KVR Audio

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:40 pm

Z1202 wrote:At the present state of the technology the digital artifacts are hardly the biggest part of the difference in sound. When you model analog hardware you are using models, which are simplifications of what's going on.

yes agreed. There is much more to it than just artifacts IMO...

Z1202 wrote:This is one of my main problems with many VA software products. Exactly what I have been complaining about, that you regularly have to restort to the fine-tuning mode, hunting for the sweet spot.

again I have to agree. The real world experience reflects this in my opinion. Never the less - if you 'can' replicate quite accurately the sounds - I think its pretty useful...

Ogopogo wrote:analoguesamples909, did you add noise or anything like that that these people are talking about?

yes I had to add noise to not give away the answer...if you try to guess based on the noise levels you will likely get it wrong...

aciddose wrote:The problem is it isn't interesting and a lot of people might take it seriously even if you don't. It's a bad test, it claims to demonstrate something when it demonstrates nothing..

I didnt actually claim to demonstrate that much - I loosely used the tag 'analogue vs digital' and considering Diva is a digital synth, and the OB8 is analogue - I don't think it is that inaccurate...

aciddose wrote: Actually the bias is so high here it's obvious which is which so this isn't really equivalent at all.

if you have some opinions on this thats great - and I'd like to hear the comparison you made which was mentioned by Z1202, but can you please try to remain calm as I'd like this thread not to be locked from polemical arguments...

loungepanda · Post by **loungepanda** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:40 pm

IncarnateX wrote:If you had been sober enough to read the OP instead of just the title, Aciddose, you would know that the thread is an advertisement for a DIVA soundset

Then it's in the wrong sub-forum.

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:44 pm

Come on. We already dealt with the fact that a correct answer could be due to chance alone on page 1 and 2 in this thread because there only are two options. It should have been clear by then that this could not be considered a scientific test. It's an advertisement and the rest is a subjective. I actually thought people took this premise for granted.

recursive one · Post by **recursive one** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:45 pm

All in all, I think the test is perfectly valid. Diva is intended to capture the overall character of some famous analogue and digital synths, U-He NEVER claimed that it PERFECTLY emulates this or that synth. Thus, making a bunch of different playable sounds trying to get them as similar as possible with two tested synths, and build some tracks with these sounds seems to be the most appropriate way to examine if Diva succeeds in doing what it is intended to do. I don't understand the negativity in this thread.

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:46 pm

IncarnateX wrote:If you had been sober enough to read the OP instead of just the title, Aciddose, you would know that the thread is an advertisement for a DIVA soundset

I started the work on this A/B test a year ago as I like posting real world tests on the forums...but I dont present it scientifically because I dont think anyone will bother to take it...you should see the tumbleweed when you tell people they need to make minimum 10 trials PER SOUND to make anything statistically significant....

I have provided wavs and a link to ABX software - and people can use the audio Ive made to test themselves properly should they wish to...

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

The preset pack has its own thread and video in the other forum...these tests are mainly for people to hear close comparisons to explore and challenge perceptions...

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:47 pm

double

wagtunes · Post by **wagtunes** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:47 pm

IncarnateX wrote:Come on. We already dealt with the fact that a correct answer could be due to chance alone on page 1 and 2 in this thread because there only are two options. It should have been clear by then that this could not be considered a scientific test. It's an advertisement and the rest is a subjective. I actually thought people took this premise for granted.

Maybe you take this as an advertisement and a totally pointless thread. I don't. I heard two sounds. And to my ears, there wasn't enough of a difference (what little I could tell on one particular low end of one sound) to justify my spending $3,000 on an OB 8 when I can get a sound that's "good enough for me" from a $200 VST.

So maybe that's meaningless to you.

But to ME...it has more meaning than anything else in this God forsaken excuse for humanity of a thread.

In short...my wallet thanks me.

Synthetic Wav · Post by **Synthetic Wav** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:47 pm

the negativity come from people claming there is no difference between one plugin and analog and that buying a analog synth 3000 is crazy.
thread like this and the sell speach of plugins companies encourage people with no experience with hardware bashing guys that spend money on it, it make them look smart spending a little on plugin and get the" same sound"

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:54 pm

recursive one wrote:All in all, I think the test is perfectly valid

No it is not. For a test to be valid it has to show that a given result can not be explained by the 0 hypothesis, that is pure chance, and in this case we do not even know what the real hypothesis is. Is it that no one can tell the difference or that everyone can tell the difference? And in the individual case, you can not validate your own beliefs about your choice since a correct answer can be explained by pure chance (= 0 hypothesis).

