Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[chk071]

I guess as a bottom line, one can say that the differences in real world use are so small, that it doesn't make a difference really. Personally, i don't need a synth which sounds exactly like legendary classic synth XY, which was so awesome back in the days, that you have to model every nuance of it in software. I rather have something with character. And many soft synths in the past didn't quite have enough character IMO, it's only just since 5 or 6 years that we really have soft synths, which are quite up there, or even sound better than hardware counterparts (i mean the VA ones). E.g. if i have a listen at sound demos from the Virus, i less and less GAS for it, because frankly, i own stuff which is right up there, or even sounds better... it doesn't sound exactly like it, but close enough, no wonder if devs are modelling the filters or oscillators after it. I really like what the devs are doing lately, it's really good stuff.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[Mutant]

As for the test, i don't have golden ears so i don't even try to guess by ears.
When i first listened i heard A and B as VERY close, but not the same, couldn't tell which is which anyway.
Just by "gut feeling" i picked A as Oberheim, because it had slightly more of that Oberheim signature "trumpetey" (narrower frequency range/more mid frequencies) sound.
Then i loaded the second clip in REAPER and compared waves by eye, did the same thing many times before with Diva, so i know what oscillator shapes it has.
B is Diva.
And from the final user, music listener point of view they are equaly fun to listen to.
And IMHO this is what REALLY matters.

OK... So you are saying that the first sound on the Diva A_B Test.wav is Diva.
Can you post just this one patch to prove it ?
Because to me this doesn't look like an unprocessed, untouched Divas saw oscillator:

While this part of the SynthB looks like a proper unaffected saw i know:

I left the time display for you to be able to check what time range i pasted here.

Ands this is how Divas saw looks like when i render it without any effects:


I quoted my reply above, i admit i was wrong by ear and by gut feeling.
But my eyes (not nose) tell me that something "smells fishy" here...
So if you can't post the patch, then answer this question please:
What did you do (effects, techniques) to Divas recording to CHEAT on this test ?

[Locus M]

'read all my post in this thread'
I did. You didn't change your opinion afaiac.

It does not really matter. As some noted in the beginning of the thread, a correct answer could be caused by chance because of the fixed sequence.

[Hank the Knife]

'What did you do (effects, techniques) to Divas recording to CHEAT on this test ?'
Lemme guess: mixed up synth A with B?

[Mutant]

'What did you do (effects, techniques) to Divas recording to CHEAT on this test ?'
Lemme guess: mixed up synth A with B

No, i believe him when he is saying A is Diva.
I just doubt it is just Diva and nothing else.

[Hank the Knife]

@Mutant
I don't know what to believe no more tbh. I'm just a noob and if this is a fraud then I am fairly disappointed.

[fluffy_little_something]

OK... So you are saying that the first sound on the Diva A_B Test.wav is Diva.
Can you post just this one patch to prove it ?
Because to me this doesn't look like an unprocessed, untouched Divas saw oscillator:

While this part of the SynthB looks like a proper unaffected saw i know:

I left the time display for you to be able to check what time range i pasted here.

Ands this is how Divas saw looks like when i render it without any effects:


I quoted my reply above, i admit i was wrong by ear and by gut feeling.
But my eyes (not nose) tell me that something "smells fishy" here...
So if you can't post the patch, then answer this question please:
What did you do (effects, techniques) to Divas recording to CHEAT on this test ?

Oh, waveform forensics, cool
That saw does look a bit odd, like two detuned saws or whatever. What do the sharper peaks lead to acoustically speaking? More brightness?

I did not even download the files, just listened to the YT videos, whose sound is probably a bit modified because of YT compression or whatever they do.

[Hank the Knife]

I'm getting suspicious because they said they 'tweaked for months'. Yeah right. Little wonder. However, Oberheim will not be amused. Trust me. And we have to nail this; there's no way back. Where's the OP?

[Urs]

That saw does look a bit odd, like two detuned saws or whatever. What do the sharper peaks lead to acoustically speaking? More brightness?

Diva init patch. Triple Osc, one oscillator volume to zero, two oscillators audible, one on sawtooth, one slightly left of sawtooth, not quite half way to triangle, a bit of detune. Uhbie filter, cutoff swept by envelope, resonance half way up.

[kvaca]

listened again with fresh ears today and the differences are more dramatic than I expected, now to me:

A sounds like a real synth
B sounds like a real plugin

I prefer A in any test sample by miles...so theres no doubt that A = hardware /otherwise I will happily eat my ears/

other thing is that analoguesamples /intentionally?/messed with samples in many ways making them harder to compare...

Would you like some salt and pepper for your ears?

well, probably yes

@analoguesamples:
can you post the second test wav, - but without added noise - so I can check your work before starting to eat my ears??

[Hank the Knife]

That saw does look a bit odd, like two detuned saws or whatever. What do the sharper peaks lead to acoustically speaking? More brightness?

Diva init patch. Triple Osc, one oscillator volume to zero, two oscillators audible, one on sawtooth, one slightly left of sawtooth, not quite half way to triangle, a bit of detune. Uhbie filter, cutoff swept by envelope, resonance half way up.

Wow, they tweaked an init patch for months? This is getting odder and odder lol anyway, sounds good
Kinda weird they didn't tweak the Oberheim saw, don'you think?

[Urs]

That saw does look a bit odd, like two detuned saws or whatever. What do the sharper peaks lead to acoustically speaking? More brightness?

Diva init patch. Triple Osc, one oscillator volume to zero, two oscillators audible, one on sawtooth, one slightly left of sawtooth, not quite half way to triangle, a bit of detune. Uhbie filter, cutoff swept by envelope, resonance half way up.

Wow, they tweaked an init patch for months? This is getting odder and odder lol anyway, sounds good

LOL, I think it goes without saying that what I posted was a quick way to verify that the visual phenomenon described as "not Diva" can indeed be achieved in Diva, with little effort. Whether the patch in question is done that way, I don't know. Ask the OP.

[Hank the Knife]

@Urs
Lol, yes where did the OP go? My telepathic senses say they must've read this thread by now.

[fluffy_little_something]

I don't think he cheated, he probably did not even use such an analyzer that would have shown him the difference. I mean, what looks different sounds different, right? If two waveforms look identical, they sound identical, I suppose no matter what the source is.