KVR Audio

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:35 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:Nah, some of the differences were obviously due to sound design, not to synth capabilities

Please demonstrate which differences were obviously due to sound design

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:47 am

Mutant wrote:
trimph1 wrote:You cannot prove your claim here either way. Why not just let it be?
I don't need to prove it, it is just one possibility - that i believe it is the most logical, plausible one, it is my business and no one elses.
Almost everyone else blindly believes in the other possibility and many dont even see that there are more than one.

Actually, most people simply do not care enough to believe or not believe anything...

bmrzycki · Post by **bmrzycki** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:50 am

It doesn't matter until you can convince DJ Kool Kat to switch from teh analogz!

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:02 am

There is NO objective means by which one can say one is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. Just accept this and we will end this thread on a good note.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:10 am

trimph1 wrote:There is NO objective means by which one can say one is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. Just accept this and we will end this thread on a good note.

+1

an A#

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:43 am

You can define "better" objectively, therefore you can measure it objectively.

(For example, ideal temperature = 300k. Now you can measure the temperature and easily define "better". 290k is exactly 1k "better" than 289k.)

If you do not define it objectively it is subjective and you can measure properties (as in the A/B method) but you get only statistical results. For example in this thread we saw a measurement of "can voters identify the source of the recording" and we saw that no they can not.

Mutant however demonstrated quite easily the fact that they "could" have identified the difference trivially as one of the recordings contained a third oscillator which is not present in one of the sources.

Due to this it should be clear that what we have measured was in fact a combined property of the subject (the voter) which I'd argue is likely heavily biased toward the knowledge possessed by that subject.

So, this thread demonstrated that most of the voters are clueless or careless (or both) regarding the skills and knowledge required to identify the source of the recordings.

I already knew that.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 2:53 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:Is music made with Diva any better than music made with Sylenth? I guess that is a rhetorical question.

Historically yes, but not necessarily.

bmrzycki · Post by **bmrzycki** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:45 am

Hrm, I think Dr. Tiddles needs to weigh in on these scientific criteria.

Live Transmission · Post by **Live Transmission** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:31 am

IncarnateX wrote:
Live Transmission wrote:@IncarnateX
Your quite compulsive, aren't you?

Yeah. And you are a KVRer who has made 21 posts since 24 august 2015 but speak for whole KVR and acts like you know your way around. So which banned member are you really? Or maybe you are just a sockpuppet?

Maybe I'm just human. Who knows.

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:35 am

IncarnateX wrote:
Mutant wrote:For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)
Good luck "proving" that one. Especially since the OP never said anything about which one was sounding better. First it was asked whether you could guess the difference, thus presuming you could not hear any and had to guess. Later it was edited to whether you could tell the difference. In both cases, no one were asked to judge which one is better, so if analogue wanted to make a bias in that direction, he couldn't have made a worse job.

......

This is what the OP actually declares on the commercial page of his soundset :

' In the blind tests above – Diva with ‘Classic OB’ presets was Synth A. On both Gearslutz producer forum and KVR plugin forum – more users picked Synth A to be the original OB8 or said they prefered it.
Get the soundpack ratified by two communities of music producers as sounding genuinely authentic or even better than the real thing! '

Makes me feel I don't really belong to any of these two communities

And is an additional proof the the sounds were different. ( If they weren't, why would people prefer this or that ? )

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:46 am

Mutant wrote:For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)

What if it was much more simple than that ?( And I'd say very probably unconsciously btw)

What if the *disco* track was composed in the first place with the soft synth presets, and then after only played back by the real synth ? As the real machine presets sounded rather different ( I remember OP saying the the soft synth bass had much more low freqs content for example ), this might explain why the result was perceived as disapointing by some listeners ? ( Replacing with presets that just dont match the track )

I asked this simple question on another forum, but never got an answer iirc.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:49 am

aciddose wrote:You can define "better" objectively, therefore you can measure it objectively.

(For example, ideal temperature = 300k. Now you can measure the temperature and easily define "better". 290k is exactly 1k "better" than 289k.)

If you do not define it objectively it is subjective and you can measure properties (as in the A/B method) but you get only statistical results. For example in this thread we saw a measurement of "can voters identify the source of the recording" and we saw that no they can not.

Mutant however demonstrated quite easily the fact that they "could" have identified the difference trivially as one of the recordings contained a third oscillator which is not present in one of the sources.

Due to this it should be clear that what we have measured was in fact a combined property of the subject (the voter) which I'd argue is likely heavily biased toward the knowledge possessed by that subject.

So, this thread demonstrated that most of the voters are clueless or careless (or both) regarding the skills and knowledge required to identify the source of the recordings.

I already knew that.

And you proved your 'superiority' again....

fluffy_little_something · Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:51 am

Yes, I suppose most people preferred the Diva patches, not Diva.

But not all people preferred the Diva patches, nor did those who did prefer them, prefer all of them. I preferred more A patches, but also some B patches.

fluffy_little_something · Mon Sep 07, 2015 8:53 am

Yes, we really need a definition of "warm"

I said in another thread that to me Synthmaster sounded cold and harsh compared to Sylenth, that didn't go down well and someone claimed the exact opposite

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:03 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:Yes, we really need a definition of "warm"
I said in another thread that to me Synthmaster sounded cold and harsh compared to Sylenth, that didn't go down well and someone claimed the exact opposite

We should ask AD to come up with the definition of 'warm' then.

Diva vs Analogue - a real world test