Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[chk071]

Asking which is "better", analog or digital, is a false dichotomy, it is exactly the same as asking whether a Fender Rhodes is better than a Yamaha DX7. Like both legendary keyboards, analog and digital recording media have their merits and demerits, each has a particular character, and it is up to the artist and audio engineer to decide which character best suits the needs of the project at hand.

Isn't this quite failing the point?

Yes. Strange intro that does not rhyme with the rest of the article at all.

It even gets stranger when he does the Pepsi - Coca Cola analogy. I mean, hello? Pepsi isn't meant to mimic Coca Cola (well maybe remotely the same direction), nor does it taste like it... the whole article is a bit weird IMO. Or let's just say, it doesn't fit into this topic's context. As i wrote, this is about digital technology which is meant to mimic analog technology as close as possible. Not offer something which is kind of related.

Asking which is "better", analog or digital, is a false dichotomy, it is exactly the same as asking whether a Fender Rhodes is better than a Yamaha DX7. Like both legendary keyboards, analog and digital recording media have their merits and demerits, each has a particular character, and it is up to the artist and audio engineer to decide which character best suits the needs of the project at hand.

Isn't this quite failing the point?

Yes. Strange intro that does not rhyme with the rest of the article at all.

It makes perfect sense in the context of the paragraph - the point it's making is that the concept of "better" is entirely dependent on what you are trying to do. Ie it's using the Rhodes/DX7 analogy to illustrate the concept of better, not to compare it to analog/digital. And then it says that like those two things, analog and digital both have merits and demerits that can mean one is more appropriate to use for a given task than another.

It's not about being better or worse. It's about being similar.

[beely]

It even gets stranger when he does the Pepsi - Coca Cola analogy. I mean, hello? Pepsi isn't meant to mimic Coca Cola (well maybe remotely the same direction), nor does it taste like it... the whole article is a bit weird IMO. Or let's just say, it doesn't fit into this topic's context.

Er... do you people just skim read super fast?

The point there was that it's very easy to fool the brain with other stimulus (particularly visual), and this brain fooling effect also works on audio. They are not anywhere relating coke/pepsi as the same as digital/audio...

[beely]

It's not about being better or worse. It's about being similar.

The point in that paragraph *was* about being better or worse, and how pointless that is. The point that paragraph is making is not the overall point the article is trying to make.

Note - I don't think the article is particularly good either, but it's not as nonsensical as some of you guys are making out. The article doesn't really say anything, really...

[chk071]

It even gets stranger when he does the Pepsi - Coca Cola analogy. I mean, hello? Pepsi isn't meant to mimic Coca Cola (well maybe remotely the same direction), nor does it taste like it... the whole article is a bit weird IMO. Or let's just say, it doesn't fit into this topic's context.

Er... do you people just skim read super fast?

The point there was that it's very easy to fool the brain with other stimulus (particularly visual), and this brain fooling effect also works on audio. They are not anywhere relating coke/pepsi as the same as digital/audio...

Ok, i must admit i really just skim read it, not even all of it. The top paragraph already made it pretty clear, to me at least, that it has no relevance to this topic. And if the point of the article is a totally different than the one made in the top paragraph then i have to wonder even more. Isn't the point of the top paragraph, especially considering it's sort of a summary, at least it read like that, to make the general point the article is about, and then you go into detail?

[beely]

Isn't the point of the top paragraph, especially considering it's sort of a summary, at least it read like that, to make the general point the article is about, and then you go into detail?

The point of using words to convey meaning, is that you have to actually read and understand the words before you can make judgements on the meaning!

Anyway, regardless, it wasn't a particularly good take on the issue anyway imo...
Moving on...

[IncarnateX]

The point there was that it's very easy to fool the brain with other stimulus (particularly visual), and this brain fooling effect also works on audio.

Yes that made sense all right, but I still think the intro was addressing another point than the rest of the article. In the intro he is suggesting that analog and digital cannot be compared but have to be taken on each their premises but comparison is exactly what part two is about and there the point is that digital can emulate analog pretty well and that future technology will help diminish the difference between them further.

[overhishead]

D/A converter makes everything analogue all day long. If it makes a sound, its analogue.

[jancivil]

Well, my actual experience with the OB-8 was maybe 20 minutes in Reliable Music around ... early '80s, donno. So... I tended to like B (via video 2) but after a few goes my assessment switched from 'this is the analog' to 'this is the software' so my general outlook, 'this is interesting in a trivial way, having no real point for me' is really borne out by the A/Bing.

