Diversion 1.4 released

[aMUSEd]

No I didn't get anything but I just installed from the demo link on the site and it's registered still.

[Gosh]

I never got an e-mail announcing Diversion 1.4.1 but I did receive the message about the Tantra update. Did anyone else receive the Diversion update message ? I can't remember if the demo can be unlocked or if the links in the e-mails are for user specific versions (containing their registration info).

i just checked, there was no dedicated e-mail for 1.41 (only for 1.4). however, i'm rather sure that the demo download on the homepage also works as the full installer that can be unlocked with the serial number.

[Teksonik]

Ok thanks guys I'll try the demo.

[e@rs]

Dmitry said 1.41 was a very small update and he didn't announced it because the next update was already in the works.

[chk071]

Picked Diversion up in the market place. I had already read about the CPU consumption of the synth, but thought i'd give it a ride anyway, because i couldn't imagine it was THAT severe. Unfortunately, it is... barely usable for me. Even Spire before the 1.1 update took half the CPU Diversion takes for similar patches. And compared to version 1.1, it rather takes 10 times the CPU. Add 2 oscillators, 8x unison, 2x oversampling, which is the lowest option, the analog lp1, and some pad style envelopes with long release, and it maxes out my CPU, with one instance. Well, that's really much too much for the sound quality presented. Really hate to rant, because i really like the filters, and also the architecture seems very interesting, but, meh. How are you supposed to use this thing in tracks with up to 50-60 tracks, and you have to bounce every single one of them, right from the beginning. Quite unacceptable for me. I read in another thread that there won't be an update which will improve this, because the dev thinks that this kind of required processing power is necessary for the sound of Diversion. Well, IMO, there's at least a handful of softsynths which sound as good, or better, and don't slaughter your CPU for breakfast. I thought Diva was heavy, but this is insane compared.

Forgive me this devastating resumé, but i really expected this to be hard on the CPU, but i didn't expect it to have such a hefty foot print. Why does it have to take 10 times as much as Spire? /me is puzzled.

[BDeep]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=460435

Maybe follow your own advice?


That said, sorry you feel that way! It is quite heavy (although definitely usable for me). Well, at least you got it second hand, you shouldn't lose too much on it.

[ckam03]

Is it really that bad for people? It's never maxed out my CPU at all.

[chk071]

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=460435

Maybe follow your own advice?


That said, sorry you feel that way! It is quite heavy (although definitely usable for me). Well, at least you got it second hand, you shouldn't lose too much on it.

True, and yes, i should have followed my own advice, once again. Still, i wouldn't have imagined it being that heavy. I remember that Diva wasn't nearly such a hog when i demo'd it. Anyway, as i wrote, i don't want to bash on it, neither do i want to rant about the obvious, just saying that i'm quite surprised. And that, IMO, the sound quality doesn't really justify the CPU consumption.

Is it really that bad for people? It's never maxed out my CPU at all.

Try to make a pad sound with 2 or more oscillators, set unison to the full 8 voices, long attack and release times, add a filter, maybe even try some other oversampling option, if you're brave enough. Diversion might eat your cat then though, so don't say that i didn't warn you.

Anyway, maybe your computer is more powerful than mine. I wouldn't say mine is bottom of the line though, or completely old-fashioned. Rather standard from a nowadays point of view i'd say. With the recipe stated above, i'm easily close to maxing out my CPU though.

Btw, on a positive note, the analog low pass filters are some of the best in the business. Often something which is lacking with such "big" in terms of function synths.

[pdxindy]

Try to make a pad sound with 2 or more oscillators, set unison to the full 8 voices...

It has been a long time since I demo'ed Diversion... but I kinda remember that unison being the whole signal path not just an Osc unison. If you put the unison back down to 1, does the cpu drop a lot?

[Touch The Universe]

Try to make a pad sound with 2 or more oscillators, set unison to the full 8 voices...

It has been a long time since I demo'ed Diversion... but I kinda remember that unison being the whole signal path not just an Osc unison. If you put the unison back down to 1, does the cpu drop a lot?

Diversion uses a lot of cpu! You could stream the oscillators that have the unison of 8 voices and detune back into themselves, then turn the unison and voices down. This way you could have all four oscillators detuned with full voices and have nominal cpu. You could even set the unison to full 8 voices again and repeat the process. I made a video showing how it is done, but it is pretty self explanatory really. cheers

[plexuss]

Picked Diversion up in the market place. I had already read about the CPU consumption of the synth, but thought i'd give it a ride anyway, because i couldn't imagine it was THAT severe. Unfortunately, it is...

