Stop It

[Burillo]

I really don't understand what is so difficult to understand for some of you.

so i take it you are the enlightened one?

The software v.s. hardware debate is moot and long since dead.

says who?

todays processors are not really good at modeling analog.

again, says who? you could have said the same thing 10 years ago, and you would be proven wrong today.

Very few of todays instruments model analog

are you one of those... mmm... interesting personalities who claim that unless software models everything down to every single individual electrons, it's not "analog emulation"? because the way i see it, plenty of instruments model analog behavior in software. whether they succeed is up to debate (Diva seems to be universally accepted as succeeding in that goal), but you can't say "it's not modeling" just because it doesn't perform the calculations you would like it to perform. what matters is the result, not the type of and quantity of calculations performed. modeling is modeling. to say that it's not is like saying electrical simulator doesn't actually simulate any electrical circuits.

They are designing good software instruments is the point.

says who? i'm sure the devleopers will disagree. from their point of view, they are studying analog behavior and modeling it in software.

They are not hardware though.

they do intend to sound like hardware though.

[Dasheesh]

Hive is different in that it has some real modeling in it. It's a hybrid. That's what sets it apart.

Does Hive "model" anything? Afaik it's doesn't have any real word prototype, it just uses a general concept of VA/Supersaw.

It numerically models the filter distortion of the Steiner-Parker filter I believe. There is a thread about it.

[psmacmur]

Personally, I love discussions of hardware vs software and analog vs digital. And I love soft synths modeled on hardware, whether a crude synthedit model that just captures the UI, feature set, and signal flow, a thoroughly circuit-modeled simulation that's calibrated against a real unit, or something in between. As wagtunes pointed out, hardware is just too expensive and inconvenient for me to be bothered anymore, yet I love hardware synths. Modeled soft synths bridge that divide and, since I'll never own or play any of the originals, I rely on KVR threads and the like to provide hints as to which emulations are closest and where they fall flat. E.g. the iMS20 is supposedly very close to the hardware ... all the patches on the net work down to the parameter values... but it supposedly fails at emulating certain behaviors of the filter. Behaviors which are probably computationally intractable in realtime on a laptop; that in itself fascinates me.

To quote U2:
You know you're chewing bubble gum
You know what that is but you still want some
You just can't get enough of that lovey dovey stuff

[david.beholder]

Personally, I love discussions of hardware vs software and analog vs digital. And I love soft synths modeled on hardware, whether a crude synthedit model that just captures the UI, feature set, and signal flow, a thoroughly circuit-modeled simulation that's calibrated against a real unit, or something in between.

I agree here and I like it too: discussion means passion, passion means creativity. Without analog vs digital discussion there would be no Diva, Strobe or UNO CVI. Today VSTs are sounding better than their HW counterpart. I'm actually expecting that soon there would be plugins emulating analog that couldn't exist irl.

[Lotuzia]

Personally, I love discussions of hardware vs software and analog vs digital. And I love soft synths modeled on hardware, whether a crude synthedit model that just captures the UI, feature set, and signal flow, a thoroughly circuit-modeled simulation that's calibrated against a real unit, or something in between.

I agree here and I like it too: discussion means passion, passion means creativity. Without analog vs digital discussion there would be no Diva, Strobe or UNO CVI. Today VSTs are sounding better than their HW counterpart. I'm actually expecting that soon there would be plugins emulating analog that couldn't exist irl.

I just wonder if you have ever played an original synthesizer that have one, or more than one, sw counterpart, and also if you have then played them side to side to compare them.

As for some plugs having more possibilities than their counterpart, and doing things the originals could not do, it's already done by a lot of soft synths for a long time ( If you think about Velocity/Aftertouch or overall available polyphony for the simplest parameters) Does that mean they sound better ? I dont know. For a number of reasons, they sound from at least *a bit*, to vastly different, depending on the accuracy of the emulations. Now, even evaluating this *a bit* is the question left. And we'll probably need a few more thousands similar KVR threads to approach the answer. Well just my 0.002 to make the thread live its life

[ChamomileShark]

This reply was generated by software while the analogue owner was taking a nap.

It uses a heuristic life like response system that is trained in responses in questions such as software vs analog, which is best and what is your favourite fish and what is the sound of one hand calpping. In all 4,560 threads were analysed with appx 30,000 responses to develop this reply.

Reply start> Analogz is now almost as good as software but it will take many weeks and alot of turbot to make . goodnight. hello. If you are happy and you know it clap your hand.<Reply end.

[david.beholder]

I just wonder if you have ever played an original synthesizer that have one, or more than one, sw counterpart, and also if you have then played them side to side to compare them.

In order: Juno 60/106, Jupiter 6, SH101 and it's modern relative BS2, Korg MS-20, various string machines.

As for some plugs having more possibilities than their counterpart, and doing things the originals could not do, it's already done by a lot of soft synths for a long time ( If you think about Velocity/Aftertouch or overall available polyphony for the simplest parameters) Does that mean they sound better ? I dont know.

