KVR Audio

kitkonis · Post by **kitkonis** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:46 pm

offtopic:

why do I always have the feeling that POLY KB II comes closest to analog stuff? XILS stuff rocks..

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:06 pm

kitkonis wrote:offtopic:

why do I always have the feeling that POLY KB II comes closest to analog stuff? XILS stuff rocks..

I too love the Xils synths. I think they are overlooked because of their ilok protection. I've also fallen in love with Gforce's Oddity 2. Amazing. Diva's just a different flavor, and it's ability to do something like put a SEM filter on a Minimoog osc section is very cool.

electro · Post by **electro** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:22 am

XILS gives you an option of either Ilok or elicenser.

braj · Post by **braj** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:33 am

electro wrote:XILS gives you an option of either Ilok or elicenser.

I think the real issue is the dongle. XILS does have a few synths that are dongle-free though, I love XILS 3.2 LE. And it was cheap too.

Lotuzia · Post by **Lotuzia** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:26 am

braj wrote:
electro wrote:XILS gives you an option of either Ilok or elicenser.
I think the real issue is the dongle. XILS does have a few synths that are dongle-free though, I love XILS 3.2 LE. And it was cheap too.

Soft Ilok option can be choosen for all Xils synths now. So no hardware dongle required anymore, but a protection very similar to NI C/R.

Oxium, PKBII Player, MiniSyn'X, Xils3LE and all te analog effects are serial protected only.

braj · Post by **braj** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:55 am

Lotuzia wrote:
braj wrote:
electro wrote:XILS gives you an option of either Ilok or elicenser.
I think the real issue is the dongle. XILS does have a few synths that are dongle-free though, I love XILS 3.2 LE. And it was cheap too.
Soft Ilok option can be choosen for all Xils synths now. So no hardware dongle required anymore, but a protection very similar to NI C/R.

Oxium, PKBII Player, MiniSyn'X, Xils3LE and all te analog effects are serial protected only.

That's great to hear.

kelvyn · Post by **kelvyn** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:20 am

As a self confessed numbskull when it comes to hearing the subtle differences between a real analogue synth in comparison with a soft synth, I am constantly asking myself... So what! It's always interesting in these kind of blind tests to see how different peoples opinions are.
Apart from a few very talented engineers I know, most of the music making fraternity I graze with all hear music/sound differently and it's this that influences the way they work and the equipment they use. I suppose what I'm trying to say is... Is it really that important? Heck! Wether I use an analogue OB8 or Diva doesn't make much difference to most listeners as most people won't get the subtleties, especially in a mix.
I appreciate the quest for perfection and think all the U-He synths are frigging amazing, I'm old enough to have gone through analogue times and I will never go back. I do feel however that sometimes there's an air of entitlement - from some - hanging over these kinds of discussions, almost disquiet at the fact that soft synths aren"t analogue.... Well they aren"t but they are still very, very good. We shouldn't forget that we are indeed amazingly fortunate to have these tools at our disposal.
Tallking about entitlement... I just recently read someone complaining about having to move his cursor too much due to a certain products larger real estate. WTF!

wagtunes · Post by **wagtunes** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:27 am

kelvyn wrote:As a self confessed numbskull when it comes to hearing the subtle differences between a real analogue synth in comparison with a soft synth, I am constantly asking myself... So what! It's always interesting in these kind of blind tests to see how different peoples opinions are.
Apart from a few very talented engineers I know, most of the music making fraternity I graze with all hear music/sound differently and it's this that influences the way they work and the equipment they use. I suppose what I'm trying to say is... Is it really that important? Heck! Wether I use an analogue OB8 or Diva doesn't make much difference to most listeners as most people won't get the subtleties, especially in a mix.
I appreciate the quest for perfection and think all the U-He synths are frigging amazing, I'm old enough to have gone through analogue times and I will never go back. I do feel however that sometimes there's an air of entitlement - from some - hanging over these kinds of discussions, almost disquiet at the fact that soft synths aren"t analogue.... Well they aren"t but they are still very, very good. We shouldn't forget that we are indeed amazingly fortunate to have these tools at our disposal.
Tallking about entitlement... I just recently read someone complaining about having to move his cursor too much due to a certain products larger real estate. WTF!

I too am old enough to remember what it was like to be able to afford, lug around, maintain, keep in tune and program these synths.

I wouldn't go back to those times for all the tea in China.

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:31 am

analoguesamples909 wrote:63% of people said the nailed the test! However - that was of course after the results were available....

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2015/09/ ... -the-test/

Great! 63% nailed what corresponds to a one trial test with 50/50 chance for a hit pr. subject. Just claiming that you have nailed it under these conditions shows how clueless you really are. If you in addition claim it after the the result has been published, you are revealing debths of ignorance for which there really are no words. But hey, maybe this a precondition for taking the debate seriously in the first place?

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:45 pm

I consistently enjoy music produced with "that sound" more than other music without it. This may sound subjective and baseless, and it is certainly subjective although I am speaking abstractly here.

