Diva Vs. Real Analog

[Gamma-UT]

Which part do you think? Seriously, had you read the rest of my post you would have been able to answer your own question, the answer is obvious from context.

Yes, but I'm not sure it was the answer you were trying to provide.

What sort of meaningless nonsense is that? Do you think that you're being funny? I'm having a difficult time taking you seriously. Seriously, do you think that you're adding to the conversation here? What are you trying to prove?

Read carefully. Understanding will follow.

[ghettosynth]

Which part do you think? Seriously, had you read the rest of my post you would have been able to answer your own question, the answer is obvious from context.

Yes, but I'm not sure it was the answer you were trying to provide.

What sort of meaningless nonsense is that? Do you think that you're being funny? I'm having a difficult time taking you seriously. Seriously, do you think that you're adding to the conversation here? What are you trying to prove?

Read carefully. Understanding will follow.

As I said, I can't take you seriously. I've got you on mute for a while, if You don't like what I say, I suggest that you do the same.

[Mutant]

Wow, Urs must be really glad about all this commotion! It's really good for making a product popular. When I saw this thread "Diva Vs. Real Analog" with 65 pages, my first thought was: Wow, it must sound pretty darn analog if it takes people 65 pages of discussion to figure out how close it is

ROTFLMAO

[pdxindy]

This also makes it quite clear, that quality will continue to improve over time as CPU power increases, an inevitability. This speaks to what I was getting at which spiked this pedantic wankathon in the first place, namely, that softsynths will continue to chase the quality of analog and there will continue to be a potentially measurable difference for some time. Certainly, this difference may soon become inaudible to a sufficient number of customers that it is immaterial. Some may argue that we're there already, I do not.

Pointing to a few quaint examples does not negate the thrust of my point. There are HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of VSTS, certainly the overwhelming majority that are not samplers, that are subtractive synths designed to mimic at some level the analog synths of the past.

Digital is not chasing analog... They are both chasing each other. You value certain characteristics which you declare to be an objective 'quality' but that is really your subjective opinion. Depending on what you value, the term 'sound quality' has a different meaning.

IMO digital cameras have exceeded film (analog) in overall quality and capability. That does not mean that film does not still have a few areas where it is provides more pleasing or accurate results. The defenders of film focus on that smaller and smaller area to declare film better and tend to ignore where digital is better which is everywhere else. The argument becomes obscure by the focus on some relative minutia.

Overall, softsynths have surpassed analog in total capability and like film, analog aficionados focus more and more on minutia. That area is becoming smaller and smaller. That softsynths are constantly making that area smaller is not an indication that emulation of analog is the focus of digital synthesis. Softsynths are also going into various other areas of sound that analog cannot reach. Softsynth development is broad and diverse and analog emulation is only one area of focus. Because you personally value analog sounds, you are focused there and use that as the definition of quality.

You can buy a physical modeled soft synth that can model a trumpet so well that many people cannot tell from the recording... same with flutes, guitars and other instruments. Try doing that with an analog synth. There are whole landscapes of sound where digital far surpasses analog. And on the other side, it is getting harder and harder in side by side listening tests for people to pick out which is analog and which is digital.

So I agree with you in a way, but I would say that digital is chasing some characteristics of analog while analog is hopelessly outclassed by some characteristics of digital. Just like the film buffs, analog buffs focus on a smaller and smaller set of characteristics in order to keep the argument in their favor.

[ghettosynth]

Wow, Urs must be really glad about all this commotion! It's really good for making a product popular. When I saw this thread "Diva Vs. Real Analog" with 65 pages, my first thought was: Wow, it must sound pretty darn analog if it takes people 65 pages of discussion to figure out how close it is

ROTFLMAO

I'm pretty sure that 65 pages won't even begin to get close.

[IncarnateX]

Come on guys, deep down inside you know what this thread is all about. This is the right formula if any:

DIVA



VS.

REAL ANALOG




= Regressive Castration Anxiety


And:

Castration anxiety + heavy intellectualisation = 67+ pages of utterly BS at KVR.

And you don't think Freud would have a valid saying on this??? I'll tell you; here is material enough for a whole friggin conference!

