Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[Hank the Knife]

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

Seems fair. I reckon on a 50% discount. Can't help it; I'm Dutch

[fluffy_little_something]

Z1202

Someone said that Monark does not even have velocity sensitivity?! Don't know if it is true, but if so I would definitely go for a less basic synth.

[Urs]

Nope, that gives a completely different shape.

Depends on the phase relation between the two oscillators. I got some moments that look pretty close.

Alternatively, try Dual VCO, shape "analog1" or "analog2". Have one osc combine triangle and saw, the other osc just saw. After recording, invert the output to get a falling sawtooth. It looks like this:



Preset: http://www.u-he.com/img/funny_waveform.h2p

Seems to me that it's quite possible to get this done in Diva. Please don't ask me to match highpass filters and all that stuff.

[Hank the Knife]

@Urs
I'll tell you when I have the presets lol

[Z1202]

Z1202

Someone said that Monark does not even have velocity sensitivity?! Don't know if it is true, but if so I would definitely go for a less basic synth.

Having a smaller set of parameters means it's easier to have all these parameters well matched, so that the synth "always sounds good". It's not only about which features you throw into a synth, it's about how well these features interoperate. ATM I don't know any other softsynth which is so easy to program on the fly and sounds great no matter what you do. For a better versatility I would just use a different synth in addition. Although personally for my music I never missed velocity sensitivity, I'm missing the patching freedom much more. Also I don't need too many polyphonic sounds, usually one or two per song, which are mostly not in the foreground, therefore I can just use another synth and tolerate "less analog quality" there. So, while all these features could be nice to have, I'm not really missing them. OTOH the ease of sound programming is a highly important factor. YMMV.

Edit: also from my past experience with softsynths, often the monophonic mode sounds bad (don't ask me why) and I had to use the polyphonic mode for essentially monophonic instrument lines. Not the case with Monark.

[Urs]

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.

Sorry, that is difficult.

The only way to run Diva's filters at 88kHz is to run Diva at 44kHz and use "Fast" with any filter but the Uhbie. However, convergence is so lenient there, I wouldn't call it a fair comparison, quality-wise.

[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.

Sorry, that is difficult.

The only way to run Diva's filters at 88kHz is to run Diva at 44kHz and use "Fast" with any filter but the Uhbie. However, convergence is so lenient there, I wouldn't call it a fair comparison, quality-wise.

I guess I should be more precise with my question. I wasn't asking specifically to run the filters at 88kHz. It is rather:

- suppose I run Diva at "Divine" quality at 44kHz host SR. Which Diva setting should I use at 88kHz host SR for a comparable quality (and CPU)?
- same question for "Great"
- etc.

[Mutant]

Nope.

And why even go there ? You know that the pure saw on Diva is way closer to what we saw on OB8:

[Urs]

Nope.

You're kidding, right? I just really can't be bothered to match levels and filters. Download the preset and figure it out if you must

[kmonkey]

This thread is most bizarre thread ever.

Two days more they will tell that OP contributed in 911 inside job and someone will accuse Urs of bad coding because... hey...surprise there's a little waveform discrepancy at some point in some part of sound file...

Really entertaining...

[Urs]

- suppose I run Diva at "Divine" quality at 44kHz host SR. Which Diva setting should I use at 88kHz host SR for a comparable quality (and CPU)?
- same question for "Great"
- etc.

Short answer: You can't.

Internal oversampling factor is one thing, the margin of error for convergence is another - yet both are combined into Diva's quality modes. There is no mode that is "less oversampled than Great/Divine but same margin of error". Hence, if you want the filters to numerically iterate till estimate and output of feedback value converge with 16bit resolution, you can't get that without 4x host samplerate internally.

[zerocrossing]

Well, even though I did think the two were very close and couldn't hear a big difference, I did say that I liked the bottom end of Synth B a little more. I thought it was a little richer and fuller and that turned out to be the hardware synth. So maybe hardware still does have a slight edge in sound quality.

Regardless, the sound quality is close enough for me that I'll still use a soft synth over a hardware synth for the following reasons.

Cheaper
Weightless
Takes up no space
No cables needed
Less electricity used
No repairs ever
Can have as many instances as my PC can handle

Those reasons alone are enough for me to choose software over hardware 100% of the time unless I have to play out live which I never do as I am a home studio musician.

Your mileage may vary depending on your needs.

NO! You already told us that you'd given up and conceded that hardware was better! NO BACKSEES!



Yeah, if anyone needs me I'll be preparing my favorite dinner. Crow pie. I'm putting extra giblets in it this time!

But still (an excellent argument for the vanquished) I'm going to say that if there's a synth you like the character of, hardware or software, that's what you should use. I'm still not going to sell my ATC-X. It just has a character I love. It did cost me 4 times the cost of Diva, it does take up some space (2u rack) and weigh a few pounds. It takes two cables and burns a few watts... but have you looked at what a fast CPU is burning these days? I've never had to repair it and I can only use one instance of it at a time... but that's OK with me. I've never put a second instance of Diva in a song either. That's not my style.

Anyway, I'll continue to use my hardware and software, despite the test results. As a human I reserve the right to act as illogically as I want. It is the only advantage we have over the machines!

[Z1202]

- suppose I run Diva at "Divine" quality at 44kHz host SR. Which Diva setting should I use at 88kHz host SR for a comparable quality (and CPU)?
- same question for "Great"
- etc.

Short answer: You can't.

Internal oversampling factor is one thing, the margin of error for convergence is another - yet both are combined into Diva's quality modes. There is no mode that is "less oversampled than Great/Divine but same margin of error". Hence, if you want the filters to numerically iterate till estimate and output of feedback value converge with 16bit resolution, you can't get that without 4x host samplerate internally.

Thanks for the answer. This is a great pity, because it makes Diva much less usable at 88kHz host SR (usable more or less only for monophonic sounds and even that at the double CPU of Monark). Pretty much similar to the problem I had with Lush-101. This is exactly what I meant, when I said that it would be nice if developers put more consideration to users running at other host sampling rates than 44/48.

[Lotuzia]

... 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? ......

I think this is a valid question. Equally valid could be ' Could another -soft- synth approx in better way the OB-8 character ?' ( For those who could still interested into an OB-8 of course .... ) Well, we won't never know, because it would require OPs original midi parts. Would be fun to organize giant multisynths tests though.

Or not ?

[Mutant]

Nope.

You're kidding, right?

Nope.
And i don't have to spend half an hour to match it perfectly, all the OP needs to do is post the patch, or come straight with what external effects he used.