The only way "that sound" is a subjective concept in the abstract is with regard to whether or not there exists a particular timbre or auditory quality which represents a threshold below which enjoyment is limited and above which it is liberated.

"That sound" can be achieved via numerous means and is not a concrete instance but rather an abstract for which there are an infinite number of potential concrete fulfillments.

I can easily pick out for example whether a sampled guitar or rhodes piano has been used rather than phrased takes vs. live performance.

It is not so easy to identify particular instruments in all cases. That said, in almost every case a concrete instance of "that sound" can only be achieved in a very limited number of ways.

I find it amazingly ignorant to see comments from others disparaging this concept. It seems as if many of us are simply left completely oblivious.

In my opinion an artist is one who is a master of selection. One who is incapable of understanding the process of selection is not likely an artist and does not and could never understand art.

The rule known as "Sturgeon's revelation": "90% of everything is shit" applies.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:57 pm

If people find it difficult to distinguish between two elements in the 90% heap I do not find it surprising.

The question is whether you are capable of distinguishing the 10% from the 90%. Or perhaps if you are a genius, an artist of skill rarely seen you may distinguish easily the 1% from the 99%.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:02 pm

To state that you are incapable of distinguishing the best from the rest is quite something. Not unusual of course and I can empathize with you in terms of your frustration. If you have taken this first step you should continue to move forward and liberate yourself from your state of denial and delusion.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:33 pm

kelvyn wrote:As a self confessed numbskull when it comes to hearing the subtle differences between a real analogue synth in comparison with a soft synth, I am constantly asking myself... So what! It's always interesting in these kind of blind tests to see how different peoples opinions are.
Apart from a few very talented engineers I know, most of the music making fraternity I graze with all hear music/sound differently and it's this that influences the way they work and the equipment they use. I suppose what I'm trying to say is... Is it really that important? Heck! Wether I use an analogue OB8 or Diva doesn't make much difference to most listeners as most people won't get the subtleties, especially in a mix.
I appreciate the quest for perfection and think all the U-He synths are frigging amazing, I'm old enough to have gone through analogue times and I will never go back. I do feel however that sometimes there's an air of entitlement - from some - hanging over these kinds of discussions, almost disquiet at the fact that soft synths aren"t analogue.... Well they aren"t but they are still very, very good. We shouldn't forget that we are indeed amazingly fortunate to have these tools at our disposal.
Tallking about entitlement... I just recently read someone complaining about having to move his cursor too much due to a certain products larger real estate. WTF!

It's true, the differences are sometimes subtle, though sometimes not. Whether or not those differences are worth it is up to the artist. Hell, I paid with a stylus and Painter software, but I'd never state that good oils and a sable brush aren't better for many reasons. Worth the linseed oil fume smell? Not to me. I've got a few analogs and they just have a character I really like. Of course, so do some software synths. Inversely, I saw someone recommend a Matrix 1000 to someone looking for an analog synth, and I have never heard one made a sound that would make it worth owning. It sure doesn't have an interface to love... or one at all. Some people like Saurus by Tone2 and I don't like it at all.

I do understand the mouse haters, but I don't agree with them. If a synth is simple, like say my Neptune 2, it's a joy to tweak. My Prophet 12 is very inspiring as well, but it's an exception. Most hardware synths of that complexity become a PITA. I hated programming my Virus C. My Analog Four isn't that complex, but it's interface is horrible, IMO, so I'm lucky it has a good software editor. Could I replace it with a software instrument? Yeah, I could, but I enjoy it and I'm not sure I could ever get a perfect 1:1 replacement for it. But sure, if push came to shove and I lost my space, it would get kicked to the curb. I've got my KingKORG up on a shelf 6 ft high because of an extended house guest situation. I can control it with an iPad app, but truth be told, it's not a good situation and I have it up on eBay.

What software instruments are to me is a way to get something like a taste of a synth like the Jupiter 8, without having to deal with a big credit card debt. I also appreciate that Urs includes a lot of functions the original didn't have.

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:36 am

Yesterday I dived into my iProphet and especially had some fun with the "joystick". I thought "wow, vector synthesis was really fun and innovative for it's time". With Korg wavestation you could make wave sequences, with Yamaha sy22/35/tg33 you could record your Vector movements and with the Roland D50 you could just make some very spacy VA/Sample combis. An analog synth wouldn't be able to reproduce about 99,9% of the timbres of these synths.

That makes me wonder: In how many millions of ways can you emulate a "Jupiter brass" , "Juno strings" or an "Sh101 bass" and still make a selling point of it? These sounds are in principle very limited timbre wise and extremely dated.

It doesn't seem rational compared to what modern digital synths can do, so why do people keep returning to these primitive patches? Enlighten me, plz

braj · Post by **braj** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:39 am

Because they sound good and the synths themselves are accessible. And most synths have a distinct character.

Diva vs Analogue - a real world test