[david.beholder]

Yes, that page got me thinking a lot about the Synthex.

Page is indeed great. And by the way... it would be perfect if return to sharing information like this especially considering your experience in VA emulation.

There are a few companies that use these and other 4-pole filter chips in the State Variable configuration (OB-Xa, Jupiter-6), and some use cascaded one poles to mix whatever filter type they want (Xpander, Matrix12). But to my best knowledge the Synthex is the only synth that switches individual poles to highpass configuration to achieve different topologies. This I think is the main source of curiosity that got me interested. The method of "we can't do FM because it's DCOs, so let's do crossmod PWM" is just the icing on the cake.

By the way, good question. I do understand pole cascading, but how it's made on SVF configuration, what are they doing to achieve state variable: are they mixing hp/lp output?

IMHO the Synthex is like no other vintage polysynth. Not sure if it's a Diva contender

...because it would drive price of your synthex down, as we figured out earlier???? )))))))

Well I hope Diva would get something someday.

I tought you're in friends with MF, for me there are some overlap of mindset in good way.

We've never met… even thoiugh I hang out with some Schneider people during trade shows.

Well, may be some day. MFB was and is doing lot of affordable and cool stuff like analog drum machines for less than $300 etc. And of course they are source of turbulence on Gealslutz too.

[Urs]

By the way, good question. I do understand pole cascading, but how it's made on SVF configuration, what are they doing to achieve state variable: are they mixing hp/lp output?

A State Variable Filter is based on two lowpass filters and two feedback paths. They simply use the first two low pass filters (well, amplifier/buffer stages really) for one SVF and the second pair for another. Both are naturally connected in series by the internal connection of the stages. It's quite clever. This is where the Jupiter-6 gets his different filter modes from.

IMHO the Synthex is like no other vintage polysynth. Not sure if it's a Diva contender

...because it would drive price of your synthex down, as we figured out earlier???? )))))))

Well I hope Diva would get something someday.

We'll see

[reflekshun]

A is OB8
B is Diva

99% sure of this and listening on laptop speakers!

A is more upfront / sits more naturally in a mix. Also thicker low frequencies and rounder high frequencies, the usual stuff.

[Urs]

A is more upfront / sits more naturally in a mix. Also thicker low frequencies and rounder high frequencies, the usual stuff.

That's correct, but A is Diva.

[Mutant]

A is more upfront / sits more naturally in a mix. Also thicker low frequencies and rounder high frequencies, the usual stuff.

It is a commercial, not a real test.
For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not).
If we wanted a real test, we would need a tester who would be completely unbiased, this is impossible if money is involved.

Of course this doesn't mean that Diva is in any way less superior to almost all software synths at these types of sounds - it is still the best.
And the sound set is a good attempt at emulating and/or surpassing OB-8 sounds.
Just the test is not a real test.

Something much closer to a real scientific test (while still invalid) would be this one:
https://app.box.com/s/kry8lb6y7azaj2dicb8ye65sd6kn8lhi
It is Xhip on one side and Diva on the other side, panned hard.
Can you guess which side is which synth ?

1. I am not motivated by money, so i wanted to make the sounds as close as possible without any side sounding "better".
2. At this moment i honestly don't remember which is which, so it is close to (but not really) a double blind test.

On Diva's side there is a completely untouched (except changing quality to Divine) preset by Ingonator, so it is not like i tweaked Diva to sound closer to Xhip because i could not get Xhip closer to Diva.
And no, this doesn't mean that Xhip = Diva, only that Xhip can be VERY close to Diva on this exact preset.
And is it a "real world test" ?
Well... if the preset was programmed this way on Diva by a synth wizard like Ingo... then it means it should be useful in real songs, not some ugly sound only synth nerds would compare synths with.
Right ?
Btw if you want to cheat, you can search this forum because i gave an answer here a month or so ago, or download Diva demo and find that preset by Ingo.

[IncarnateX]

A is more upfront / sits more naturally in a mix. Also thicker low frequencies and rounder high frequencies, the usual stuff.

That's correct, but A is Diva.

Impossible. If it sounds "better", it has to be analog. If not, there has to be cheating involved

[zvenx]

A is more upfront / sits more naturally in a mix. Also thicker low frequencies and rounder high frequencies, the usual stuff.

That's correct, but A is Diva.

Impossible. If it sounds "better", it has to be analog. If not, there has to be cheating involved

Dwl.. clearly.. I see Mutant is still at it, some, is it two weeks later?
rsp