KVR Audio

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:19 pm

Oh asshole Nerds....even funnier.......

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:38 pm

One thing I don't understand. Why the OP had to add noise to Diva example?

To sound like a hardware? But as real world test, no one in real life would add noise to his/her recording!

Ok maybe when the OP reveals the result, he/she would explain what kind of noise added and how.

I preferred presenting the examples as recorded with maybe reducing the noise from the OB recording not the other way around because this what people normally do.

Anyway, let's see how this game ends. Back to sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:51 pm

IncarnateX wrote:
analoguesamples909 wrote: Yes post-hoc you could make a scientific observation about the results if you want to but it's limited.
Apart from the issues already discussed, I am afraid that the lack of 100% control over the experimental situation would add to the troubles making this a trusthworthy scientific study, even post-hoc. In principle people can cheat here, e.g. download the files and anlyse them for amount of noise. The noise of an analog synths is often more prominent than of a VSTi. You were asked earlier if you had made up for this somehow (like sending then out of the same outboard or adding noise to Diva) and I am still curious with regard to this, not at least because it was the basis of my own choice. I simply chosed the one that sounded least noisy to me as Diva.

lol you are afraid about the lack of 100% control which makes it untrustworthy - because people such as yourself cheat and analyse based on noise?

I addressed the issue of noise on page 13. If you guessed based on noise that was unfortunate because you may well be wrong.

I can't believe you are informing me on the issue of noise in analogue synths. Do you really think someone would spend this amount of time on a test and not consider that?

lnikj · Post by **lnikj** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:17 pm

Late to join this ...

My gut feeling is that B is Diva, and I prefer it. A is muddier. I have never heard the real thing up close and personal though.

Bl**dy good job on the patches I must say.

Did Urs opine yet?

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 7:07 pm

analoguesamples909 wrote: lol you are afraid about the lack of 100% control which makes it untrustworthy - because people such as yourself cheat and analyse based on noise?

Well I wasn't really aware that this would be cheating, Your OP did not say

I did not hear any analog magic in either of your examples if this was what I was supposed to be looking for. Question was whether you in principle can cheat by downloading the file and analyse it visually for different behavior with respect to noise levels. So this it not about me but what a picky Scientific magazine in principle could point out with respect to the validity of the study during review. This is nothing to be cocky about. You should know that if you are a scientist as you say you are.

analoguesamples909 wrote:
I can't believe you are informing me on the issue of noise in analogue synths. Do you really think someone would spend this amount of time on a test and not consider that?

No that was not the point. The question is whether you have done it in a way that cannot be revealed with visual analysis of some kind.

But now we have a new type of problem, namely that the orginal sound of DIVA does not have your added noise, so what shall we make of this?
That given you add noise to DIVA, the test results (whatever they turn out to be) are valid?

I actually thought your own point was that this is not a scientific study and yet you continue to defend it as if it is. I am pretty sure it would not survive as such at Danish Universities but cannot speak for other. Depends on the national standards.

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 8:42 pm

IncarnateX wrote: Well I wasn't really aware that this would be cheating, Your OP did not say I did not hear any analog magic in either of your examples if this was what I was supposed to be looking for. Question was whether you in principle can cheat by downloading the file and analyse it visually for different behavior with respect to noise levels. So this it not about me but what a picky Scientific magazine in principle could point out with respect to the validity of the study during review. This is nothing to be cocky about. You should know that if you are a scientist as you say you are.

Very strange logic to say before you did something you weren't aware it was cheating, but then later point it out as a potential for cheating, and a potential scientific flaw in my test-when it suits your argument. You misread 'cockiness' for simply being amused by this.

No that was not the point. The question is whether you have done it in a way that cannot be revealed with visual analysis of some kind.
But now we have a new type of problem, namely that the orginal sound of DIVA does not have your added noise, so what shall we make of this?
That given you add noise to DIVA, the test results (whatever they turn out to be) are valid?

Make of it what you want. You appear to be trying a bit too hard to be clever... the test would have been pointless if there was no noise behind Diva because it would have been obvious.

I actually thought your own point was that this is not a scientific study and yet you continue to defend it as if it is. I am pretty sure it would not survive as such at Danish Universities but cannot speak for other. Depends on the national standards.

This was not presented as a scientific study but I have pointed out how it 'could' be observed as if one wanted to under certain caveats. I was dragged into this because of a pedantic argument about the issue. I have been quite clear otherwise. If you feel its necessary to start bringing up having 'friends who are phd' or working in a University thats fine. Im afraid that is not particularly impressive or unusual for me. I cant see much more point in this discussion but I hope at least you enjoy the test or further discussion about it.

V0RT3X · Post by **V0RT3X** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 8:59 pm

Best thing is to just make music with either tool.

