A new competitor to Uhe Diva has arived!!!

[VariKusBrainZ]

The other viable contender (visible) will come from Cytomic IMO
The drop is already an awesome circuit modeled multifilter and mention has been made of releasing a synth in the future.
The dev has worked on code for Camel Audio, Ableton and FXpansion, though not circuit modeled (except for The Glue in Live 9) I understand.

Ps Im sadly not an owner but Diva but I have Ace

[jalcide]

My understanding is Diva, and a few select other synths (DCAM Synth Squad, etc.), use actual physical circuit modelling (at the transitor and capicitor, etc. level) for some or all of the emulation. Yes? Reaktor, is 100% dsp-based, correct? If so, that seems like a pretty big theortical difference in approach and potential realism/complexity of the emulation.

Urs, someone, please correct me...

Also, are there certain elements of a synth's architecture where circuit modelling would have a clear advantage over its dsp-based counterpart? E.g., a saturation circuit would showcase the complex interactions and realism of circuit modelling, over dsp, more than an oscillator would?

Can we compile a list of synths known to use circuit modelling? If so, what parts, if any, are not circuit modeled in them, and why?

For example, certain developers like to say things like, "...modeled all stages of the input..." -- what does that acutally mean? It could mean anything and has the potential to be misleading.(unless it's Softube where the claim is that everything they do is physcial modelling).

I'd like to get to the bottom of all this, once and for all.

[EvilDragon]

And what makes you think that circuit modeling itself does not use DSP?


DSP is used everywhere. It's how you mathematically (numerically - in digital domain) describe the behavior of a system from its input to its output. That can be any kind of system. A circuit is a system, as well.


Physical modeling is also DSP.

[chilly7]

if AT YOUR OPINION sombody is worse then u on some aspects does not mean that that person should be treated bad.

But that's not what's going here.

The criticism you're getting is down to your refusal to make even the bare minimum effort to improve the readability of your posts.

That shows a lack of respect on your part.

Again, AT YOUR OPINION i write worse then u and yes i do not want to change.
But it does not mean i should be treated bad because i some aspects i am worse then u.
Look this way:

Maby i can sing better then u...
Now i am say to u: Now u must improve ur singing scills and That shows a lack of respect on your part to me




Ok, i did not want to bringe brcause very little people ave a knowladge to totaly understand my writing.
Also about my wrighting i am writing totaly correct all the time?, the reason why u think it is wrong because u do not have a correct kniwladge to decode it and here is why: Today people seak in Modern English( which is in fakt a cutted down version of original English language which was based on Latin language. But words in this language was not created by random letters, because awry letter has a minin which creats a word. Unfortionaly the main stream education does not tell anything about that. They tech blindly memorise words whith out understading the thrue meaning of it and how it was created. Because in the old days if u neaw the meaning of letters u could understand any lengage.

So I am not speaking right now "Modern English" i just use Latin letters and creat a meaning, for people ehe could not decode my masege it is a bit similar to "moder englush" and people can try to guess what i meant but unfortionaly it is not possibe to 100% understend me because people not have a needed knowladge.

It was a reason that in the old days people needed half of their life to fully learn the language. But nowdays to lear a language with a hard stady u can do it in 1 oe 2 years, vut not because now people are more intellegent but because people memorise words with out uderstanding the mrchaniks of original creation of words so as result people can only understand word they have memmorised and if they see a word they do not know they recinise is as mistake but in fact any combinetion of letters can creat a particular eaning but because most of modern people do not know the ruls and meaning of letters they cannot reconise the meaning.

so for example if i spell a word "goood" i did mot make mistake and yes it is not identical but it is similar in tjis case but again it is nit identical to "good" , i just spelled a particular word with oarticular meaning and because u doo not know the knowladge of word creation u cannot100% decode the meaning if that word , but u can guess and i am aware that most people cannot decode my writing and most people will think that"goood" is "good" , and most people will think that i did a error abd will put in to clouse aproximation to the "Modern English" language, so yes i am aware of it and take it in to account. And probably 99% of people are like that because the main stream education totaly destroyed the original knowladge of word creation, but there are still people who kniw that knowladge and i will keep it too...


Have a very nice Day!

[chilly7]

Could be chilly's native language isn't English. If so it might take some effort to compose posts at all. When I've tried posting in non-English forums I came up with some pretty bad Italian and German. If the content's not objectionable I figure it's worth taking a little longer to parse while reading.

