Diva Vs. Real Analog

[EnGee]

Yes, the SEM V is OK and very visible on my screen (1920x1080), but Arp2600V needs to be closer to the screen, almost the same like in Mono/Poly for example.

[Acid Mitch]

Huh? Why was it modelled on all those vintage synths then if it's not supposed to sound like them.

It's designed to have the same flavour as the older synths but sound "better".
From the Creamware Minimax vs Diva thread in KVR's URS section:

Well, that's what we've always said. In direct comparison, Diva often has a brighter top end. Which I found preferrable. We are contemplating to add a more vintage sound ina future update, once we get time and space to work on this a bit further.

URS prefers the brighter modern sound he has given Diva to the "boxy" dull sound of the things he's modelled.
Whether that's good or bad is in the ear of the beholder.

Here's another quote from Gearslutz where Urs get's asked about the difference in sound (described as "density" by the poster) between the modern Moogs (Voyager and lil Phatty) and Diva.

If I knew, I would have modeled it.

Maybe a future revision will add more of it, I think it's related to what we call "muffle". Diva often sounds a bit brighter in comparison to our reference synths, which I personally like. OTOH it can be see as "less body".

Dunno. I like her as she is, but we'll keep our ears open should we stumble upon trick that makes her sound closer/better/thicker.

Urs

[ImNotDedYet]

And none of that even takes into consideration that none of the synths I have are MIDI compatible which means I would have to play them live through my Steinberg UR28M which means I'm limited by my own playing ability which leaves a lot to be desired.

There's always CV possibilities and CV sequencers can be had pretty cheap these days.

Or, you could actually play the songs and then fix up the audio in your DAW. Not really difficult to do with the audio files in DAWs these days.

I think we're exactly the same in this respect. I haven't pulled out my analogs or my Rhodes for over a year. I feel like it's a pain to connect the cables, the console, the combo amp and so on... not to mention lift the Rhodes!

That pains me to hear. And yes, Rhodes are hellishly heavy, which is one reason they should never be "put away." The other being, the Rhodes is one instrument I think it's pretty easy to hear the difference between the real thing and the sample libs/models. The advantage of software Rhodes emulations/libraries is, they give you a number of different voicing options that you don't have to pop the lid and bust out the screwdriver for. And finally, nothing actually PLAYS like a Rhodes!

[Acid Mitch]

There's always CV possibilities and CV sequencers can be had pretty cheap these days.

The Expert Sleepers systems are quite good .They give CV and/or sample accurate MIDI from your DAW.

[chk071]

Huh? Why was it modelled on all those vintage synths then if it's not supposed to sound like them.

It's designed to have the same flavour as the older synths but sound "better".
From the Creamware Minimax vs Diva thread in KVR's URS section:

Well, that's what we've always said. In direct comparison, Diva often has a brighter top end. Which I found preferrable. We are contemplating to add a more vintage sound ina future update, once we get time and space to work on this a bit further.

URS prefers the brighter modern sound he has given Diva to the "boxy" dull sound of the things he's modelled.
Whether that's good or bad is in the ear of the beholder.

Here's another quote from Gearslutz where Urs get's asked about the difference in sound (described as "density" by the poster) between the modern Moogs (Voyager and lil Phatty) and Diva.

If I knew, I would have modeled it.

Maybe a future revision will add more of it, I think it's related to what we call "muffle". Diva often sounds a bit brighter in comparison to our reference synths, which I personally like. OTOH it can be see as "less body".

Dunno. I like her as she is, but we'll keep our ears open should we stumble upon trick that makes her sound closer/better/thicker.

Urs

Alright, thanks for the quotes. Sounds reasonable to me, although I wonder a bit because I read more than once that analogs are supposed to sound more brilliant too. But then, what do I know.

[zerocrossing]

What about a hardware, a desktop like Waldorf Pulse 2, but with some Diva inspirations and u-he touches? Same price/quality built level with Pulse 2 and with analog filters. This is the future for u-he I think (Don't crucify me please! It is just an innocent dream!)

https://www.jrrshop.com/studio-electron ... -4-filters

[Apostate]

I find uses for both Arturia and Diva in my my music, because they're both terrific sounding and great for both presets and programming. But that's just me; I first bought Diva to be frugal: people kept telling me that having it would preclude me spending money on the Arturia plugins like Oberheim, Jupiter, and Prophet. Wrong! I guess it says something for Arturia that I bought their emulations after Diva. They were that useful, to me at least.

I really wouldn't know about vs. real analog, because all I really know of "real" analog is on my old records.

[zerocrossing]

Huh? Why was it modelled on all those vintage synths then if it's not supposed to sound like them.

It's designed to have the same flavour as the older synths but sound "better".
From the Creamware Minimax vs Diva thread in KVR's URS section:

Well, that's what we've always said. In direct comparison, Diva often has a brighter top end. Which I found preferrable. We are contemplating to add a more vintage sound ina future update, once we get time and space to work on this a bit further.

URS prefers the brighter modern sound he has given Diva to the "boxy" dull sound of the things he's modelled.
Whether that's good or bad is in the ear of the beholder.

Here's another quote from Gearslutz where Urs get's asked about the difference in sound (described as "density" by the poster) between the modern Moogs (Voyager and lil Phatty) and Diva.

If I knew, I would have modeled it.

Maybe a future revision will add more of it, I think it's related to what we call "muffle". Diva often sounds a bit brighter in comparison to our reference synths, which I personally like. OTOH it can be see as "less body".

Dunno. I like her as she is, but we'll keep our ears open should we stumble upon trick that makes her sound closer/better/thicker.

