Diva Vs. Real Analog

[aMUSEd]

uuummmmm...we just brought in Neuroscience VS Psychoanalytics ....

This is an EPIC thread...

But which one is more analog?

[IncarnateX]

What testable predictions does neuro-psychoanalysis make that neuroscience alone does not?

For instance that your your recognition time and galvanic skin response (indicating arousal) reading emotionel words such as sex word is higher than your recognition and skin responses of neutral words. This is called "perceptual defence", which is a psychoanalytic inspired thesis and is testable:

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/56/5/244/

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/61/3/175/

Like everything else in science, results are disputable of course, but that is not something significant to psychoanalytic inspired experiments but goes for cognitive psychological and social psychological experiments as well.

Otherwise your are right, it is a movement consisting more of hypothetical relations between psychoanalytic theory and general neuropsychological findings than actual experiments.

Cheers

[DF2R]

I got psychoanalytics and Logic's channel eq to null. It's clearly placebo.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[hakey]

Whatever. The neuro-psychoanalysis movement sounds to me like alchemists appropriating nuclear physics. 'See it is possible to turn lead into gold!'

Anyway, enough of this trivial digression - back to the serious business of whatever this thread was originally about...

[Mutant]

This is primarily a Diva vs Analog thread

Nope.

It will become "Diva vs Analog" once someone posts some audio examples made with Diva and analog synths.

Now it is just a typical KVRaudio sligtlytowayofftopic discussion.

[IncarnateX]

Anyway, enough of this trivial digression - back to the serious business of whatever this thread was originally about...

Oh that. But that is easy: Diva doesn' t sound analog for the simple reason that it is digital.

But it sounds pretty good all right

[Kriminal]

im guessing that certain elements of Diva sound very close to certain elements of various harware synths in the u-he studio


any other comparison is pointless, given the variables

[hakey]

Diva doesn' t sound analog for the simple reason that it is digital.

Pretty sure that the signal going from my soundcard into my monitors is analog.

[IncarnateX]

Diva doesn' t sound analog for the simple reason that it is digital.

Pretty sure that the signal going from my soundcard into my monitors is analog.

Does this mean Diva has been analog from the very outset of this discussion??? Damn I just thought I solved the dispute and now it seems that there never was any.

[trimph1]

im guessing that certain elements of Diva sound very close to certain elements of various harware synths in the u-he studio


any other comparison is pointless, given the variables

yeah, I heard that as well. Not to mention the variability within each brand...my ARP200 is not going to sound just like someone else's...

[SJ_Digriz]

Lots of people don't distinguish between fan and fanboi. "Ah, yes -- there IS a difference."

Very true.

Simple, a fanboi is someone who doesn't agree with me. But, I believe everyone has the right to be wrong if they want.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

I wonder however why it's always me who gets the blame

It is all your own fault and you will see no sympathy from me:

Basically what has happened is this - You made rather alot of people really happy and of course some people just can not stand that sort of thing Urs Hypemann

All the best to yourself and to all as always

Dean

PS: I do not use synths bar a few free ones so i have no motive to post this in your favour or against but FWIW/IMveryhumbleOO Anything i have ever seen written by yourself always seems to me to be fair, down to earth and helpful as i said, Some people just can not take that sort of thing

[PAK]

im guessing that certain elements of Diva sound very close to certain elements of various harware synths in the u-he studio

any other comparison is pointless, given the variables

Yes. The biggest variable is between the people who post sound comparisons. Most people are not particularly good at closing down small differences in two different sound sources. That produces comparisons which are often very misleading as they cause people to assume differences may be bigger than they actually are.

It also depends what sounds you choose. You can make two sounds that are very similar, and one might sound identical to the hardware whilst you might notice differences on the other. Why? Since nobody fully understands the differences it's a question that can't be fully answered. But it often means you can generate examples where the hardware sounds almost exactly the same, or examples where it has a noticeable difference. All you can do is take note of the likely areas where the noticeable differences tend to occur. Comparisons can speak louder than words, but they'll usually show the following things anyway..