[trimph1]

This thread still lives?

[whet]

Guess, its dying.

[bulvanskägg]

This also makes it quite clear, that quality will continue to improve over time as CPU power increases, an inevitability. This speaks to what I was getting at which spiked this pedantic wankathon in the first place, namely, that softsynths will continue to chase the quality of analog and there will continue to be a potentially measurable difference for some time. Certainly, this difference may soon become inaudible to a sufficient number of customers that it is immaterial. Some may argue that we're there already, I do not.

Pointing to a few quaint examples does not negate the thrust of my point. There are HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of VSTS, certainly the overwhelming majority that are not samplers, that are subtractive synths designed to mimic at some level the analog synths of the past.

Digital is not chasing analog... They are both chasing each other. You value certain characteristics which you declare to be an objective 'quality' but that is really your subjective opinion. Depending on what you value, the term 'sound quality' has a different meaning.

IMO digital cameras have exceeded film (analog) in overall quality and capability. That does not mean that film does not still have a few areas where it is provides more pleasing or accurate results. The defenders of film focus on that smaller and smaller area to declare film better and tend to ignore where digital is better which is everywhere else. The argument becomes obscure by the focus on some relative minutia.

Overall, softsynths have surpassed analog in total capability and like film, analog aficionados focus more and more on minutia. That area is becoming smaller and smaller. That softsynths are constantly making that area smaller is not an indication that emulation of analog is the focus of digital synthesis. Softsynths are also going into various other areas of sound that analog cannot reach. Softsynth development is broad and diverse and analog emulation is only one area of focus. Because you personally value analog sounds, you are focused there and use that as the definition of quality.

You can buy a physical modeled soft synth that can model a trumpet so well that many people cannot tell from the recording... same with flutes, guitars and other instruments. Try doing that with an analog synth. There are whole landscapes of sound where digital far surpasses analog. And on the other side, it is getting harder and harder in side by side listening tests for people to pick out which is analog and which is digital.

So I agree with you in a way, but I would say that digital is chasing some characteristics of analog while analog is hopelessly outclassed by some characteristics of digital. Just like the film buffs, analog buffs focus on a smaller and smaller set of characteristics in order to keep the argument in their favor.

+1

[kritikon]

Yeah but...digital cameras are only emulating analogue techniques. It's not only that it's trying to emulate film, it's directly emulating even older analogue technology. Artists painting in oils on an easel. The Impressionists pioneered pictures with pixels way before fancy schmancy digital cameras came along. OK, cameras have more pixels than Monet, and they squish them down into a smaller space, but if Monet was a 2 inch dwarf I bet he'd have given Olympus a run for their money. It's got f**k all to do with synthesizers, but this thread was the same about 63 pages ago wasn't it?

[spaceman]

How about photorealistic oil paintings?

[Kriminal]

Yeah but...digital cameras are only emulating analogue techniques. It's not only that it's trying to emulate film, it's directly emulating even older analogue technology. Artists painting in oils on an easel. The Impressionists pioneered pictures with pixels way before fancy schmancy digital cameras came along. OK, cameras have more pixels than Monet, and they squish them down into a smaller space, but if Monet was a 2 inch dwarf I bet he'd have given Olympus a run for their money. It's got f**k all to do with synthesizers, but this thread was the same about 63 pages ago wasn't it?

ive found the best way to get an accurate picture of something, especially a group of people, is to hold up a large piece of paper in front of them and rub over it with a wax stick

works a treat, its always in focus and no need for a cumbersome flash unit

[A.M. Gold]

Ha ha, is this just a big nasty argument thread?

67 pages in less than a month means it must be. No one "discusses" anything at that kind of furious pace.

[pdxindy]

Ha ha, is this just a big nasty argument thread?

67 pages in less than a month means it must be. No one "discusses" anything at that kind of furious pace.

Been a decent thread... not much nasty at all...

[A.M. Gold]

Ha ha, is this just a big nasty argument thread?

67 pages in less than a month means it must be. No one "discusses" anything at that kind of furious pace.

Been a decent thread... not much nasty at all...

Well I just read the past couple pages with the "mute me or f**k off" exchange so it looked like it had been heading downhill for a while.