Diva Vs. Real Analog

[vastman]

Urs...

All I can say is as a NEW user of Zebra and Diva, WOW WOW WOW!!! You could offer me a room full of old analogue synths (I've owned several over the years) and I wouldn't think of trading Diva for them, except to sell um off and buy a faster computer!!! Come on, Intel.. get that new stuff out... Diva demands it!!!

Bottom line, you've done a bang up job...Diva is lovely!

[Urs]

Thanks mate!

[Aroused by JarJar]

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.

Sounds are perceived on different levels.

Let me give an example: I was working with a musician who had a well-known "Moog emulation" softsynth, which shall be unnamed. It was my first time hearing this synth. In isolation the sound they were using, a stereotypical "big warm pad" sounded impressively Moog-like. I was laying down some real analog synth and acoustic stuff. Suddenly, something was wrong- had we turned the "moog" way down? Nope, but went ahead and turned it up. Then up... then eq... compressor...in the end it was clear that this emulation was merely a "picture", for the sound had none of the "presence" of the real thing, at all. Other sounds with a "physical" feeling just ate the thing alive.

It was not a compositional problem; replacing the moog emulation with another synth solved the problem immediately.

As far as not going to the moon, I don't know what you're talking about. We've gone the moon and beyond in this field- digital synths passed analog synths ages ago.

As far as emulation of specific analog gear, as I said before, where there is serious (not advertising malarkey) work on emulation, whether on specific components or some "general case" of those components (i.e., you'd have to make a different emulation for every copy of the softsynth to literally emulate analog units), it is achieved.

[Aroused by JarJar]

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.

You are wrong in categorically saying the software is a discrete computational approximation of a physical circuit. This is simply not a fact.

Pafnuty Chebyshev died in 1894.
The Butterworth filter was built on paper in 1930.
A DDS oscillator is all about the waveforms and is utterly different from analog oscillators.
Joseph Fourier died in 1830!

Synthesis is the work of math. Analog and digital synthesizers are both imperfect "emulations" of abstract mathematical synthesis. You're quite wrong that "nobody gives a shit" about this.

[Urs]

(what is a DDS oscillator?)

[Kriminal]

according to the ever knowing wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_digital_synthesizer

[Urs]

Hmmm. We don't use that.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Hmmm. We don't use that.

No one said you did, and I assumed you did not, not if you are specifically emulating analog circuits. It's just an example of how the idea that digital synthesis amounts to putting analog circuits into code is false.

Both digital and analog synthesis are ultimately "emulations" of "real" synthesis, which is abstract (mathematical).

[whyterabbyt]

Pafnuty Chebyshev died in 1894.
The Butterworth filter was built on paper in 1930.
A DDS oscillator is all about the waveforms and is utterly different from analog oscillators.
Joseph Fourier died in 1830!

Synthesis is the work of math.

In what sense? Synthesis, as we are talking about it, is the generalised term for the generation of signals within the audible drequency range. Some of the mechanisms are digital and some are analog, and the design of the algorithms or circuits which comprise those mechanisms might be derived from, or rely on, mathematical equations. But not all do (e.g. naive wavetable scanning).

Some mechanisms evolve from practical experimentation, not mathematical theory, nor an attempt to transliterate mathematical theory. The fact that some subcomponent of the mechanism may have been developed on the basis of, or by use of, mathematical theory does not somehow impart that to the mechanism as a whole by inheritance though, any more than the chemistry behind the design of a battery imparts 'synthesis is the work of chemistry' to anything electronic.

Analog and digital synthesizers are both imperfect "emulations" of abstract mathematical synthesis.

What 'abstract mathematical' synthesis does a PPG-style scanned wavetable 'emulate,' then, for example?

[spaceman]

Analog and digital synthesizers are both imperfect "emulations" of abstract mathematical synthesis.

What 'abstract mathematical' synthesis does a PPG-style scanned wavetable 'emulate,' then, for example?

I guess, according to that theory, everything is an abstract of some mathematical entity then. Which ones exactly is everyone's guess. To that extend, you might as well say that God did it.

[whyterabbyt]

I guess, according to that theory, everything is an abstract of some mathematical entity then. Which ones exactly is everyone's guess. To that extend, you might as well say that God did it.

Oh, it might indeed be an abstract of some mathematical entity. But that doesnt make it an emulation of an abstract of some mathematical entity.

Emulating something has an intrinsic notion of intent. Not everything which does a thing was intended to do that thing in emulation of some other 'system.'
So, for example, I'd like to see evidence that certain synthesis methods which appear to me to have been developed on, well a basis of technical feasability, really, (eg the PPG-style scanned digital wavetable, which, at its core is just an implementation of pointer addition) actually have an underlying 'intent' to mimic some previously-declared 'mathematical' synthesis system.

[hakey]

Emulating something has an intrinsic notion of intent.

Intent = "nebulous shite"?

[spaceman]

I guess, according to that theory, everything is an abstract of some mathematical entity then. Which ones exactly is everyone's guess. To that extend, you might as well say that God did it.

Oh, it might indeed be an abstract of some mathematical entity. But that doesnt make it an emulation of an abstract of some mathematical entity.

Emulating something has an intrinsic notion of intent. Not everything which does a thing was intended to do that thing in emulation of some other 'system.'
So, for example, I'd like to see evidence that certain synthesis methods which appear to me to have been developed on, well a basis of technical feasability, really, (eg the PPG-style scanned digital wavetable, which, at its core is just an implementation of pointer addition) actually have an underlying 'intent' to mimic some previously-declared 'mathematical' synthesis system.

If it were the case, then I would definitely be very interested to find out who formulated it and for what reason. I always thought mathematics worked in the opposite direction.

[whyterabbyt]

Emulating something has an intrinsic notion of intent.

Intent = "nebulous shite"?

Do you need it rephrased or something?

Emulation is specifically deliberate, copying can be accidental. Does that help with your problem?

[whyterabbyt]

If it were the case, then I would definitely be very interested to find out who formulated it and for what reason. I always thought mathematics worked in the opposite direction.

Indeed. I'd tend to see mathematics as a tool of analysis (with prediction and description both falling under 'analysis'). I don't necessarily see it as a tool of invention ("hey, I'm going to invent a replacement for the gas lamp, pass me my maths textbooks and i'll calculate up something based on hot bits of wire")