Not sure what exactly is arguable, let's just use our ears, and in case you think Synthmast isn't a good example, you can replace it with Sylenth 1 or DUNE (1, 2 or 3) which i doubt anyone can argue how good they sound, while having a very low CPU footprint.chk071 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:30 pmI doubt it. Diversion's last updates has been beginning of 2016, for example. And, AFAIK, it didn't have any groundbreaking changes either.
Arguable.
Welll... maybe a developer can chime in, and explain it, but, the way I alwasy understood it is, that calculating the waveforms like Thorn does (should be the same as in wavetable synths) is more CPU heavy, and, especially, more CPU heavy than using sampled oscillators.
I'm actually a bit surprised though. Does Synthmaster really do that? I thought that at least the basic waveforms are calculated, not sampled.
Any love for Dmitry Sches Thorn?
- KVRian
- 1384 posts since 12 Oct, 2012
-
- KVRAF
- 35434 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
There's more to it than just the way oscillators are generated/calculated. What oversampling does it use? Does it offer audio rate modulation? How complex is analog modelling for the filters? Are thre certaijn parts of the audio engine which run the whole time, even when idling? Etc. pp.
Arguing that this takes less CPU than that isn't really sufficient. If Synthmaster already calculates the oscillators in a different way, I don't want to know how much else is running different under its hood. Of course, some synths are better optimized than others as well. And, yes, Dmitry's synths take quite a lot of CPU. Diversion is hardly usable for me, for example. But, again, there are many variables, and it doesn't all have to have to do with lack of optimization.
Arguing that this takes less CPU than that isn't really sufficient. If Synthmaster already calculates the oscillators in a different way, I don't want to know how much else is running different under its hood. Of course, some synths are better optimized than others as well. And, yes, Dmitry's synths take quite a lot of CPU. Diversion is hardly usable for me, for example. But, again, there are many variables, and it doesn't all have to have to do with lack of optimization.
-
- KVRAF
- 4751 posts since 22 Nov, 2012
the only way you are getting thorne lower is to start cutting back on performance. i would actually prefer it to be adjustable audio rates tbh, but that would only make it use that much more cpu. i would also like it to get rid of the stepping in oscillator frequency, but that's imbedded due to presets at this point.
-
- KVRist
- 133 posts since 3 Sep, 2005 from Venezuela
I can understand you, but please don't lose the big expectations on Thorn, I personally know Dmitry, and I can assure that his genius mind and love for synths and electronic is tireless working on improvements and updates for all his products, such as the amazing Tantra and Diversion, and Thorn of course. But....
DSAUDIO is a single-man company. The hard times that the planet lives nowadays and the particular critical situation of some countries could make development very difficult, especially for indie developers. So the deal with third parties resellers and merchants makes a lot of sense.
It is important to note that PA is only the distribution and sales manager for Thorn and has nothing to do with the development of it. Thorn still is announced in DSAUDIO https://dmitrysches.com/products/thorn
The quality of Dmitry plugins is such that important industry names offer their soundsets and preset libraries from releases time.
Last edited by Jazzguitar on Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- KVRian
- 1384 posts since 12 Oct, 2012
I get that, i get that for the architecture he chose to use, it might be the most optimised, version of what it is, but if this architecture doesn't give any perceivable sound quality benefits, and in exchange hogs so much CPU power, whats the point?chk071 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:56 pm There's more to it than just the way oscillators are generated/calculated. What oversampling does it use? Does it offer audio rate modulation? How complex is analog modelling for the filters? Are thre certaijn parts of the audio engine which run the whole time, even when idling? Etc. pp.
Arguing that this takes less CPU than that isn't really sufficient. If Synthmaster already calculates the oscillators in a different way, I don't want to know how much else is running different under its hood. Of course, some synths are better optimized than others as well. And, yes, Dmitry's synths take quite a lot of CPU. Diversion is hardly usable for me, for example. But, again, there are many variables, and it doesn't all have to have to do with lack of optimization.
-
- KVRAF
- 35434 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Actually, I agree with you. If you feel like it doesn't give you any perceivable sound quality benefits, there's no point in using it really. Although I would argue that they sound different enough to make that less of a consideration.ferez21 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:24 pmI get that, i get that for the architecture he chose to use, it might be the most optimised, version of what it is, but if this architecture doesn't give any perceivable sound quality benefits, and in exchange hogs so much CPU power, whats the point?chk071 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:56 pm There's more to it than just the way oscillators are generated/calculated. What oversampling does it use? Does it offer audio rate modulation? How complex is analog modelling for the filters? Are thre certaijn parts of the audio engine which run the whole time, even when idling? Etc. pp.