Urs

This is the issue I had with Diva from the start. I remember my first reaction was, "This sounds really good... but vintage? No." To me there's a disconnect between what it was marketed to be and what it is. Once I threw out the notion that it was supposed to sound vintage, I was able to dig it for what it was, but I still feel it can sound a bit harsh in the highs. I've got to make sure that filter doesn't open all the way up. Maybe that's part of the issue. I think many old synths didn't let you open the filter all the way and Diva might. I may be wrong on that. I know my Prophet 12 does let you open the filter way up, and if you use the saw and pulse waves it can sound pretty bad.

I do know the KingKORG has very dark oscillators, at least the "analog" style ones. The filter can be off and still it seems like the filter is on. I have not looked at all my hardware synths, but my guess is the ATC doesn't let you open the filter up all the way either. I think that's just the kind of sound I prefer. As a guitar player I'm used to the natural filtering of an amp/cabinet. The XILS Labs synths sound this way too. When I heard the Model D vs. Monark track on NI's site, I did think Monark was easily spotted due to a more muted high end. I assumed it had something to do with avoiding aliasing.

Anyway, maybe the "warmer" sound I think of when I think "vintage" is all in my head. Maybe it's due to listening to old records which have been naturally dulled down over time. Maybe it's just preference. I think I would like Diva better if there was a "warmth" button that helped it get the vibe I like. For bright digital style sounds, I've got plenty of other options, including Zebra, which I love to pieces. (BTW, Dark Zebra is fantastic)

[fluffy_little_something]

I found both Diva and Tyrell sounded a bit muffled to me. But I like that, fewer high frequencies create the illusion of more bass, i.e. a more solid sound.
But was it really the old synths as such that sounded darker or was it the recording technology and stereos that lead to a darker sound, which in my view applied to all instruments alike. Keyboards, guitars and basses also sounded more muffled in my view. Maybe it was the heavy dose of reverb

[wagtunes]

I found both Diva and Tyrell sounded a bit muffled to me. But I like that, fewer high frequencies create the illusion of more bass, i.e. a more solid sound.
But was it really the old synths as such that sounded darker or was it the recording technology and stereos that lead to a darker sound, which in my view applied to all instruments alike. Keyboards, guitars and basses also sounded more muffled in my view. Maybe it was the heavy dose of reverb

Having owned one of the very early Moogs I can say unequivocally that the sound you heard on recordings was because of all the processing. My Moog was so far removed from "dark" that it wasn't funny. It was harsh and hissy and quite honestly, sounded like crap dry. Once you processed it (and they processed the crap out of those things) that's what gave it the character you're used to hearing.

This is why I fail to see the fascination with old synths.

In short, they sounded like crap.

[fluffy_little_something]

Like crap? Hm, maybe your Moog was broken

[Examigan]

I found both Diva and Tyrell sounded a bit muffled to me. But I like that, fewer high frequencies create the illusion of more bass, i.e. a more solid sound.
But was it really the old synths as such that sounded darker or was it the recording technology and stereos that lead to a darker sound, which in my view applied to all instruments alike. Keyboards, guitars and basses also sounded more muffled in my view. Maybe it was the heavy dose of reverb

Having owned one of the very early Moogs I can say unequivocally that the sound you heard on recordings was because of all the processing. My Moog was so far removed from "dark" that it wasn't funny. It was harsh and hissy and quite honestly, sounded like crap dry. Once you processed it (and they processed the crap out of those things) that's what gave it the character you're used to hearing.

This is why I fail to see the fascination with old synths.

In short, they sounded like crap.

This doesn't sound like crap to me, and he only added some delay to it for when he is playing it live, up until about 4:14. There are english captions you can switch on in YouTube, and he mentions the delay at around 4:15 or so.

[chk071]

Quite brave to call the synth virtually every VA was modelled after due to the popularity of its sound, at least oscillator wise, sounding like "crap". Frankly wagtunes, maybe time to be a bit less controversy for a change. If you don't like Moogs, fair enough, but they sound brilliant for the most of us.

[wagtunes]

I found both Diva and Tyrell sounded a bit muffled to me. But I like that, fewer high frequencies create the illusion of more bass, i.e. a more solid sound.
But was it really the old synths as such that sounded darker or was it the recording technology and stereos that lead to a darker sound, which in my view applied to all instruments alike. Keyboards, guitars and basses also sounded more muffled in my view. Maybe it was the heavy dose of reverb

Having owned one of the very early Moogs I can say unequivocally that the sound you heard on recordings was because of all the processing. My Moog was so far removed from "dark" that it wasn't funny. It was harsh and hissy and quite honestly, sounded like crap dry. Once you processed it (and they processed the crap out of those things) that's what gave it the character you're used to hearing.

This is why I fail to see the fascination with old synths.

In short, they sounded like crap.

This doesn't sound like crap to me, and he only added some delay to it for when he is playing it live, up until about 4:14. There are english captions you can switch on in YouTube, and he mentions the delay at around 4:15 or so.

Only adding delay is big. And around the 1:20 mark, that upper end sounds like crap anyway. It's thin and hissy.

And mine sounds even worse. Remember, these were analog instruments. Every one was different. There were Moogs that were lemons just like there were Les Paul's that couldn't hold a tune because the wood was warped.

Let me hear this thing totally dry. Delay doesn't count as dry.

[wagtunes]

Quite brave to call the synth virtually every VA was modelled after due to the popularity of its sound, at least oscillator wise, sounding like "crap". Frankly wagtunes, maybe time to be a bit less controversy for a change. If you don't like Moogs, fair enough, but they sound brilliant for the most of us.

I'll be happy to drag mine out of the basement, hook it up, play it live, record it with my Cam and upload it to YouTube so you can hear just how horrible I can make it sound totally dry.

Sure, low end, even dry, can sound decent. But once you get into the upper registers with the filter open on a plain saw, it's thin and lifeless without FX.

Please don't make me have to prove this.