I agree. I have all the U-he synths, Synthmaster, most of Waldorf, Arturia, Sugar Bytes, etc etc and Diversion is one of thr least used because of its high CPU demands. Ive owned many analogue synths over the near 40 years Ive been doing electronic music so I know what "great" sounds like. Diversion is nice but I wouldnt say its better than say Zebra or Diva for similar sounds. But I can get more complex with Zebra way more than I can with Diversion before Diversion craps out. so sorry to Dimtry but in my opinion the CPU isnt worth the audio quality. But I will still use it from time to time for simpler sounds or less complex tracks.

I am running on an 2.2GHz i7 8 core macbook pro.

I'd love Diversion to have an economy mode for composition and an option for better quality on bounce like Diva or 2caudio reverbs have. but I am not holding my breath.

[Sampleconstruct]

Try to make a pad sound with 2 or more oscillators, set unison to the full 8 voices...

It has been a long time since I demo'ed Diversion... but I kinda remember that unison being the whole signal path not just an Osc unison. If you put the unison back down to 1, does the cpu drop a lot?

Diversion uses a lot of cpu! You could stream the oscillators that have the unison of 8 voices and detune back into themselves, then turn the unison and voices down. This way you could have all four oscillators detuned with full voices and have nominal cpu. You could even set the unison to full 8 voices again and repeat the process. I made a video showing how it is done, but it is pretty self explanatory really. cheers

You are missing or neglecting the fact, that resampling the oscillators within Diversion only works within a small range before the chipmunk and aliasing kicks in due to transposing the single samples, if Diversion were a sample player with multiple key zones, fine, but it isn't, so your suggestion doesn't really work.

EDIT:
To add to the above, Diversion doesn't do crossfade looping, so re-sampled waveforms can't be looped smoothly, for pads and sustained sounds that's a no-go.

[Touch The Universe]

I didn't feel the need to state the obvious. If they were keys or leads that would likely extend into the higher octaves, I'd completely agree. But, with pads which are usually played within a few octaves, it is doable. I mean, what is the alternative -- having full blown unison with maxed out voices which would be hard to fit into a busy track? In this case, I'd say the benefits outweigh the costs. About waveforms not blending/looping smoothly, when was the last time you checked out diversion? This seems to be a non issue, I'd never had problems with this -- it blends perfectly for the most part. Stream longer segments into the oscillators if need be.

[Sampleconstruct]

I didn't feel the need to state the obvious. If they were keys or leads that would likely extend into the higher octaves, I'd completely agree. But, with pads which are usually played within a few octaves, it is doable. I mean, what is the alternative -- having full blown unison with maxed out voices which would be hard to fit into a busy track? In this case, I'd say the benefits outweigh the costs. About waveforms not blending/looping smoothly, when was the last time you checked out diversion? This seems to be a non issue, I'd never had problems with this -- it blends perfectly for the most part. Stream longer segments into the oscillators if need be.

I use Diversion on a daily basis, so I am fully aware of what it can do and what not, "seems to be a non-issue" sounds pretty vague, but just go ahead, if this works for you -> fine, imo people need to know about the facts, it's not all about opinions.

[Touch The Universe]

I didn't feel the need to state the obvious. If they were keys or leads that would likely extend into the higher octaves, I'd completely agree. But, with pads which are usually played within a few octaves, it is doable. I mean, what is the alternative -- having full blown unison with maxed out voices which would be hard to fit into a busy track? In this case, I'd say the benefits outweigh the costs. About waveforms not blending/looping smoothly, when was the last time you checked out diversion? This seems to be a non issue, I'd never had problems with this -- it blends perfectly for the most part. Stream longer segments into the oscillators if need be.

I use Diversion on a daily basis, so I am fully aware of what it can do and what not, "seems to be a non-issue" sounds pretty vague, but just go ahead, if this works for you -> fine, imo people need to know about the facts, it's not all about opinions.

I gave a suggestion on how to save cpu, a process that works and is therefore a fact. You saying that higher octaves would alias so therefore that option is not valid, is your opinion bro I only asked when the last time you used diversion since I've never had any show stopping problems using that method, figured maybe it was an older version issue that has since been fixed.