JFYI there are a lot of people suffering on some kind of dyslexia. Even many people in countries with English as mother tongue can't spell correctly. In my country I've seen German people that cannot spell German in the right way. But that doesn't mean that those people are dumb. They can make great music, nevertheless.

+1

[chilly7]

My understanding is Diva, and a few select other synths (DCAM Synth Squad, etc.), use actual physical circuit modelling (at the transitor and capicitor, etc. level) for some or all of the emulation. Yes? Reaktor, is 100% dsp-based, correct? If so, that seems like a pretty big theortical difference in approach and potential realism/complexity of the emulation.

Urs, someone, please correct me...

Also, are there certain elements of a synth's architecture where circuit modelling would have a clear advantage over its dsp-based counterpart? E.g., a saturation circuit would showcase the complex interactions and realism of circuit modelling, over dsp, more than an oscillator would?

Can we compile a list of synths known to use circuit modelling? If so, what parts, if any, are not circuit modeled in them, and why?

For example, certain developers like to say things like, "...modeled all stages of the input..." -- what does that acutally mean? It could mean anything and has the potential to be misleading.(unless it's Softube where the claim is that everything they do is physcial modelling).

I'd like to get to the bottom of all this, once and for all.

Goid questions, i am intrested in that too.

[Tricky-Loops]

Ok, i did not want to bringe brcause very little people ave a knowladge to totaly understand my writing.
Also about my wrighting i am writing totaly correct all the time?, the reason why u think it is wrong because u do not have a correct kniwladge to decode it and here is why: Today people seak in Modern English( which is in fakt a cutted down version of original English language which was based on Latin language. But words in this language was not created by random letters, because awry letter has a minin which creats a word. Unfortionaly the main stream education does not tell anything about that. They tech blindly memorise words whith out understading the thrue meaning of it and how it was created. Because in the old days if u neaw the meaning of letters u could understand any lengage.

So I am not speaking right now "Modern English" i just use Latin letters and creat a meaning, for people ehe could not decode my masege it is a bit similar to "moder englush" and people can try to guess what i meant but unfortionaly it is not possibe to 100% understend me because people not have a needed knowladge.

It was a reason that in the old days people needed half of their life to fully learn the language. But nowdays to lear a language with a hard stady u can do it in 1 oe 2 years, vut not because now people are more intellegent but because people memorise words with out uderstanding the mrchaniks of original creation of words so as result people can only understand word they have memmorised and if they see a word they do not know they recinise is as mistake but in fact any combinetion of letters can creat a particular eaning but because most of modern people do not know the ruls and meaning of letters they cannot reconise the meaning.

so for example if i spell a word "goood" i did mot make mistake and yes it is not identical but it is similar in tjis case but again it is nit identical to "good" , i just spelled a particular word with oarticular meaning and because u doo not know the knowladge of word creation u cannot100% decode the meaning if that word , but u can guess and i am aware that most people cannot decode my writing and most people will think that"goood" is "good" , and most people will think that i did a error abd will put in to clouse aproximation to the "Modern English" language, so yes i am aware of it and take it in to account. And probably 99% of people are like that because the main stream education totaly destroyed the original knowladge of word creation, but there are still people who kniw that knowladge and i will keep it too...

So its Chilly7-English, te only and reel English from ur ancestors? Is it difficolt to learn?? Cud u perhapps explane me te rules of ur own English?

[chilly7]

Ok, i did not want to bringe brcause very little people ave a knowladge to totaly understand my writing.
Also about my wrighting i am writing totaly correct all the time?, the reason why u think it is wrong because u do not have a correct kniwladge to decode it and here is why: Today people seak in Modern English( which is in fakt a cutted down version of original English language which was based on Latin language. But words in this language was not created by random letters, because awry letter has a minin which creats a word. Unfortionaly the main stream education does not tell anything about that. They tech blindly memorise words whith out understading the thrue meaning of it and how it was created. Because in the old days if u neaw the meaning of letters u could understand any lengage.

So I am not speaking right now "Modern English" i just use Latin letters and creat a meaning, for people ehe could not decode my masege it is a bit similar to "moder englush" and people can try to guess what i meant but unfortionaly it is not possibe to 100% understend me because people not have a needed knowladge.

