Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[Synthetic Wav]

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

i couldn t tell which cause both show some analog caracterstic but different ones, synth A in this test have big depth and 3d sound phat , i would need to rechek the sample for synth B but it sounded more alive and right to me. it could have been diva i had no idea, but b was favorite in all sample. so it seems if A is diva , it can t touch some of these analog thing i like in B.
but the programing matter so much , there is nothing scientific everyhting is to take with a grain of salt, i should have not jumped into some conclusion in my previous post ,maybe diva could have sounding more to my taste with a different programing .

[Urs]

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.

Human's can't hear phase differences very well. One can create two completely different looking waveforms that subjectively sound identical.

[Hank the Knife]

It's worse than that, fluffy; they want us to buy these patches! *checks bank account*

[Mutant]

Diva init patch.

Check.

Triple Osc, one oscillator volume to zero

Check.

two oscillators audible

One of them volume turned down about 20-30%

one on sawtooth, one slightly left of sawtooth

Nope, that gives a completely different shape.

a bit of detune. Uhbie filter, cutoff swept by envelope, resonance half way up.

Check, but for that short part of the sound i pasted above, this is not really relevant, because right at the start the filter is almost fully open anyway.

The question to the OP still stands.

[penguinfromdeep]

In some of the tests B seemed to have bit more low end oomph. Generally though I thought A is the hardware. Im happy that I own Diva and also bought the soundset just few days ago

[Hank the Knife]

Maybe the OP is a genius. He fooled 60% of us guinea pigs.

[fluffy_little_something]

It's worse than that, fluffy; they want us to buy these patches! *checks bank account*

Well, the patches he is selling are in the other thread, and some of them sound very good. I don't have Diva, so I am not in danger of spending money, anyway

[Z1202]

Would you care to reveal some of the internal quality setting details regarding Diva? Basically my impression is, that the settings in Diva are configured to be most reasonably usable at 44kHz host SR, correct? So, if I have to work at 88kHz host SR instead, what are the "nearest match" Diva quality settings to those at 44kHz host SR?

Please forget this little bump. This question is kind of important to me, if I'm to use Diva. Basically, it's about whether I can expect the same CPU usage as with Monark for a reasonable Diva quality setting if run at 88kHz. I mean "Great" is already about double of Monark's CPU at 88kHz. I don't want to spend time and concentration on having to decide on a sound by sound basis, rather decide once on a general quality setting and change it only if I clearly hear a problem or really need the absolute best quality.

Thanks.

[Hank the Knife]

@fluffy
I haven't purchased Diva either. In fact I only bought hardware and a DAW so far. It's been 6 months minus 1 day since I've purchased audio gear. Lucky me

[EvilDragon]

I mean "Great" is already about double of Monark's CPU at 88kHz.

Is that with Multicore enabled and Diva in mono mode, or?

[Mutant]

Would you care to reveal some of the internal quality setting details regarding Diva? Basically my impression is, that the settings in Diva are configured to be most reasonably usable at 44kHz host SR, correct? So, if I have to work at 88kHz host SR instead, what are the "nearest match" Diva quality settings to those at 44kHz host SR?

Please forget this little bump. This question is kind of important to me, if I'm to use Diva. Basically, it's about whether I can expect the same CPU usage as with Monark for a reasonable Diva quality setting if run at 88kHz. I mean "Great" is already about double of Monark's CPU at 88kHz. I don't want to spend time and concentration on having to decide on a sound by sound basis, rather decide once on a general quality setting and change it only if I clearly hear a problem or really need the absolute best quality.

Thanks.

Why not download the demo ?

[SWAN808]

Lol Im shopping is that ok to step away from kvr for an hour or two without conspiracy emerging. ..back soon!

[Locus M]

and also bought the soundset just few days ago

Now you just need to buy the OB noise files and add them to the sound and you have yourself a real analogue sounding synth

Frankly I think the type of sounds presented here are pretty bread and butter. Couldn't they be reproduced roughly by many decent synthesizers, analogue or VA, without damaging the intented effect in a mix? In other words: Can someone tell me what all this has to do with music?

[bmrzycki]

Would you care to reveal some of the internal quality setting details regarding Diva?

Why not download the demo ?

Because it's more fun to test a synth through a forum interface than actually spending the 15 minutes to install and kick the tires.

[layzer]

well, i was wrong. haa, i did say elsewhere sonic wise, VA technology has matched hardware. congrats DIVA
but i still won't buy you for another 10 years or so when 1024-core cpus are the norm and your CPU usage equals that of onepingonly running on my
DAW today.