so eveyone agrees that Diva rules them all....Echoes in the Attic wrote: I also don't think one synth can rule any other synths if it can't play chords.
A new competitor to Uhe Diva has arived!!!
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35520 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
You may need to revisit your dictionary, but if its level of authenticity is revolutionary, then no, they're not, actually.Echoes in the Attic wrote:Authenticity? I thought it was supposed to be revolutionary? I don't think it can be both revolutionary and completely authentic, they are pretty much opposite..
Or is something only revolutionary in your mind if its revolutionary in every single possible manner? In which case, pretty much nothing could be called revolutionary.
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- KVRAF
- 35710 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Performance is always something you got to take in account when programming i guess. Also, if NI would program for future hardware, they hardly would sell today.Nokenoku wrote:Ah ok, so the "reason" is, that it's a CPU hog?
Even then it makes no sense, since there will be faster CPUs in the future.
And who knows what will be possible with future machines.-
- Banned
- 10 posts since 12 Mar, 2013
who says just cause you CAN make it polyphonic you have to? somethings are just better tailored to certain features/limitations. am i the only one whos glad NI made this move?Nokenoku wrote:How do you disagree?
What exactly is not absolutely stupid about a monophonic VSTi-synth?
Also, the demos sound rather digital to me. In fact it's the typical NI Sound imo.
--> sandy and not liquid
-
- KVRAF
- 24456 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Reaktor IS multithreadable (just as pretty much any modern program - anything OS does is based on threads), but it is not multicore capable. Multithreading and multicore processing are two different things.Nokenoku wrote:Also if Reaktor isn't multithreadable it would be wiser to fix that, instead of making a synth monophonic because of it.
-
- Banned
- 10 posts since 12 Mar, 2013
revolution means a turn in the wheel. not reinventing itEchoes in the Attic wrote:Authenticity? I thought it was supposed to be revolutionary? I don't think it can be both revolutionary and completely authentic, they are pretty much opposite.EvilDragon wrote:I just have nothing against that decision, for authenticity.Nokenoku wrote:How do you disagree?
What exactly is not absolutely stupid about a monophonic VSTi-synth?
I also don't think one synth can rule any other synths if it can't play chords.
-
- Banned
- 10 posts since 12 Mar, 2013
im not saying DIVA cant be driven.. im talking about blatant exaggeration and distortion overdoses not present/possible in the original hardware. thats what i meant by my classic vs steroids question.. the impression i got from DIVA is a faithful conservative emulation of vintage classics, where as Monark seems to use the analogue modeling as a base and f**ks off into oblivion with it. its a matter of philosophy/style, which is basically what i was trying to get at. youre saying youd rather model a more aggressive minimoog than add new features to push it into new territory? (again, not bashing or anything, just want to see your vision of DIVAs place in the analogue modeling wave)Urs wrote:To the contrary. I reckon that the Bite filter - if not driven to death - can sound fairly aggressive.asozial0 wrote:safe to say that DIVA won't get that aggressive/overdriven? classic emulation vs "analogue" on steroids?
I think that overdriven isn't necessarily agressive. I think this is a common misperception of analogue sound.
That said, I'd still be happy to dissect a more aggressive sounding Minimoog.
-
- KVRAF
- 1594 posts since 16 Jan, 2010 from Denver
Just to add to that, it might have been monophonic but it had very interesting features like all the mod possibilities, effects+sequencing, different osc types and filters. Compare that to a mono 3 osc single filter, not exactly a 1:1 just on the basis of them being monophonicEchoes in the Attic wrote:Did Cyclops tease before hand that it was going to be a revolution in synthesis and that it would be one synth to rule them all?whyterabbyt wrote:Dunno. Why werent folk all over it, bitching, when Sugar Bytes Cyclops came out? Is it just because this one is by NI?Nokenoku wrote:How do you disagree?
What exactly is not absolutely stupid about a monophonic VSTi-synth?
-
- KVRAF
- 5234 posts since 25 Feb, 2008
There was a member called atraf11 who made the same point a number of times and got banned. And then you signed up immediately afterwards.asozial0 wrote:am i the only one whos glad NI made this move?
-
- Banned
- 10 posts since 12 Mar, 2013
banned for liking a mono-vst? care to get more info there detective?hakey wrote:There was a member called atraf11 who made the same point a number of times and got banned. And then you signed up immediately afterwards.asozial0 wrote:am i the only one whos glad NI made this move?
-
- Banned
- 10 posts since 12 Mar, 2013
didnt know certain opinions werent allowed here. thanks for the heads up ill need to watch myself herehakey wrote:yes, that was itasozial0 wrote:banned for liking a mono-vst?
-
- KVRian
- 867 posts since 26 Jul, 2009
i listened to all the demos on the NI soundcloud page.
some of the distorted tones on the demos are actually due to audio rate modulation and not really overdrive...and in that respect diva is fully covered.
but in some demos it is obvious there's an hefty amount of filter drive goin on(due to the "load" knob i suppose..)
also one thing i think i will like in monark is the noise generator...seems phat and whispering smooth in those critical 8-14k frequencies (which are a bit too excited and hissy in diva's noise gen).the noise sounds good modulated and seems to mix well with the oscillators the way i love and remember from my brief experience with a moog source .
from seconds 27 to 31 you can hear what i mean.
http://soundcloud.com/nativeinstruments ... overloaded
ultimately though....need to try the demo first before making any judgements.
some of the distorted tones on the demos are actually due to audio rate modulation and not really overdrive...and in that respect diva is fully covered.
but in some demos it is obvious there's an hefty amount of filter drive goin on(due to the "load" knob i suppose..)
also one thing i think i will like in monark is the noise generator...seems phat and whispering smooth in those critical 8-14k frequencies (which are a bit too excited and hissy in diva's noise gen).the noise sounds good modulated and seems to mix well with the oscillators the way i love and remember from my brief experience with a moog source .
from seconds 27 to 31 you can hear what i mean.
http://soundcloud.com/nativeinstruments ... overloaded
ultimately though....need to try the demo first before making any judgements.
Last edited by olikana on Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 27000 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Frantz wrote:Previously when I pointed out that Diva's minimoog sounds bright compared to Creamware Minimax, you said it was modeled from Hans Zimmer's unusually bright minimoog and that you preferred the bright sound. I think before you model unusually bright or aggressive minimoogs, you should first nail an average minimoog since that's what most people are expecting.Urs wrote: That said, I'm curious about Monark. The demos seem way more aggressive than Diva. If we can get hold of a Minimoog that sounds *that* aggressive, then we'll happily spend some time on an alternative model for Diva as well. Uhm, if this is generally considered a desirable Minimoog sound.
bright and aggressive are two separate things
