Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[pdxindy]

I want a Modal 008

[Frantz]

I want a pony.

[david.beholder]

• cold - "sounds wrong"
• warm - "sounds right"

Cold - sounds right for cold music
Warm - sounds right for warm music

[aciddose]

Oh, also, I don't actually care for vintage analog synths. Most of the coveted classics lacked really basic things that modern analogs now mostly have. (put me in the 'disappointed' category that Korg decided to not trick out their new MS20 and Odyssey with at least velocity and aftertouch)

The thing about that is it isn't really simple to get velocity to work well on a monophonic synthesizer.

That is because the voice is always recycled, it's always active. So if you play a note, release with a longer release time and then play a new note at a different velocity, you'll get the click/jump from the velocity suddenly changing.

It also requires that you add the ability for velocity to take effect... but where? In my X1 synthesizer I have an additional output to cutoff, but not to amplitude or other places (would require DC-accurate modulation mixers/VCAs) and the cutoff input from velocity is simply added, not multiplied.

As it turns out, once you've designed a system like this you might realize that you end up taking up more space in the circuit with all these mixers/multipliers/switches and other control circuitry than the main part of the synthesizer!

I can see it easily doubling the size of the PCB, they'd likely need to use a SMD second pane (layered behind the existing board and connected with a ribbon) as well as massive rearrangement of the circuits on the original board.

Try it with a modular and you'll see. Since the MS-20 is semi-modular you can already do this by simply patching this stuff in from your own MIDI->CV or other external modules.

Sources are trivial. After-touch, velocity, release velocity, pitch bend, mod wheel or any other CC are all the same type of input. These parameters can be routed on the digital side (the MIDI -> CV) by a software mod-matrix. This is how I accomplished it.

The non-trivial part is the real analog circuitry to actually make this stuff possible.

One possibility is to move all the modulation into software on the chip, but then it isn't "analog" anymore!

[aciddose]

• cold - "sounds wrong"
• warm - "sounds right"

Cold - sounds right for cold music
Warm - sounds right for warm music

If you're using the word that way you're using it wrong... of course the definition of words in our language is not by fiat but rather the meaning of a word listed in the dictionary is determined by use.

(This is stupid in my opinion because most people are stupid, and giving stupid people control of something yields stupid results. See the stupid misuse of "tween" for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preadoles ... y_and_span)

In the example definition you give the word becomes meaningless (I assume you were joking, the definition is recursive), therefore it would never appear in the dictionary.

[scintillator]

What I decided was just that I should complete everything that needs to be completed first and then post that version as a RC for serious testing after I've already tested it myself.

It really just boils down to me actually needing to do that work.

Bingo!

I can't see myself having any time available for it in the next while, so until I do there isn't much point.

Please define...

[david.beholder]

In the example definition you give the word becomes meaningless (I assume you were joking, the definition is recursive), therefore it would never appear in the dictionary.

I was joking and I think my point would deserve some really sharp one-liner in reply.

Words like warm and cold are meaningless in term of sound, because they are not self-explanatory.
.

[aciddose]

In this case I disagree. None of the words in our language are self-explanatory. What you have with "warm" and "cold" are jargon, not technical but subjective.

So the issue is simply that the majority of those using the words do not understand them and likely misuse them combined with that the majority of those hearing the words are in the same situation. The words themselves have the potential to communicate valid information. The meaning is only lost if either or both the speaker and listener confuse that information in transit.

I'm not saying use of these sort of subjective words is worthwhile. I'd try to argue the opposite in fact... just that they are words that carry valid meaning however pointless or redundant they may be. Why say "sounds warm" when you could say "sounds good" after all? Well, usually in these cases it is an expression of the speaker not really knowing which words to use.

To describe something objectively with technical accuracy and minimal potential for confusion is not at all easy. This is why people often take the low road to express their subjective interpretation of the world around them in a subjective way, necessitating that the listener interpret their meaning. Ultimately the accuracy of such expression becomes more probabilistic, which can be a problem. Yet all communication is at least somewhat open to interpretation and all interpretations have the potential to be inaccurate.

