Diva Vs. Real Analog

[ghettosynth]

DCAM Synth Squad. End of argument.

DCAM supports my point that when analog emultion is taken seriously, it sounds damn good.

So now we have a handful of synths, out of thousands, which I would seriously consider as having truly virtual analog features.

Dude seriously? Nobody made any claim of authenticity in emulation. However, since the BEGINNING of VSTS manufacturers have tried to emulate subtractive analog hardware. Whether they do it poorly, or don't take it seriously, is irrelevant to this discussion.

Whether or not YOU consider something to be virtual analog and whether or not a particular synth is actually trying to emulate a specific synth or simply a generic two osc subtractive synth is also irrelevant.

The point is that people use subtractive VSTS and subtractive analog synths for largely the same purpose. They are viewed as substitute goods from a sound perspective. This is obvious!

[ghettosynth]

Also, FM8 doesn't sound as good as my cheap DX200. Both are digital, but I can clearly hear a difference. So... yeah.

It's must be sound bouncing of the plastic.

No doubt. The DX200 is a cool little synth for sure though. I wouldn't say that it's vintage. FM8 nails every FM synth that I've ever owned.

[Aroused by JarJar]

You're missing the point. The original claim was that softsynths were emulating "analog" (generic).

no, you're missing the point, they DO emulate analogue.

This is only the case if you equate "nominal emulation of a very small part of what "analog" is" with "emulating analog".

[pdxindy]

What is really attempted is a a handful of analog flavors principally as heard on recordings. (And that's really a footnote to stunning GUIs of course)

That whole heavy-but-bland Moog thing, the sonic mashed potatoes and gravy of magnificently side-burned dorks of yore, has been in demand, and so it is done. It has been done very well for a long time, and now it's pretty much nailed. You can tell it is nailed because those saying it is not are starting to grasp at straws for stuff that can't be emulated in blind tests.

First of all, it's in "demand" because it has an almost universal appeal. Hail to our synthesis forefathers for creating instruments that are enduring. Humans just respond to some types of sounds. Struck drums, plucked strings, the human voice... it's in our DNA. So you tend to hear more of one thing than stranger sounds, though I've always gravitated to the more strange... I still want a fat moogy bass line. Gotta keep it real.

Also, FM8 doesn't sound as good as my cheap DX200. Both are digital, but I can clearly hear a difference. So... yeah.

I disagree that it is an almost universal appeal... I would guess that are more people interested in a piano emulation than a minimoog... we just happen to be on an electronic music forum

[AdmiralQuality]

You're missing the point. The original claim was that softsynths were emulating "analog" (generic).

no, you're missing the point, they DO emulate analogue.

This is only the case if you equate "nominal emulation of a very small part of what "analog" is" with "emulating analog".

You're totally wrong. Virtually every effect achievable with common classic analog synths is also achievable with the better modern VAs. There isn't only some "sweet spot" of the sound gamut that real analogs are capable of that VAs can do. They both use the same design and signal flow to achieve the same effects. I challenge you to make ANY sound on a Jupiter 6 or 8, Oberheim OB8 or X, Prophet 5 or any other wildly popular analog polysynth of the period that I can't reproduce to a high degree with Poly-Ana. (Obviously there will be subtle differences, much the same as if you programmed a sawtooth brass pad on a Jupiter vs. a Prophet. Indeed, you get differences between any two of the SAME analog synth.) And I'm sure Diva, while a somewhat less complex voice architecture, can do this just as well assuming you don't challenge it with some feature not found in its synth architecture.

BOTH modern VAs and classic analogs were designed with the intent of making musically useful sounds. It's not some narrow part of what they're capable of, its the main thrust of what they were designed for.

[Aroused by JarJar]

DCAM Synth Squad. End of argument.

DCAM supports my point that when analog emultion is taken seriously, it sounds damn good.

So now we have a handful of synths, out of thousands, which I would seriously consider as having truly virtual analog features.