Arguing that this takes less CPU than that isn't really sufficient. If Synthmaster already calculates the oscillators in a different way, I don't want to know how much else is running different under its hood. Of course, some synths are better optimized than others as well. And, yes, Dmitry's synths take quite a lot of CPU. Diversion is hardly usable for me, for example. But, again, there are many variables, and it doesn't all have to have to do with lack of optimization.
For example, there are a lot of synths which use less CPU than Massive X. But few which can sound better than it, which kind of devalues the CPU argument for me.
Diversion on the other hand could be the best sounding synth of all times, and I still couldn't use it, because it simply brings my CPU to its knees with a simple one oscillator sine wave patch...
- KVRist
- 483 posts since 17 Sep, 2020
Great news if true!
-
- KVRist
- 133 posts since 3 Sep, 2005 from Venezuela
I think all are on a list agenda, but surely the release order is kinda a industrial secret
Session guitarist and music producer from Venezuela
One of my old demos: (Scarbee and Overloud)
https://bit.ly/3mDq0D3
One of my old demos: (Scarbee and Overloud)
https://bit.ly/3mDq0D3
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105846 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
the voices in dash's head, do not lie!
- KVRian
- 1384 posts since 12 Oct, 2012
Raw sound quality wise, I find Thorn comparable to other synths i like, which is a good thing, i love the harmonic filter and the workflow, this could have easily been my go-to synth if it used less CPU power, that was my purpose when i bought it not too long agochk071 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:31 pmActually, I agree with you. If you feel like it doesn't give you any perceivable sound quality benefits, there's no point in using it really. Although I would argue that they sound different enough to make that less of a consideration.ferez21 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:24 pmI get that, i get that for the architecture he chose to use, it might be the most optimised, version of what it is, but if this architecture doesn't give any perceivable sound quality benefits, and in exchange hogs so much CPU power, whats the point?chk071 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:56 pm There's more to it than just the way oscillators are generated/calculated. What oversampling does it use? Does it offer audio rate modulation? How complex is analog modelling for the filters? Are thre certaijn parts of the audio engine which run the whole time, even when idling? Etc. pp.
Arguing that this takes less CPU than that isn't really sufficient. If Synthmaster already calculates the oscillators in a different way, I don't want to know how much else is running different under its hood. Of course, some synths are better optimized than others as well. And, yes, Dmitry's synths take quite a lot of CPU. Diversion is hardly usable for me, for example. But, again, there are many variables, and it doesn't all have to have to do with lack of optimization.
For example, there are a lot of synths which use less CPU than Massive X. But few which can sound better than it, which kind of devalues the CPU argument for me.
Diversion on the other hand could be the best sounding synth of all times, and I still couldn't use it, because it simply brings my CPU to its knees with a simple one oscillator sine wave patch...
Same goes for Diversion too.
the only developer that can get away with CPU hogging is U-He but he is a much larger scale developer i guess.
- KVRist
- 483 posts since 17 Sep, 2020
Well that has made my evening.
- GRRRRRRR!
- 15952 posts since 14 Jun, 2001 from Somewhere else, on principle
Does it? I don't think it does. I've had it for a couple of years and every time I've tried to find a use for it, it has failed. It's not terrible but I don't think it sounds as good as Thorn.
Synthmaster might sound as good as Sylenth 1, which I don't like the sound of much at all, but it's not in the same league as DUNE.
NOVAkILL : Asus RoG Flow Z13, Core i9, 16GB RAM, Win11 | EVO 16 | Studio One | bx_oberhausen, GR-8, JP6K, Union, Hexeract, Olga, TRK-01, SEM, BA-1, Thorn, Prestige, Spire, Legend-HZ, ANA-2, VG Iron 2 | Uno Pro, Rocket.
- KVRian
- 1384 posts since 12 Oct, 2012
Well, the same point persists, let's compare it to DUNE since you like its sound, a vst synth can sound great without hogging the CPU, and using some complicated architecture to achieve an end result that has no perceivable benefits doesn't make sense to me.BONES wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:53 amDoes it? I don't think it does. I've had it for a couple of years and every time I've tried to find a use for it, it has failed. It's not terrible but I don't think it sounds as good as Thorn.Synthmaster might sound as good as Sylenth 1, which I don't like the sound of much at all, but it's not in the same league as DUNE.
-
- KVRian
- 596 posts since 21 Jan, 2017
Good to see others are digging Thorn too. Diversion was the first soft synth I got where the sound really blew me away. I'm also in the minority I guess in that it's probably my favorite gui of any synth, if only you could resize it (and the cpu hunger wasn't so intense) it'd be perfect.
That said if I needed one for bass duty I'd probably reach for Thorn first over Diversion.
That said if I needed one for bass duty I'd probably reach for Thorn first over Diversion.