Diva Vs. Real Analog

[bmrzycki]

Ever played with a KORG mr1000? If I understand the technology correctly, it uses one bit to measure the signal differential between 2 points at a rate of 200 nanoseconds per measurement-it doesn't need antialiasing or brick wall, etc. because the sampling rate is so high.

I've been interested in this technology since I heard about it a few years ago. Currently the highest rate they provide is 5.6448MHz @ 1-bit which corresponds to a sample every ~177 nanoseconds. This creates a raw file size of 42.34 MB (mono) or 84.68 MB (stereo) which is a bit larger than a .WAV but not absurdly so. The Korg MR1000 has a street price of about $1,100USD.

Unfortunately it doesn't really help if you do everything in-the-box. DAWs and plugins all think and work in the traditional xx-bit/yy-sample method. Until CPU power allows devs to work with 1-bit at 5.6MHz rates I think a device like that is best suited for recording analog instruments and vocals.

Still, incredibly interesting. The technical paper on 1-bit recording was an eye-opener for me:
http://www.sonicstudio.com/pdf/papers/1bitOverview.pdf (PDF)

[pdxindy]

That is why I think this whole analogue vs. digital thing is so overblown. Instead of thinking about these two labels as being just different sounds we have these debates as to what sounds better than what....

There is difference, and only difference.

Digital blows analog out of the water... There is no comparison at all really.

[pwal]

blows

[trimph1]

[dcfac73]

I love this kind of discussions. We had them sooooooooooo many times. In a few years there will be even better emulations and everyone will be all "Now it really, REALLY sounds like analog!" again.....until the next emulation comes.

It's kind of like with video game graphics. Everytime a new graphic generation comes everyone says "Wow, that REALLY looks like real life!". The first time I said that was when Mario 64 came out (I was a kid back then so please don't laugh)

Don't get me wrong, I love Diva! I have no idea if it sounds like the real things but I couldn't care less. It sounds great and that's all I'm interested in. I want to make music with it! That's all! And I guess we can agree that that's possible (CPU issues aside).

Some years ago I predicted that it wouldn't take long until developers realize that it would be better if they would actually take advantage of digital technology instead of trying to minimize it's disadvatages.
Sadly I was completely wrong. We are still trapped in emulation mania.
So many things could be done. Things like Alchemy, Harmor and Zebra are a step in the right direction.
I guess the (potential) costumers have to realize it first.

Just my 2c

Cheers
Dennis

Yeah. I quite like NI's Razor for that reason. It sounds different to a lot of the vsti's that have been produced. There is so much potential with software to push things forward but I guess the software making industry is a business after-all. People want emulations.

[goldenanalog]

The familiar sells. Remember Kantos?

[musikmachine]

The familiar sells. Remember Kantos?

What did you call me?

[goldenanalog]

LOL! I'm sorry! I think it was Antares that released and supported Kantos, a wicked soft Synth. Now: I don't even hear about it. Different GUI, sound, etc.

[Gonga]

I think almost everybody, except for some real weirdos appreciates digital. And I didn't realize that development has been hindered by the incessant call for better emulations. I don't care about emulation at all.

The "analog issue" for us / me is simply that we've wanted to get back certain critical capabilities that were lost on digital so we could once again have these capabilities - within the computer just like digital.

I don't care about the subtle, intangible sonic differences. I don't care about accurate emulations.

On the other hand what I do care about, and what is demonstrably important, is that until now there were a lot of musically useful things you could do with analogs that you couldn't do with digital (because of aliasing and lack of attack). These things were and are musically important to some of us, particularly those who defined their sound based on these "analog" characteristics. For me, it's the main reason I like U-He synths so much. I can do stuff with them that I could never do in my computer before, and that stuff defined my sound in the 70s. It's not a "vs" issue, and it's not an issue of subtle sonic differences, it's an issue of additional musical capabilities / options that until the last couple of years digital synthesis either couldn't do (attack) or could do but sounded like *&%$ (sync sweep and high-freq pitch bends).

What these new synths do for me isn't just a sound quality issue, it's a sound capability issue, and that's very tangible - very important musically.

So of course we all welcome and encourage the development of new, cool digital tech. It has revolutionized music. And we're also happy now (at least I am satisfied) that we have the full capabilities of analog in the digital domain.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole issue for me is now over and I have everything I want!

Apparently, I have to keep saying this over and over Isn't that the definition of insanity?

[hibidy]

I think almost everybody, except for some real weirdos appreciates digital.

I like digital harshness on everything

[Gonga]

And then there're weirdos who likes digital because it sounds harsh!

And I should be careful talkng about "digital." I really mean VA. I think there are some digital synths with very dynamic attacks. DX7 for one.

[hibidy]

[goldenanalog]

Excellent post, Gonga! But (as an example) Arturia's Moog Modular looking like the real deal; but not truly comparing to it sound-wise makes the MM seem like a toy.

If you were standing in front of what Arturia depicts in physical form with about 100 1/4" patchcords; you'd be in for a long, fun day.

And the sounds that would come out of it especially through a good sound system-holy cow! Think ELP, Rick Wakeman, Tangerine Dream? You get the idea. Not that MM is bad, it isn't. It's the comparison...

[5Lives]

Here is a comparison i had done at the beginning of the public beta of Diva (zip includes WAV file):
https://rapidshare.com/files/1098043213 ... son_02.zip

At the beginning you hear Diva and a t 1:32 the Moog Slim Phatty starts. The Slim Phatty used 20% of filter overload.
At this comparison you have to remember that Diva recreates a Minimoog and no Slim Phatty so a difference was expected. Anyway you could get an idea how Diva sounds compared to a real analog synth.

I really love Diva but at the moment i don't feel like i really have to sell my Slim Phatty.

Ingo

Wow - thanks for doing this. I have (and love) DIVA. Features prominently on the new songs I'm doing. I am thisclose to selling off my Moog Slim Phatty, but this audio example is really interesting. The Moog really puts the PHAT in Phatty. Is that worth $800? Depends on who you are I guess - I think even a casual listener would notice the bottom end on that though. As Urs said, Zebra may get closer than DIVA to a SP in particular - I will try that and see if I can finally commit to getting some money back from my analog adventure

[hibidy]

Where are all the vids/examples for Diva? Did I miss them on the site?

?