KVR Audio

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:32 pm

kmonkey wrote: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...

HAHAHA

Mutant what question is it you want me to 'come straight' about?

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:32 pm

Until then, to me this thread will be "make the 2 sounds close, but also make sure Diva sounds slightly better", not "make the 2 sounds as close as possible".

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:33 pm

analoguesamples909 wrote: Mutant what question is it you want me to 'come straight' about?

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 7#p6217137

Also notice the 2 emoticons after the question.

and

Hank the Knife · Post by **Hank the Knife** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:37 pm

I know I'm a bit slow, but I guess the OP tweaked the Diva to match the OB. Which, after all, seems reasonable.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:37 pm

Z1202 wrote: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.

Well, at least we *have* quality modes and we *have* an option to render offline at best possible mode. And one *can* improve the sound quality by running it in a higher sample rate. One also *can* remedy CPU issues on a multicore machine by using threaded processing

And, sneakily spoken, if Diva uses only twice the CPU at 352,8kHz compared to Monark at 88.2 kHz, I think we've done a hell of a job at optimizing it

So I think we've done a lot, but I admit, there's probably room for more. We've got an option planned for all our plug-ins where the internal sample rate does not scale with host sample rate. We just haven't gotten around to implementing it, also because it wasn't requested often. Diva would still run at 176,4khz internally though.

Frantz · Post by **Frantz** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:00 pm

Z1202 wrote: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.

Have you considered that you have customers who would really like velocity sensitivity, polyphony, and unison? You are talking about Monark's features as if your personal preferences are the most important consideration.

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:06 pm

Mutant wrote:Until then, to me this thread will be "make the 2 sounds close, but also make sure Diva sounds slightly better", not "make the 2 sounds as close as possible".

well in the song test perhaps it does sound slightly better but that was just the result that happened. In the other test Im not sure you can say that IMO...but if you set about to match one sound as closely as possible with an 'emulator'...how do you make one sound 'better'-bit more 'better' parameter? Or maybe reduce the 'worse' on the other synth?

Mutant wrote:
analoguesamples909 wrote: Mutant what question is it you want me to 'come straight' about?
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 7#p6217137

Also notice the 2 emoticons after the question. and

A is Diva B is my OB8. There is nothing else to it...you can actually hear it in the song demo eg Synth B slightly duller chord stab sound and different PWM=OB8. FWIW I tried for ages to get Diva equivalent to that but it wasnt possible due to difference in filter shape I think...or the Moog Source playing the top line is different to Diva which uses minimoog Osc which are a little more 'sonorous' IMO...there are numerous hints in the audio...

That patch you analyse has 2 saw detuned...the resultant waveform will be constantly changing due to drifting and detune...of course I didnt use any 'effects'...

honestly some of the 'detective work' on here has been absurd

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:16 pm

analoguesamples909 wrote:That patch you analyse has 2 saw detuned...the resultant waveform will be constantly changing due to drifting and detune...of course I didnt use any 'effects'...

Look at when i joined this forum, i am not a total newbie, i have an oscilloscope on most of the time when i am making sounds, so i know what drifting and detune can do to the waveform.

One is your "2 saw detuned" and "of course I didnt use any 'effects'", the other is my 2 saws detuned with no effects.
Same synthesizer.

Really ?

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:31 pm

Mutant wrote:
analoguesamples909 wrote:That patch you analyse has 2 saw detuned...the resultant waveform will be constantly changing due to drifting and detune...of course I didnt use any 'effects'...
Look at when i joined this forum, i am not a total newbie, i have an oscilloscope on most of the time when i am making sounds, so i know what drifting and detune can do to the waveform.

One is your "2 saw detuned" and "of course I didnt use any 'effects'", the other is my 2 saws detuned with no effects.
Same synthesizer.

Really ?

yes really. Unless you have replicated the patch exactly as the one is played there is nothing else to it...the patch has resonance, cutoff w/envelope and is matched closely to the OB8 example 'by ear' - not scope....whatever is happening in the waveform - its the result of Diva processing with no effects.

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:39 pm

analoguesamples909 wrote:yes really. Unless you have replicated the patch exactly as the one is played there is nothing else to it...the patch has resonance, cutoff w/envelope and is matched closely to the OB8 example 'by ear' - not scope....whatever is happening in the waveform - its the result of Diva processing with no effects.

If you don't want to post the patch, at least name it, so someone that bought the pack can confirm it.

SWAN808 · Post by **SWAN808** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:51 pm

Mutant I was just writing you a response and thinking about starting up my main machine but I just realised I dont care because you are wrong, there is no need to start uploading things and its a total waste of my time. I shouldnt have got sucked in in the first place but its irritating to be accused. Think what you like! A is all Diva recorded as I said in great mode played live (with no fx if that needs to be said). Yes thats 10 Divas running in the second test. I'll leave you to set up a blog about this waveform conspiracy.

Tonberry · Post by **Tonberry** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 5:56 pm

If you look closely enough, all those waveform peaks on Diva pictures look like illuminati triangles. They don't on OB8 though. They look like normal triangles there.

taoyoyo · Post by **taoyoyo** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 6:04 pm

These Diva waveforms obviously have a reptilian influence... expect a visit from David Icke immanently.

Locus M · Post by **Locus M** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 6:07 pm

hakey wrote:
analoguesamples909 wrote:Answers:

Synth A: u-he Diva with Classic OB presets
Synth B: Oberheim OB8
Haha. Red faces all around. Great news for u-he.

"all A examples sounds to me infinitely better/more real/ than B"

"A: OB B: DIVA If i'm wrong I will buy Diva for sure"

(what was the final tally of right to wrong guesses - anyone know?)

Do not forget these:

A envelopes sound more analogue to me.

Synth A sounds much warmer to my ears, I think it's the hardware synth.

A sounds a bit more sturdy and robust, wich is a characteristics that hardware (mostly analog) exhibits. B feels a bit washed out comparing to A (this is characteristic that most plugin synth exhibits).

A just seemed a little more warm and a bit more rich at times.

i'm going to guess A is hardware because it has a more dense low end with more
moving harmonics.

A is OB and B is Diva.
There are slight differences. A is more snappy while B gives the impression it is trying hard to match!

Now, if Diva is A, and I'm wrong, then this would kill any desire inside me to look for any analog synth! I would stay a digital guy

Possible conclusions:

1) The hardware aficionados of KVR are delusive to an extent where they suffer from auditory hallucinations

Or

2) Urs has made a digital synth that sounds more "analogue" than analogue synths

Or

3) the characteristics associated with analogue synths are bullshit, it is all about whether they are noisy enough to be recognized as such

Add your own. There are probably plenty

fluffy_little_something · Mon Aug 24, 2015 6:13 pm

It was the cables' fault!

Seriously, seems like it is time to wrap it up and move on

Diva vs Analogue - a real world test