KVR Audio

ariston · Post by **ariston** » Sat May 05, 2012 9:31 pm

digitalboytn wrote:
hakey wrote:
the guy from Hamburg-Audio.de in this German video - http://www.musotalk.de/video/u-he-diva- ... der-woche/
Any German speakers care to translate (I think it's the guy with the funny goatee that we're interested in)?
Hey you German guys can't even speak your own language !

What that dude's saying is that if you have an open mind and you couldn't give a toss if a synth is digital,analog or anything in between and if you are interested in a synth that sounds really incredible on any level - you should check out Diva

Erm.... no, that's NOT what he's saying. Read my post a bit higher up.

I realize you're joking, but I'm sure Mr Funny Goatee would be heartbroken to hear himself misquoted.

On a serious note, I really don't get the digital analogue discussion either. They're instruments, tools to be used, and to me, it's all about getting good tools that make good sounds. Diva just sounds so alive compared to other plugins, she is a constant inspiration to me. Whereas THIS plugin just sounds sterile, monotonous, dead by comparison.

SadPuppyBlues · Post by **SadPuppyBlues** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:12 pm

ariston wrote:Whereas THIS plugin just sounds sterile, monotonous, dead by comparison.

Sorry, but I have to contradict you there.
This plug in is amazing.

ariston · Post by **ariston** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:16 pm

SadPuppyBlues wrote:
ariston wrote:Whereas THIS plugin just sounds sterile, monotonous, dead by comparison.
Sorry, but I have to contradict you there.
This plug in is amazing.

Damn! Foiled again!

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:20 pm

I don't like it.
Quality cannot sacrifice such an amount of performance. Yes I can understand good quality make come with an impact on performance, but while my machine may not be the highest-class, it is better than your average computer and is a decent machine all around and still I can only run one instance of DIVA.
Even if I had a higher performing machine, I would not sacrifice that huge chunk of performance power for a single instrument...and at that a single instrument track.

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:32 pm

ntom wrote:I don't like it.
Quality cannot sacrifice such an amount of performance. Yes I can understand good quality make come with an impact on performance, but while my machine may not be the highest-class, it is better than your average computer and is a decent machine all around and still I can only run one instance of DIVA.
Even if I had a higher performing machine, I would not sacrifice that huge chunk of performance power for a single instrument...and at that a single instrument track.

Have you tried Version 1.1 ? Significant performance increases for multi-core processors (especially i-series)

I'm getting many instances of the plugin going at once.. and I'm only running a last generation i5 here..

bailees7irish · Post by **bailees7irish** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:36 pm

ntom wrote:I don't like it.
Quality cannot sacrifice such an amount of performance. Yes I can understand good quality make come with an impact on performance, but while my machine may not be the highest-class, it is better than your average computer and is a decent machine all around and still I can only run one instance of DIVA.
Even if I had a higher performing machine, I would not sacrifice that huge chunk of performance power for a single instrument...and at that a single instrument track.

+1

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:40 pm

ntom wrote:I don't like it.
Quality cannot sacrifice such an amount of performance. Yes I can understand good quality make come with an impact on performance, but while my machine may not be the highest-class, it is better than your average computer and is a decent machine all around and still I can only run one instance of DIVA.
Even if I had a higher performing machine, I would not sacrifice that huge chunk of performance power for a single instrument...and at that a single instrument track.

What are on? A 486?
I got a mbp coreduo2-2.88ghz, w/t 4gb ram...and managed 4 instances, plus drum machine here, (no freezing tracks) with room for one more if I wanted.
It includes a pad (poly-and long release) plus a sync lead.
The music ain't to good, cuz I was actually playing it, and it's not created using some sequencing tools or anything.
Here-
https://www.box.com/s/ee3a9e9acfc5a96381cd
@Shy-The sync sounds better than any other sync I've heard.

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:44 pm

VitaminD wrote:
ntom wrote:I don't like it.
Quality cannot sacrifice such an amount of performance. Yes I can understand good quality make come with an impact on performance, but while my machine may not be the highest-class, it is better than your average computer and is a decent machine all around and still I can only run one instance of DIVA.
Even if I had a higher performing machine, I would not sacrifice that huge chunk of performance power for a single instrument...and at that a single instrument track.
Have you tried Version 1.1 ? Significant performance increases for multi-core processors (especially i-series)

No. A response I was just about to post was going to be maybe my point is invalid because I only demoed it during Beta stages. I am not sure what kind of performance it hits now, though it may be better, I still have a feeling my computer wouldn't like many instances.
You have to understand my songs get massive with layers. The song I just finished had some 45-50 layers (tracks) (many playing in poly). I cannot sacrifice large chunks of my CPU for one instrument.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:54 pm

ntom wrote: Quality cannot sacrifice such an amount of performance.

Sure it can... and each person can choose what is more important to them.

Let's consider a vintage Minimoog. Not only do you have only 1 instance, you have only 1 voice! That is terrible performance compared to any softsynth... Yet people pay thousands of dollars for them.