It was a reason that in the old days people needed half of their life to fully learn the language. But nowdays to lear a language with a hard stady u can do it in 1 oe 2 years, vut not because now people are more intellegent but because people memorise words with out uderstanding the mrchaniks of original creation of words so as result people can only understand word they have memmorised and if they see a word they do not know they recinise is as mistake but in fact any combinetion of letters can creat a particular eaning but because most of modern people do not know the ruls and meaning of letters they cannot reconise the meaning.

so for example if i spell a word "goood" i did mot make mistake and yes it is not identical but it is similar in tjis case but again it is nit identical to "good" , i just spelled a particular word with oarticular meaning and because u doo not know the knowladge of word creation u cannot100% decode the meaning if that word , but u can guess and i am aware that most people cannot decode my writing and most people will think that"goood" is "good" , and most people will think that i did a error abd will put in to clouse aproximation to the "Modern English" language, so yes i am aware of it and take it in to account. And probably 99% of people are like that because the main stream education totaly destroyed the original knowladge of word creation, but there are still people who kniw that knowladge and i will keep it too...

So its Chilly7-English, te only and reel English from ur ancestors? Is it difficolt to learn?? Cud u perhapps explane me te rules of ur own English?

lol

to understand the rulles of word creation and letterd u will need to speand 10 , 20 or more years of ur life.
If a person is teched that knowladge from the child hood then it is possible to do, but nw i belive it is too late for u

i looked in to the interned and could not find any general description and any pictures but i found a very short description of a fwe Slave language letters
http://slavyanin.info/forum/uploads/111_azbuka1.jpg

[cron]

edit: Had loads of arsey questions about the validity of the term "circuit modelling" but then I asked Google and aboukirev's post below went some way toward answering my question.

[Tricky-Loops]

So its Chilly7-English, te only and reel English from ur ancestors? Is it difficolt to learn?? Cud u perhapps explane me te rules of ur own English?

lol

to understand the rulles of word creation and letterd u will need to speand 10 , 20 or more years of ur life.
If a person is teched that knowladge from the child hood then it is possible to do, but nw i belive it is too late for u

i looked in to the interned and could not find any general description and any pictures but i found a very short description of a fwe Slave language letters
http://slavyanin.info/forum/uploads/111_azbuka1.jpg

Don't say it's tuu lade cose it's neva tuu lade to lern nu langages. Hu can u sink sad I'm tuu old? I cud lern 10 nu langages in 10 yeahrs!!

[dalor]

Didn't read all posts but if Monomark is a reaktor instrument/ensemble, you'd be lucky to be able to play more than 4 notes simultaneously in 96khz.

[cron]

Didn't read all posts but if Monomark is a reaktor instrument/ensemble, you'd be lucky to be able to play more than 4 notes simultaneously in 96khz.

You'd be lucky to play more than one, given that it's a monosynth.

[aboukirev]

My understanding is Diva, and a few select other synths (DCAM Synth Squad, etc.), use actual physical circuit modelling (at the transitor and capicitor, etc. level) for some or all of the emulation. Yes? Reaktor, is 100% dsp-based, correct? If so, that seems like a pretty big theortical difference in approach and potential realism/complexity of the emulation.

Urs, someone, please correct me...

Also, are there certain elements of a synth's architecture where circuit modelling would have a clear advantage over its dsp-based counterpart? E.g., a saturation circuit would showcase the complex interactions and realism of circuit modelling, over dsp, more than an oscillator would?

Can we compile a list of synths known to use circuit modelling? If so, what parts, if any, are not circuit modeled in them, and why?

For example, certain developers like to say things like, "...modeled all stages of the input..." -- what does that acutally mean? It could mean anything and has the potential to be misleading.(unless it's Softube where the claim is that everything they do is physcial modelling).

I'd like to get to the bottom of all this, once and for all.

Besides the circuit modelling, there is a "black box" approach. You send an impulse into physical filter and measure response. Send a different impulse, measure response. Build transfer function. Now you can decompose any input signal into multiple impulses/frequencies, apply transfer function, and put it back together. Very similar to convolution reverbs, as I understand it.

I think that at least some Diva modules are built that way.

[Urs]

Diva's modules are foremost built upon observation of the behaviour of their analogue counterpart.

We built rough digital models based on circuits, but we added some 5-10 additional resistors and current sources, which we could then tweak with knobs. Then we spent months of tweaking those knobs until we felt that we were close. At some point inbetween we might have added more bits an pieces, or we might have tried an alternative for a selected part.

In the end we however did not use direct measurements of electronic parts, such as the resistance or cpacitance of the analogue parts. To the contrary, we used our ears.

- Urs

[Frantz]

to understand the rulles of word creation and letterd u will need to speand 10 , 20 or more years of ur life.
If a person is teched that knowladge from the child hood then it is possible to do, but nw i belive it is too late for u

I, for one, wellcom awr nu illiterate overlards.