speed at the moment, those were all statements made by Urs about the cpu use of incorporating aspects of Diva or ACE into Zebra.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:58 pm

Uncle E wrote:
pdxindy wrote: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)?"

I would not want to have to choose between Diva and Bazille (I like Bazille bit more than ACE). But if I absolutely had to, I suppose it would be Bazille.

Uncle E · Post by **Uncle E** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:02 pm

chacka wrote:I so definitely would like to have both in one synth!

Given what DIVA is intended to be, a Dinosaur Impersonating Virtual Analog (or something like that), wouldn't it make sense that it eventually gain the modular panel of the MS-20?

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:58 am

pdxindy wrote:
chacka wrote:
chacka wrote: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.

So give me the example of a modular environment you think is easier than Zebra...

Reaktor. I like the clear distinction between the assembling and the playing/using parts.

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:03 pm

Uncle E wrote:
chacka wrote:I so definitely would like to have both in one synth!
Given what DIVA is intended to be, a Dinosaur Impersonating Virtual Analog (or something like that), wouldn't it make sense that it eventually gain the modular panel of the MS-20?

Absolutely! But as far as I understood Urs Berlin Modular will be the modular "beauty and the beast" synth with all those free and easy abilities.

Howard · Post by **Howard** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:09 pm

chacka wrote:
pdxindy wrote:So give me the example of a modular environment you think is easier than Zebra...
Reaktor. I like the clear distinction between the assembling and the playing/using parts.

Surely the "assembling parts" of Reaktor are much more difficult than Zebra2, and the "playing/using" parts can't be classified as a modular environment.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:24 pm

Howard wrote:
chacka wrote:
pdxindy wrote:So give me the example of a modular environment you think is easier than Zebra...
Reaktor. I like the clear distinction between the assembling and the playing/using parts.
Surely the "assembling parts" of Reaktor are much more difficult than Zebra2, and the "playing/using" parts can't be classified as a modular environment.

Actually, I think they can. It depends on what the builder come up to. There are examples of panels with modular contorls, and massive matrixes - we can consider those as modular panels, IMO.
But you are right in a thing - Reaktor, although born as a modular synth, became more like a synth builder platform than a modular - although it can still be used as a modular (a mamoth modular, if you want).

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:48 pm

Obviously there are different approaches to "modular" and Urs calls Zebra semi-modular. And as far as I understood it's because the number of available modules is restricted? Then every hardware modular is semi-modular.
Modular to me is a non fixed routing with the ability to use modules freely. Reaktor does that very well. But there are always differences in modular approaches like e.g. control rate. I personally like the ACE concept a lot: Any Cable Anywhere.

Bronto Scorpio · Post by **Bronto Scorpio** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:55 pm

We once had a semi modular vs. modular discussion on some german forum (I don't remember which one). Believe me, you don't want to have that discussion...it got totally out of hand

In my opinion ACE, Bazille, an ARP 2600, a Cjewman S1 etc. are semi modular (a fixed number of given modules which can be routed freely) while a modular synth, Reaktor etc. are modular (Modules can be inserted and routed freely without any real restrictions apart from space).

Edit: Zebra is not really a modular synth. It is a subtractive synth with a very flexible signal path.
It isn't a real modular since it differs between audio and control signals. Diva falls into the same category as Zebra but is much less flexible.

Cheers
Dennis

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:07 pm

Uncle E wrote:
chacka wrote:I so definitely would like to have both in one synth!
Given what DIVA is intended to be, a Dinosaur Impersonating Virtual Analog (or something like that), wouldn't it make sense that it eventually gain the modular panel of the MS-20?

Well, the first public beta had that. I did that deliberately so to show that pretty much all modulation routings of the MS-20 are possible in Diva. The exceptions are the Trigger button, Env1 trigger input and of course the audio input analyser. Another exception is that a feedback signal can not be routed into the highpass filter. Lastly, Sample & Hold can be realised only with random source and in LFOs in Diva (one can however use the Quantiser to achieve similar effects on other audio signals)

One must never forget that the MS-20 mod panel mostly routes modulation signals. There is no outlet for any audio rate signals (other than main output), so you can't do classical FilterFM or anything. And also, the input side is very restricted too. No PWM, no VCA/MIxer modulation, no Resonance modulation, no modulation of any modulation depth whatsoever.

Nevertheless, all those cables and outlets in early Diva betas looked very confusing IMHO. So I decided to switch to drop downs completely, remove all redundant inlets and keep it clean & tidy. The possibilities have not changed at all though, every routing that was possible in Diva rev 331/360 is still possible in rev 480

Fritze · Post by **Fritze** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:10 pm

Bronto Scorpio wrote:We once had a semi modular vs. modular discussion on some german forum (I don't remember which one). Believe me, you don't want to have that discussion...it got totally out of hand

Well, I didn't start it and I don't want to fight about the names of certain concepts. I couldn't care less. But there has to be a minimum of common ground with these terms when speaking about such things.
And to say that again: I don't care too much about the complexity of a modular or not-so-modular synth right now. Sound is way more important to me. And Diva is at the crop of my list right now for the sounds I'm interested in. Then for more advanced ideas of patching ACE is next and for other forms of synthesis Zebra is my tools of choice. And as if my short 24h day would give me some more space to do more interesting stuff I would like to look into some granular things and dive into sampling some more. But hey, so many possibilities and so little time. Life is short...

u-he

KVR Audio

Diva versus Ace