Bronto Scorpio · Post by **Bronto Scorpio** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:58 pm

And there is always the quality setting. The CPU usage isn't really that high in draft mode compared to other synths. Aalto (another amazing synth!) for example uses way more CPU per voice here than Diva in draft mode. Even Tremor uses more CPU per voice (at least on my PC).

Cheers
Dennis

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat May 05, 2012 11:03 pm

ntom wrote: You have to understand my songs get massive with layers. The song I just finished had some 45-50 layers (tracks) (many playing in poly). I cannot sacrifice large chunks of my CPU for one instrument.

On my i7 I can get approx 10 tracks of Diva playing... and of course many more with freeze. But if it is more important to you to not have to freeze, then that is valid and you are right not to get Diva.

I am totally psyched cause I happen to value the sound quality more than convenience and Diva has set a new standard of sound quality. Different people have different priorities and I'm glad that there are more offerings available like Diva, Bazille and Synth Squad. If there is something for everyone, then we are all pleased!

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat May 05, 2012 11:05 pm

robenestobenz wrote:
pdxindy wrote:A couple of my latest Diva sounds...

I particularly like the variety and character of noisy type sounds I get in Diva. I find in quite a few synths that the noise sounds tacked on more than being shapable and part of the sound. There are some gorgeous tones in Diva with noise and higher resonance. The filter FM shapes it nicely.

http://draigathar.org/sounds/Diva49.mp3
Nice stuff. That one sound has got me interested in Diva. I totally agree about the noise, I've never used a soft synth where it really felt glued in to the sound. But in that sample, it does.

You should definitely give Diva a test drive then. Noise and noisy sounds are one of Diva's interesting areas to explore. Because of the different osc/filter modules, there is a lot more variety there than may be obvious at first glance. And the interactions between crossmod/sync/resonance/filterFM and Noise offers lots of lovely tones.

Here is another example where noise is an expressive part of the sound

lots of dynamic range so don't start with it too loud!

http://draigathar.org/sounds/Diva38.mp3

ntom · Post by **ntom** » Sat May 05, 2012 11:16 pm

pdxindy wrote:
ntom wrote:
Let's consider a vintage Minimoog. Not only do you have only 1 instance, you have only 1 voice! That is terrible performance compared to any softsynth... Yet people pay thousands of dollars for them.
Kind of a poor example really :/
With a hardware synth and of course an audio interface, you can record the synth part and MIDI at the same time. if you ever need to correct the played part, correct the MIDI, let the synth be controlled by the MIDI and record the output audio. Then you can have as many recorded instances of the Moog as you possibly want. Actually, probably the most (CPU) efficient way of using instruments...maybe not the most convenient though.

And don't get me wrong, quality is good, it's important, it's really important, but for operation, it's just not practical to sacrifice a large chunk of my processor for a single instrument.
Bronto Scorpio wrote: And there is always the quality setting. The CPU usage isn't really that high in draft mode compared to other synths. Aalto (another amazing synth!) for example uses way more CPU per voice here than Diva in draft mode. Even Tremor uses more CPU per voice (at least on my PC).

Thus is why I don't use those synths either....then again, I also don't really use many commercial plugins, as we all know.

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Sat May 05, 2012 11:28 pm

ntom wrote:
VitaminD wrote:
ntom wrote:I don't like it.
Quality cannot sacrifice such an amount of performance. Yes I can understand good quality make come with an impact on performance, but while my machine may not be the highest-class, it is better than your average computer and is a decent machine all around and still I can only run one instance of DIVA.
Even if I had a higher performing machine, I would not sacrifice that huge chunk of performance power for a single instrument...and at that a single instrument track.
Have you tried Version 1.1 ? Significant performance increases for multi-core processors (especially i-series)
No. A response I was just about to post was going to be maybe my point is invalid because I only demoed it during Beta stages. I am not sure what kind of performance it hits now, though it may be better, I still have a feeling my computer wouldn't like many instances.
You have to understand my songs get massive with layers. The song I just finished had some 45-50 layers (tracks) (many playing in poly). I cannot sacrifice large chunks of my CPU for one instrument.

I'd recommend giving 1.1 a spin :c )

I doubt you are playing 45 layers at once.. wall of noise.. messy. v1.1 won't get you 45 instances at once.. but probably 6-12 depending on the patches used and quality level..

But we don't have to use the exact same synth for all 45+ layers.. use it on the more forward ones, for instance.. or to fill in the thinner synths

either way.. to each their own.. we all don't have to like the same things. If others work for you and this one doesn't.. good for you! (sincerely)

fceramic · Post by **fceramic** » Sun May 06, 2012 12:06 am

Hmmm, I would say I don't like the interface. Nothing in particular, just not for me. I like tight one-page synths like Thor and Aalto.
I also really don't like the mod system. Again just personal preference, nothing wrong with it.
Other than that it does what it was designed to do very well.

Does anyone NOT like Diva?