Dude seriously? Nobody made any claim of authenticity in emulation. However, since the BEGINNING of VSTS manufacturers have tried to emulate subtractive analog hardware. Whether they do it poorly, or don't take it seriously, is irrelevant to this discussion.

Whether or not YOU consider something to be virtual analog and whether or not a particular synth is actually trying to emulate a specific synth or simply a generic two osc subtractive synth is also irrelevant.

The point is that people use subtractive VSTS and subtractive analog synths for largely the same purpose. They are viewed as substitute goods from a sound perspective. This is obvious!

Whether something is taken seriously or not is completely relevant here.

Let's take any one of the hundreds- thousands maybe- of softsynth VAs. Subrtractive synthesis with a faux hardware look, right?

You cannot make general judgements about the state of analog emulation from such things.

Even if you take them seriously as emulations, they only emulate a little bit of what analog gear sounds like! Even if they were all superb emulations, they would still not tell you what emulation of analog is, for they concentrate overwhelmingly on such a tiny part of "analog".

What's more, a huge number of subtractive VA's are emulations of a couple of VA's (virus, jp8000): they are virtual VAs!

They whole concept of here's analog the holy and the unwashed masses of softsynths are trying to reach it is an illusion.

[Kriminal]

You're missing the point. The original claim was that softsynths were emulating "analog" (generic).

no, you're missing the point, they DO emulate analogue.

This is only the case if you equate "nominal emulation of a very small part of what "analog" is" with "emulating analog".

you mean what YOU think analogue is

[ghettosynth]

They whole concept of here's analog the holy and the unwashed masses of softsynths are trying to reach it is an illusion.

And it's also a strawman which nobody here, except you, has stated.

But if you're trying to say that manufacturers, in general, aren't trying to improve the quality of the sound of their synths by improving their component modules, and that said digital modules are largely emulations, at some level, of analog electronics, then, frankly, you're blind.

Further, that sound has largely improved over time with the power of available CPUs.

[Aroused by JarJar]

They whole concept of here's analog the holy and the unwashed masses of softsynths are trying to reach it is an illusion.

And it's also a strawman which nobody here, except you, has stated.

But if you're trying to say that manufacturers, in general, aren't trying to improve the quality of the sound of their synths by improving their component modules, and that said digital modules are largely emulations, at some level, of analog electronics, then, frankly, you're blind.

Further, that sound has largely improved over time with the power of available CPUs.

Your posts are loaded with the assumption you call a straw man. In fact, immediately after calling my statement a strawman, you make an ignorant statement which is based on the thinking I am criticizing!

Digital modules are not largely "emulations" of analog electronics. DDS oscillators are completely different than analog for example.

It would be more accurate to say that both analog and digital are "emulations", embodiments really, of abstract math formulas. They are equally "authentic", or you could say equally "simulated": the "real" synthesizer exists in the abstract.

[Aroused by JarJar]

You're missing the point. The original claim was that softsynths were emulating "analog" (generic).

no, you're missing the point, they DO emulate analogue.

This is only the case if you equate "nominal emulation of a very small part of what "analog" is" with "emulating analog".

You're totally wrong. Virtually every effect achievable with common classic analog synths is also achievable with the better modern VAs. There isn't only some "sweet spot" of the sound gamut that real analogs are capable of that VAs can do. They both use the same design and signal flow to achieve the same effects. I challenge you to make ANY sound on a Jupiter 6 or 8, Oberheim OB8 or X, Prophet 5 or any other wildly popular analog polysynth of the period that I can't reproduce to a high degree with Poly-Ana. (Obviously there will be subtle differences, much the same as if you programmed a sawtooth brass pad on a Jupiter vs. a Prophet. Indeed, you get differences between any two of the SAME analog synth.) And I'm sure Diva, while a somewhat less complex voice architecture, can do this just as well assuming you don't challenge it with some feature not found in its synth architecture.

BOTH modern VAs and classic analogs were designed with the intent of making musically useful sounds. It's not some narrow part of what they're capable of, its the main thrust of what they were designed for.