"None of the words in our language are self-explanatory": although recent research has demonstrated the potential for the rough structure of all human languages to be defined within us as humans rather than specific to a culture or likewise. Notice the pitch and timbre of words such as "raise" vs. "drop" and their striking potential to be, roughly speaking, examples of something similar to onomatopoeia.

[IncarnateX]

Whatever warm means it did not seem to help people picking the OB8.

Anyway, given the amount of widely different patches an analog synth can make, it must be a helluva job for the brain to calculate a "mean" or a common denominator that we can call warm and determines "how this synth sounds" beyond sound design, musical context, personal and cultural preferences and you name it. Even a harder job if this common denomintor is supposed to cover analog synths in general.

Can only speak for myself, but I am picky with patches, loves polished and undistorted synth sounds and thus no synth would ever manage to just sound good all the way through. Another thing is the many aspects associated with the sound, e.g. When playing the late Tim Conrardy's pads (God bless his soul) I was always taken on a trip to space in a way that cannot be described in simple terms like warm and cold. It was more related to images, fantasies, moods, feelings than words. My brain picked up his interest for space and astronomy long before I knew he was into it. He put his soul into his sound design and to reduce such artistic expression into simple concepts of temperature is....well I lack words, but I guess some of you will know what I mean.

[david.beholder]

In this case I disagree. None of the words in our language are self-explanatory. What you have with "warm" and "cold" are jargon, not technical but subjective.

"None of the words in our language are self-explanatory": although recent research has demonstrated the potential for the rough structure of all human languages to be defined within us as humans rather than specific to a culture or likewise. Notice the pitch and timbre of words such as "raise" vs. "drop" and their striking potential to be, roughly speaking, examples of something similar to onomatopoeia.

I was far from phono-semantic and language formation. No I'm not about philology and language studies at all.

There is certain meaning in "short sound" or "sad sound" -- mostly because definition of "sad" or "short" already exists and could be easily applied to "sound". It doesn't work with "warm sound" mostly because there is no easy way of applying or clear definition like say in "compressed sound".

So "warm sound" should be treated as parasite and only used in unfortunate marketing campaigns (Lotuzia where are you?). Because there are other words that could work better.

[aciddose]

I've explained the source of the term "sounds warm" though.

The equipment needed to warm up (some cases for an hour) before it worked correctly. In many cases the gain would be lower, distortion higher and filter frequencies incorrect on cold equipment.

Due to that the term "sounds warm/cold" entered the lexicon via affordable home audio equipment around the 1940s - 1950s. Think record players and radios. This was at the same time active devices became more commonplace and available to musicians. See "Gibson Guitar Corporation" "Les Paul" (1952) and others, tube based combo amps and similar.

See: Resistors, Capacitors, Valves.

I can't find any neat graphs for valves I guess because nobody uses them.

There are some papers but this is information overload when you just want some simple graph of temperature vs. emission/current under controlled conditions.

[fluffy_little_something]

I do think terms like warm and cold make sense, everyone "feels" a certain way when hearing a given sound. I think there is a kind of synesthesia going on. But the "audio synesthesia" might work differently for different people, just like others such as the visual one. Some colors are considered warm, others cold, and most, albeit not all, kind of agree on what is a warm or a cold color.

Many adjectives we use to describe sounds come from other senses, like dark, bright, sharp, dull, muffled, soft, harsh, thin, fat, solid, earthy, etc.

[Lotuzia]

I do think terms like warm and cold make sense, everyone "feels" a certain way when hearing a given sound. I think there is a kind of synesthesia going on. But the "audio synesthesia" might work differently for different people, just like others such as the visual one. Some colors are considered warm, others cold, and most, albeit not all, kind of agree on what is a warm or a cold color.

Many adjectives we use to describe sounds come from other senses, like dark, bright, sharp, dull, muffled, soft, harsh, thin, fat, solid, earthy, etc.

+1.
In the end words are sometimes poor to describe and talk about music. But it's all we have.

[xalama qo]

This is stupid in my opinion because most people are stupid, and giving stupid people control of something yields stupid results.

ROFL!! Thanks dude! I needed that! I've missed KVR

[trimph1]

I'd love to get my hands on an OB8.