Diva Vs. Real Analog

[trimph1]

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.

Actually this has been pretty tame when compared to other 'emulation' threads.

A lot of good solid debate going on without too much of the insults, flame baiting, incendiary comment mongering of the past...we must be getting mellower here...

[A.M. Gold]

Must be people on their best behavior for Urs and u-he's sake.

[mcnoone]

Must be people on their best behavior for Urs and u-he's sake.

or fear of the ban hammer.
like me...I want to be m&m, but it not possible...yes?

[A.M. Gold]

Must be people on their best behavior for Urs and u-he's sake.

or fear of the ban hammer.

Never stopped anyone before.

[Urs]

Well, I remember at least one guy who got banned temporarily, and then temporarily again. Wonder where he's been since the ban's lifted...

Unfortunately only about 1 post per page is about Diva though

[Cyoon]

[digitalboytn]

And I was going to brush my teeth with that one too...

Not anymore...

Damn dem Diva pussies

[Cyoon]

[nix808]

Diva Cat lives->
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=diva+ ... 61&bih=460
Urs is in here somewhere?

[electro]

The OP-X Pro II interface is awful - it has almost all the limitations of the modeled hardware with a number of poorly-thought-out additions haphazardly "bolted on" to the front panel.

I also have OP-X Pro II and I agree with this statement 100%...

She needs a complete makeover and to be native x64 as well...

She may have to be re-coded from scratch though to make everything happen..

She's a Synth Edit creation....

I'm not a fan of the SE stuff and she's the only piece of SE in my toolbox..

Its terrible that an emulation as meticulous as OP-X has no plans for proper port away from Synthedit to full x64 native code.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

or fear of the ban hammer.

ooooh, you meant BAN hammer

[Aroused by JarJar]

I also don't think that was the point being made, more that synths were developed based primarily on mathematical concepts. .

If the original point to which you refer is the point I was making, I was talking about synthesis. Synths are instruments of synthesis, and synthesis is based on manipulation of representations of components and parameters of sound, i.e. "doing maths" is how they work. And these representations of components and parameters of sound, and manipulations of these parameters, go way back, long before what we think of as "synthesizers" existed.

This observation is very much on topic if we are talking about "digital vs. analog", because "digital" and "analog" are just implementations of the same concept. They are equally "real", to respond directly to the original post.

[whyterabbyt]

Synths are instruments of synthesis and synthesis is based on manipulation of representations of components and parameters of sound

Actually in our context, the term 'synthesis' entirely pertains to the generation of audio-frequency signals. Nothing more.

And in that context, 'synthesis' can be based on several things other than 'representations of components and parameters', including the direct manipulation of signals, or representations of signals. Such as any wavetable mechanism, from naive table scanning, to granular and scanned synthesis.

At the end of the day, 'synthesis' mechanisms are based on whatever methods can be utilised to generate those audio-frequency signals. 'Representations of components and parameters of sound' dont always come into it.

i.e. "doing maths" is how they work.

That doesnt logically follow; representing a component or parameter of a sound need not be 'doing maths', and 'doing maths' is not actually how some systems operate.

For example, a naive scanned wavetable isnt 'doing maths'. And please don't try and argue that incrementing a pointer counts as 'doing maths.'

Repeating an assertion over and over again isnt actually vaidating the assertion.

And these representations of components and parameters of sound, and manipulations of these parameters, go way back, long before what we think of as "synthesizers" existed.

So? A mathematical methodology for describing a system is not acually the system, and neither is the system necessarily the product of the method.

[Aroused by JarJar]

For example, a naive scanned wavetable isnt 'doing maths'. And please don't try and argue that incrementing a pointer counts as 'doing maths.'

"Please don't give me a straight reply that shows how simple and dry what you're saying is, cuz I'm just trying to "prove you wrong no matter what"" is how I read this. Sorry, but when I implement scanned wavetables, there is no doubt that "doing maths" is indeed how the synthesizer is working.

If you want to avoid the simple point that both analog synthesizers and digital synthesizers are both implementations of synthesis and both equally "real", okay.

[whyterabbyt]

"Please don't give me a straight reply that shows how simple and dry what you're saying is, cuz I'm just trying to "prove you wrong no matter what"" is how I read this.

Well you read it wrong, then. A 'simple and dry' straight reply with some actual proof of your assertion in it would be nice, compared to mere 'its true because I say it is, so I'll say it again.'

Sorry, but when I implement scanned wavetables, there is no doubt that "doing maths" is indeed how the synthesizer is working.

That's nice. I specifically said 'naive scanned wavetables', though, which dont need any 'maths' whatsoever to work, just an incrementable pointer.

But then again, you were specifically talking about 'representations of components and parameters' and a naive scanned wavetable isnt that either.

If you want to avoid the simple point that both analog synthesizers and digital synthesizers are both implementations of synthesis

Im not 'avoiding' that point, Im disputing it, while all you do is reiterate it as though that somehow makes it factual.

and both equally "real", okay.

Not interested in any distinction there either way, so dont try and imply I am, okay?