Yes, he simply MUST reply to every criticism by saying "no, this is wrong, you're dumb, because what I say and do is right". Now translate this into development time and labour costs per hour...murnau wrote:I admire your patience Urs.
sfxsound3 wrote:Yes, he simply MUST reply to every criticism by saying "no, this is wrong, you're dumb, because what I say and do is right". Now translate this into development time and labour costs per hour...murnau wrote:I admire your patience Urs.
Hey Urs, you're Wrong, thank you.
Perfect!zerocrossing wrote: I've got crap to do
You totally miss the point of that example and take it out of the context of my post. Showing Mini V was in the context of an example of how two UI art styles can exist side by side if it makes sense in a broader context. I wasn't even considering the UX aspect of it. Just the two art styles. Arturia has said, "Here's the simulation (skeuomorphic) and here's where we grafted our functionality onto it. (Non skeumorphic) I feel that works. That's all. What I am saying is that by adding non-skeumorphic elements onto a predominately skeumorphic look just ends up as cognitive dissonance. It's as if I randomly substituiert words from a anders language. You'll get it using contextual cues, but in a situation where the prime goal is making music, a thing like that just ends up being harder to read.EvilDragon wrote:@zerocrossing - you could've given a much better UI example than Arturia's. That example was really, really bad. A whopping (eyeballed estimate) one quarter of the area the UI takes is just empty, useless space. So bad. And contrast is appalling, some fonts way too thin. They can make their GUIs at 8K, it wouldn't matter, it would still suck because they simply don't know how to do it well (IMO).
Also - don't forget that you're not the only one who studied UI/UX. Urs started out as an industrial designer, so he does know his shit. Much like you apparently do. But of course, everyone has their own vision of things...
Exactly, you cannot wait. You must do it now!Urs wrote:While I have got models of almost all of Diva's filter types in that quality, I haven't had time to put them in and calibrate. Can't wait to do this.
I'd welcome it for sure. I absolutely love Diva's smoother side and the incredible playability of many of the provided patches. I have (amongst other VI) repro1 and bazille for screaming madness - diva with some some (meaning a lot!) of Satin on pads saturated in delay... yum! Very few times have I jumped with joy of a tone. Shivers!Urs wrote:The haters will still hate, because the choice of modules in Diva is what it is. Jupiters, Junos and Minis don't suddenly sound better (for them: grittier, rougher, rawer) only because we use better models. To the contrary, I think the updated models will sound even more mellow, beautiful and - to them - boring.
liquidsound wrote:Perfect!zerocrossing wrote: I've got crap to do
The shortest Autobiography ever stated.
+124 bazillons
I think you coined the problem Urs. Which is generalized confusion.Urs wrote:Then the guy says "You can post as many nice charts as you want, but my ears tell the opposite".
It's the relation between the work that was done to create the software and the hand-waving ease it takes to put out some trumpety misinformation.
Actually, I was messing about with different synths and how their filters reacted to fm. I forgot that Diva was among them.Urs wrote:My problem is, people just pop out from some corner of the internet and state things. Like the guy recently who just like this said: "Diva cuts bass out more than synth xy". And then I take that on, get a bit worried and try it for myself. So I waste 25 minutes of my time inhaling the criticism, firing up both synths, measuring the bass cut, only to find that the opposite is true. Then I post screenshots that show my findings. Then the guy says "You can post as many nice charts as you want, but my ears tell the opposite".
These things come up much like people sneeze. It's the sudden achoo from somewhere around the globe, and poof there's a nonsense claim on a forum.
It's the relation between the work that was done to create the software and the hand-waving ease it takes to put out some trumpety misinformation. The appropriate German saying is "I think I am in the wrong movie", as if, people talk about something else. Of course they don't have audio examples. They never do. They also don't have UI examples. None that ever work.
It happens a lot lately. Very depressing.
Maybe. In the case of audio, or music stuff, it's generally very subjective though. Sometimes it's hard to tell. The way i see it, we have 3 Minimoog emulations on a very high quality level now, and they all sound different from each other. Why, if they have been measured so precisely and accurately? It's the difference between the emulated models, some might say. I have a bit of a doubt believing that though. Otherwise, one couldn't even say that "the Minimoog sounds great". What if i happen to have a model which sounds shite, in a theoretical case. I can't tell, because i don't own one, but, if they differences would be that big, then it would be a bit weird to say that the synth sounds good, because it all bows down to the model you buy, obviously.RedChameau wrote:I think you coined the problem Urs. Which is generalized confusion.Urs wrote:Then the guy says "You can post as many nice charts as you want, but my ears tell the opposite".
It's the relation between the work that was done to create the software and the hand-waving ease it takes to put out some trumpety misinformation.
We unfortunately have to get used to living in a post-truth world, where some people will keep stating the same bs even when proven wrong a thousand times.
Maybe even ESPECIALLY when proven wrong.
Those same people just don't care about facts anymore.
And to prove it to the entire world, they just elected one of them.
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2026