Emulations struggle to communicate a lower frequency "solid" quality in their tone and this lack of "presence" is found most noticeably, but not exclusively, in certain bass sounds. There can be a more "rounded" smoother quality to the analogue tone and synths, like the Mini, seem to have an extra "punch" in the envelopes at certain settings too, where you can set a short attack and tweak around the decay at until it hits a sweet spot which sounds kind of like compression being applied to the attack. Oomph!

There can also be a more direct, slightly "in your face" quality to the analogue tone which seems related to the impression of more "immediate" envelopes. Whatever these differences are, it's something fairly fundamental since you can sometimes hear the difference even in a much more simple thing like a compressor emulation. I assume it must relate to some sort of complex, yet subtle and hard-to-measure, timing differences with phase shifting and harmonic interactions.

Since there's a number of bright people looking at this area, in one way or another, and none seem to be emulating those qualities fully, it seems likely further developments will come through experimentation and educated guesses using sufficiently complex models, since - if the differences were that obvious - presumably someone would've already copied them fully

Of course, when you talk about this stuff, it's wise to remember that it's not even easy to copy certain qualities even when using real analogue components. But I doubt you'll see many going around pointing out what a failure Ken Macbeth's synths are at copying the Moog sound since, even if that was the general idea at the conception, there's a greater acceptance that something becomes its own thing with hardware. I suppose, if you have an expectation bias of what "analogue" is, you do expect to hear certain qualities, so there's more of a feeling that you're missing out on something if they're not there.. and maybe that explains the "more hostile" reception software often gets too, when it uses existing hardware as its inspiration.

A bit late in the day, but just thought I'd spill out some thoughts

[mcnoone]

Yes. The biggest variable is between the people who post sound comparisons. Most people are not particularly good at closing down small differences in two different sound sources. That produces comparisons which are often very misleading as they cause people to assume differences may be bigger than they actually are.

It also depends what sounds you choose. You can make two sounds that are very similar, and one might sound identical to the hardware whilst you might notice differences on the other. Why? Since nobody fully understands the differences it's a question that can't be fully answered. But it often means you can generate examples where the hardware sounds almost exactly the same, or examples where it has a noticeable difference. All you can do is take note of the likely areas where the noticeable differences tend to occur. Comparisons can speak louder than words, but they'll usually show the following things anyway..

Emulations struggle to communicate a lower frequency "solid" quality in their tone and this lack of "presence" is found most noticeably, but not exclusively, in certain bass sounds. There can be a more "rounded" smoother quality to the analogue tone and synths, like the Mini, seem to have an extra "punch" in the envelopes at certain settings too, where you can set a short attack and tweak around the decay at until it hits a sweet spot which sounds kind of like compression being applied to the attack. Oomph!

There can also be a more direct, slightly "in your face" quality to the analogue tone which seems related to the impression of more "immediate" envelopes. Whatever these differences are, it's something fairly fundamental since you can sometimes hear the difference even in a much more simple thing like a compressor emulation. I assume it must relate to some sort of complex, yet subtle and hard-to-measure, timing differences with phase shifting and harmonic interactions.

Since there's a number of bright people looking at this area, in one way or another, and none seem to be emulating those qualities fully, it seems likely further developments will come through experimentation and educated guesses using sufficiently complex models, since - if the differences were that obvious - presumably someone would've already copied them fully

Of course, when you talk about this stuff, it's wise to remember that it's not even easy to copy certain qualities even when using real analogue components. But I doubt you'll see many going around pointing out what a failure Ken Macbeth's synths are at copying the Moog sound since, even if that was the general idea at the conception, there's a greater acceptance that something becomes its own thing with hardware. I suppose, if you have an expectation bias of what "analogue" is, you do expect to hear certain qualities, so there's more of a feeling that you're missing out on something if they're not there.. and maybe that explains the "more hostile" reception software often gets too, when it uses existing hardware as its inspiration.

A bit late in the day, but just thought I'd spill out some thoughts

Hey that was a really great post.
Worth the read...and ya didn't even mention Freud.