Ogopogo · Post by **Ogopogo** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:55 pm

EnGee wrote:Is this your opinion? or the OP's or what?

How it is a scientific test? What the machines/tools she/he used to measure the sound, frequency ..etc?
Scientific? Show me numbers then!

For something to be scientific doesn't mean that it's just measured by rulers or oscilloscopes or whatever. It's a test of the state of analog emulation and whether musicians can discern a difference. The numbers that you get in this case would be the number of people that got it right or wrong, or couldn't tell a difference.

Now that part isn't being done in the best possible way since these responses are being done on a forum and everything, but what matters the most is the methodology behind the test itself. If you were to bring in a bunch of subjects and take down their all there answers it would be a good study. But we can still learn something from our own answers and the other answers given, it will just be a less accurate test than if all the response gathering was really done the right way.

If you want to say testing human perception can't be scientific, every psychologist and neuroscientist will argue against you. There are journals full of perceptual tests.

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:00 pm

IncarnateX wrote:
recursive one wrote:All in all, I think the test is perfectly valid
No it is not. For a test to be valid it has to show that a given result can not be explained by the 0 hypothesis, that is pure chance, and in this case we do not even know what the real hypothesis is. Is it that no one can tell the difference or that everyone can tell the difference? And in the individual case, you can not validate your own beliefs about your choice since a correct answer can be explained by pure chance (= 0 hypothesis).

I understand your point - I am a scientist. However I did not present this as a scientific test. As per above I have provided the tools for this to be evaluated scientifically with wavs and ABX link. I hate to say it but I do not see forums as a place to try to solve these issues absolutely.

In a large community such as this the main point is to present two samples blind and stimulate discussion. The result can be to challenge peoples perceptions. If I was to set a hypothesis I could say the group of KVR users will not be able to tell the difference. This is testable and falsifiable. There should be enough answers to become statistically significant. This is not a test on individual performance. Of someone wants to do that they can however (as described).

Ogopogo · Post by **Ogopogo** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:01 pm

IncarnateX wrote:Come on. We already dealt with the fact that a correct answer could be due to chance alone on page 1 and 2 in this thread because there only are two options. It should have been clear by then that this could not be considered a scientific test. It's an advertisement and the rest is a subjective. I actually thought people took this premise for granted.

Wrong, if you have two options and people are just guessing, you would expect a 50/50 spread in the answers. So what you look for in a test like this is whether the responses are significantly far off from the 50/50 spread. If you have 80% getting it right that isn't explained by chance. That's assuming of course that you have enough responses. As I said in another post, on a forum like this isn't a great way to collect this data. So that's a problem, but the fact that there are two options isn't.

recursive one · Post by **recursive one** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:02 pm

IncarnateX wrote:
recursive one wrote:All in all, I think the test is perfectly valid
No it is not. For a test to be valid it has to show that a given result can not be explained by the 0 hypothesis, that is pure chance, and in this case we do not even know what the real hypothesis is. Is it that no one can tell the difference or that everyone can tell the difference? And in the individual case, you can not validate your own beliefs about your choice since a correct answer can be explained by pure chance (= 0 hypothesis).

Well, this is not a "scientfic" test. It doesn't have a 0 hypotesis (like "Diva is 100% indistinguishable from an analogue synth") which shall be proven or proven wrong and the results would be taken as an asolute truth. I't just a comparison, which one can listen to and draw his/her own conclusions.

Maybe the thread should be called "a real word comparison" rather than "test".

Ogopogo · Post by **Ogopogo** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:04 pm

analoguesamples909 wrote:I understand your point - I am a scientist. However I did not present this as a scientific test. As per above I have provided the tools for this to be evaluated scientifically with wavs and ABX link. I hate to say it but I do not see forums as a place to try to solve these issues absolutely.

A/B/X is a better methodology, but that doesn't mean a/b is completely unscientific, right? It's been a while since school for me, but I think an a/b test could still be called scientific.

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 1:12 pm

recursive one wrote:
Well, this is not a "scientfic" test. It doesn't have a 0 hypotesis (like "Diva is 100% indistinguishable from an analogue synth")

A 0 hypthesis is not the main hypothesis but the opposite, that the results from a test is based on chance. To prove something scientifically the result statistically has to be something that cannot be explained by chance but can be explained by the main hypothesis. There are statistic means for that butbthe design of the test has to live up to certain standards.

Besides if you agree that this is no scientific test, you should not claim that that the test is valid. It's contradiction.

Diva vs Analogue - a real world test