I was talking about physical sound, so to speak. You are speaking more abstractly and conceptually, and that is great.

But you have not thought it through, for if we go honestly into what synths "were designed for", we find once again a looking-glass world. "Vintage analog" at the time of its design was designed to be new, unprecedented. It is no coincidence that old recordings of synth music are full of space references. In their time, analog synths were futuristic. As I am old enough to remember pre-DX7 days very well, I distinctly remember guitar guys sneering at synth music, using the same adjectives people use for "digital" nowadays! Cold, not organic, no feeling, artificial, blah blah.

If you want to go into the abstract, and you are open to more than one way of conceptualizing things, you must face the fact that a synth like, I dunno, Glass Vipre, is in some way a more accurate emulation of vintage analogs than your own synth.

[mcnoone]

I was talking about physical sound, so to speak.

Are not all sounds physical? I mean the sounds we hear in our heads is abstract, but our heads aren't soft synths or hardware synths...maybe but I'm confused.

Stop being one of those "we'll never go to the moon types"
Computers will soon reach analog classic synth emulation to perfection...and beyond.
All hardware will become obsolete.
The end.
Save the trees man. Use soft synths, save the planet.

[trimph1]

I was talking about physical sound, so to speak.

Are not all sounds physical? I mean the sounds we hear in our heads is abstract, but are heads aren't soft synths or hardware synths...maybe but I'm confused.

Stop being one of those "we'll never go to the moon types"
Computers will soon reach analog classic synth emulation to perfection...and beyond.
All hardware will become obsolete.
The end.
Save the trees man. Use soft synths, save the planet.

Did you have to introduce another can of worms in here? Sheesh...the noive.

I agree with you though. All sounds are physical, but, historically speaking I can remember the squawking that some musicians had started over people like Wendy Carlos doing her stuff. It was cold, harsh, and..ohmygawd!! used those electronic gimicks!!!!!...ohnoes!! Meanwhile a whole bunch of musicians were into exploring the whole spectrum of sounds and potential sounds that one could get out of these things.

Like I said before, only difference in sounds..no hierarchy...

[ghettosynth]

They whole concept of here's analog the holy and the unwashed masses of softsynths are trying to reach it is an illusion.

And it's also a strawman which nobody here, except you, has stated.

But if you're trying to say that manufacturers, in general, aren't trying to improve the quality of the sound of their synths by improving their component modules, and that said digital modules are largely emulations, at some level, of analog electronics, then, frankly, you're blind.

Further, that sound has largely improved over time with the power of available CPUs.

Your posts are loaded with the assumption you call a straw man.

In fact, immediately after calling my statement a strawman, you make an ignorant statement which is based on the thinking I am criticizing!

Digital modules are not largely "emulations" of analog electronics. DDS oscillators are completely different than analog for example.

Which is why I said, "at some level", I am not implying that they are a circuit level "emulation" of any sort. If the output of a digital oscillator is a sawtooth over an audio range then that is "at some level" an emulation of an analog sawtooth oscillator.

It would be more accurate to say that both analog and digital are "emulations", embodiments really, of abstract math formulas. They are equally "authentic", or you could say equally "simulated": the "real" synthesizer exists in the abstract.

Christ dude, nobody gives a shit. This is a fairly high level conversation about hardware and soft synths. As a practical matter, softsynths emulate hardware simply because hardware, as a product, came first. Moreover, software is a discrete computational approximation of a physical circuit.

[GeoSuPhat]

I miss the good ole days lol

[Urs]

If the OP is reread, it's about comparison between Diva and actual analogue synths (most likely the obvious ones), not *all* analogue synths. It is about the question whether or not simulation technology can become sufficently close to mimic behaviour of certain analogue circuits, especially resonant filters. If so then it may be possible - so one might think - to also create simulations of other electronic circuits, using similar techniques, and thus expanding the range of well captured circuits in software.

For the record, nowhere did we state that Diva sounds like all analogue synths. We only say that her ingredients behave closely like their analogue counterparts (which are found in few, but not all, analogue synths). That's all.