To clarify my point: Diva + Good EQ could sound indistinguishable from OB8 (there was famous OB8 vs Diva test on GS with 50/50 ration), but Diva + Good EQ - the same OB8 paradigm there are new possibilities (mods, filter types, etc) therefore sonic qualities, no hum, no dying caps etc.

[Lotuzia]

I just wonder if you have ever played an original synthesizer that have one, or more than one, sw counterpart, and also if you have then played them side to side to compare them.

In order: Juno 60/106, Jupiter 6, SH101 and it's modern relative BS2, Korg MS-20, various string machines.

As for some plugs having more possibilities than their counterpart, and doing things the originals could not do, it's already done by a lot of soft synths for a long time ( If you think about Velocity/Aftertouch or overall available polyphony for the simplest parameters) Does that mean they sound better ? I dont know.

To clarify my point: Diva + Good EQ could sound indistinguishable from OB8 (there was famous OB8 vs Diva test on GS with 50/50 ration), but Diva + Good EQ - the same OB8 paradigm there are new possibilities (mods, filter types, etc) therefore sonic qualities, no hum, no dying caps etc.

Thanks for sharing your experience d.b.
With a similar background, and different experiences, I come to a different conclusion : that sw and hw are different. Can compliment each other. And that people can choose to use exclusively one or the other, according to their taste, or wallet, or convenience. ( + I'd be interested to listen to the test you mention, and to study it in detail. It would be the first test in a lot of ones that I'm aware of, including some I've done myself, that dont exhibit differences between hw and sw )

[david.beholder]

With a similar background, and different experiences, I come to a different conclusion : that sw and hw are different. Can compliment each other. And that people can choose to use exclusively one or the other, according to their taste, or wallet, or convenience.

There is no word sound in your reply (coincidence?) and that is exactly my point. Hw and sw are obviously different, but their product i.e. sound is almost the same.

For your reading pleasure, milestone of SW vs HW fame.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electro ... -test.html

P.S. By the way I guessed right, but I know where exactly to look.

[Urs]

Hive is different in that it has some real modeling in it. It's a hybrid. That's what sets it apart.

Does Hive "model" anything? Afaik it's doesn't have any real word prototype, it just uses a general concept of VA/Supersaw.

Hmmm, yes and no.

Hive uses "modeling of analogue circuits" such that they are based on circuit analysis. As such, yes, they're analogue models, they're not based on abstract concepts. However, the brutal part of exactly modeling the non-linear elements "where they happen" has been omitted in favour of low CPU usage. Instead, distortion is introduced in a more efficient way in "Normal" and "Dirty" mode, and not at all in "Clean" mode.

While those filters certainly sound terrific and surpass the sonic qualities of off-the-shelf digital filters, they don't exactly sound like any specific analogue filter used in any specific synth I know of. This otoh is an advantage because IMHO the sounds Hive is good at (Supersaw…) sound better with these filters than with accurately modeled analogue ones as done in Diva.

[Lotuzia]

Thanks for the link. I listened to the test. And answered you by PM. Cheers. L.

[Dasheesh]

I come to a different conclusion : that sw and hw are different. Can compliment each other. And that people can choose to use exclusively one or the other, according to their taste, or wallet, or convenience. ( + I'd be interested to listen to the test you mention, and to study it in detail. It would be the first test in a lot of ones that I'm aware of, including some I've done myself, that dont exhibit differences between hw and sw )

Gets it.

[Dasheesh]

Hive is different in that it has some real modeling in it. It's a hybrid. That's what sets it apart.

Does Hive "model" anything? Afaik it's doesn't have any real word prototype, it just uses a general concept of VA/Supersaw.

Hmmm, yes and no.

Hive uses "modeling of analogue circuits" such that they are based on circuit analysis. As such, yes, they're analogue models, they're not based on abstract concepts. However, the brutal part of exactly modeling the non-linear elements "where they happen" has been omitted in favour of low CPU usage. Instead, distortion is introduced in a more efficient way in "Normal" and "Dirty" mode, and not at all in "Clean" mode.

While those filters certainly sound terrific and surpass the sonic qualities of off-the-shelf digital filters, they don't exactly sound like any specific analogue filter used in any specific synth I know of. This otoh is an advantage because IMHO the sounds Hive is good at (Supersaw…) sound better with these filters than with accurately modeled analogue ones as done in Diva.

Thanks for clearing that up. Didn't mean to spread false information. So it's a static (or unchanging) distortion that is mixed in I think. What ever it does it's taken me a while to come around to it but it's very pleasing.

[Nightpolymath]

Horses/cars, tubes/transistors, vinyl/CD, hardware/software - the old guard prefer the former, the young guns prefer the latter. ...

Wait, what? How did horses come into the picture?

[gaf_thit]

Horses/cars, tubes/transistors, vinyl/CD, hardware/software - the old guard prefer the former, the young guns prefer the latter. ...

Wait, what? How did horses come into the picture?

You know... If wishes were ponies, then beggars would fly and so on...