Pretty sure nobody except "scientists and elitests" will bust out their spectrographs or w/e and go "aha! I knew it was a VA!! this track is now inferior!"

I've made comments in the past regarding analog emulations should be modeled on the molecular level in threads like this, only as a joke. Maybe it wasn't that funny, but i thought it was.

Anyhow carry on..

Synthetic Wav · Post by **Synthetic Wav** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:17 pm

i did lot of test like this but more with hardware eq ,compressor.. and sometimes just getting the worst sounding 1db loudeur make it sound better...it can come down to little things like that... that why i think it s better to focus on workflow and what is better to use for you, the more fun , inspiring tools is what really matter.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:35 pm

Synthetic Wav wrote:that why i think it s better to focus on workflow and what is better to use for you, the more fun , inspiring tools is what really matter.

Toally agree. I'm done with stuff which isn't fun or inspiring to use for me really. There's just no point in trying hard to like something, especially when you consider all this as a hobby, and don't have, or want to spend most of your time with it.

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:37 pm

analoguesamples909 wrote:Very strange logic to say before you did something you weren't aware it was cheating, but then later point it out as a potential for cheating

I did not use any visual means so no it was not cheating in the sense I meant. I illustrated that you could go for the noise visually. I used my ears for to me an analog sound is one that is more noisy. You miss the point here, namely that it could be hard for you to convince a publisher that no visually based cheating occured.

analoguesamples909 wrote: the test would have been pointless if there was no noise behind Diva because it would have been obvious.

Well in that case your test IS pointless for DIVA does not contain the added noise and if this makes the difference obvious (which is an assertion by the way), you have just shot your own feet off. You are not testing DIVA then, but DIVA + added noise.

But all this is far from all issues I could bring to the table. Another is the publicity of the test. At the beginning most, including myself, pointed to A as being OB8. Now how do you secure that this does not accumulate a bias for further answers?

analoguesamples909 wrote: If you feel its necessary to start bringing up having 'friends who are phd' or working in a University thats fine. Im afraid that is not particularly impressive or unusual for me.

You know this is not personal at all. Your assertion about my motives for this is a miss. At my university, guys like you and me would work together in so far as a collegue with a design could come to me and ask me to criticise the shit out of it and then he would cleverly make up for the points he can and will in a revision of the design before performing it. That is the nature of scientific corporation. Criticism is a method, not a mean to be a prick or a smart ass.

analoguesamples909 wrote: I cant see much more point in this discussion but I hope at least you enjoy the test or further discussion about it.

It is a pity you cannot see the point here for I would say you could actually make a more bullet proof scientific design by taking my points seriously - if that is what you want. However, I am enjoying this thread and as far as my critcism goes, I am just performing my scientific duty here, namely to he critical to the assertion that this could be valid as a scientific test. And that will stay my duty, even if it turns out that my criticism can be rejected.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:56 pm

It doesn't really matter if the "test" is scientific or if it actually demonstrates anything at all other than being roughly equivalent to a coin toss.

The problem is the title of the thread and the manner in which it is presented. My suggestion was simply to rename the thread "Diva vs. OB8 (new bank coming)" or similar.

Full disclosure is the proper thing to do.

"Diva vs. Analog" it plain stupid. It makes it look like a pathetic attempt to mislead those browsing the forum. This is why when I read the thread I became more and more offended. I was misled. This thread has absolutely nothing you could call a valid comparison between the plugin and an abstract like "analog".

Just rename the thread already.

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:01 pm

V0RT3X wrote:Best thing is to just make music with either tool.

Pretty sure nobody except "scientists and elitests" will bust out their spectrographs or w/e and go "aha! I knew it was a VA!! this track is now inferior!"

It depends on how you present it.

If you say it's a scientific test, then you need to prove it with scientific proofs.

I think it would have been better for the OP and his business (also for Diva itself) to just say from the beginning : "Hey guys, I found that by adding some noise to Diva, it can sounds damn close to the original! Check those examples and tell me your opinion".

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:08 pm

EnGee wrote:just say from the beginning : "Hey guys, I found that by adding some noise to Diva, it can sounds damn close to the original!

If you have to add noise to emulate the hardware that just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that software is superior. Case closed.........you may all move along now........

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:09 pm

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:15 pm

Teksonik wrote:If you have to add noise to emulate the hardware that just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that software is superior.

You need to account for what "noise" is before you make such an assertion.

Define "noise".

You mean plain flat white noise? Actually the "noise" from a circuit is gaussian and rarely even close to white especially from the sources in an analog audio circuit.

The definition of noise has nothing to do with "flat white noise". Noise is a signal which is unintentionally (or indirectly) included in a measurement.

So all you've "proven" with your assertion is you don't know what you're talking about.

Diva vs Analogue - a real world test