indistinguishable from hardware ??

[Gonga]

[Edit] - boring redundant post!

[jancivil]

Ok I'll bite.

example 1, B sounds 'more analog'.
example 2, A sounds 'more analog'.
example 3, A sounds 'more analog'.
example 4, no guess.
example 5, B sounds 'more analog'.

[A.M. Gold]

Tom Oberheim himself always said his synths, before the Matrix series, were very simple and essentially made of generic components. I still think they ended up sounding great, though, particularly everything based directly on the SEM modules. Very, very smooth sounding synths. To me, in the sense of basic sound quality and character, they define what I like so much about analog synths.

[PAK]

Throwing out a generic poll/quiz in which some of the synths are analog synths presented in some kind of context featuring some kind of voice programming and some kind of recording setup and then putting those up against some other digital synths, all within the same kind of vague framework, is so hazy and has so few clinical-style controls associated with it that I think whatever results are obtained from it would be questionable at best.

Good job nobody planned on handing this worthless data in to the scientific journals for publication then, huh?

You actually have a reasonable point though. When comparing synths the biggest limitation in the comparison is the human. There's an awful lot of people out there who can discuss all manners of synthesis, but are bloody awful at matching two different audio sources. As a result, when they make two audio comparisons which are massively different, they can mislead people that differences may be greater than they actually are in the hands of someone more skilled.

But, what if the opposite is true? What if you're struggling to tell which audio signal is which? Whilst it does NOT tell you how good the emulation is overall, it does tell you that, for that particular sound, the two are a very good match. Now say you can do that for a variety of sounds. Again, this could still be misleading. But there is a greater likelihood that there is a reasonably good degree of accuracy between the two.

Despite these imperfect methods, such comparisons ultimately tell you more than mere text alone will. More importantly it affords a better opportunity to form your own subjective opinions compared to only reading what others experiences are. Of course the ideal is to have the 2 things so that you can compare them yourself. If you're willing to lend everyone on this thread the money to buy an OB-X then I'm sure they'll be happy to do the comparison for you and provide something which meets your more stringent scientific standards

[Gonga]

PAK, another thing I noticed about the OP-X if I remember correctly, is that the sync sweep was stepped - zippering. Is my memory correct or is there a way around that?

[aciddose]

everything i said was objective. my commentary is 100% objective.

The fact that you don't think your commentary is chock full of subjective remarks makes me smile. Part of me thinks you might even believe that. And, if that's the case, who am I to argue?

actually it doesn't really matter which source matches which clip - the emulation is definitely terrible.

Well there you go then. Now we all know Oberheim synths "suck balls" too. More importantly, we know "why". Thank you for your valuable contributions to the thread.

why don't you cut the bullshit and reply to the examples i posted in response to your request that i post them?

also i'd like to point out this fact that you are apparently unaware of - in order to make an argument you have to actually specify what that argument is. if you just waddle around making unsubstantiated claims...

all my claims are substantiated. you may question any and all of them to the greatest extent you are capable. i will defend them to the death.

[A.M. Gold]

Throwing out a generic poll/quiz in which some of the synths are analog synths presented in some kind of context featuring some kind of voice programming and some kind of recording setup and then putting those up against some other digital synths, all within the same kind of vague framework, is so hazy and has so few clinical-style controls associated with it that I think whatever results are obtained from it would be questionable at best.

Good job nobody planned on handing this worthless data in to the scientific journals for publication then, huh?

Huh?

Compare whatever you want and draw whatever conclusions you want to, I couldn't care less what you do at a personal level, I'm only cautioning that it is mostly pointless, and probably misleading, to throw out some kind of random "analog vs. digital" test over the internet without providing the necessary information to assure that all other factors were equated as much as can be practically expected. In other words, the only differences should be that one is analog and the other is digital, all other aspects of signal processing architecture and voice design, as well as recording technique, should be identical.

To be more specific to this particular case, Peter posted this "quiz/test/funtime activity" and Peter is by no means someone without his own kind of agenda on this topic, therefore it's perfectly reasonable for someone to come in and say "hold on". Why? Because any x vs. y test that is clearly put forward by someone with an agenda which favors x over y or y over x needs to be scrutinized for fairness and reliability of testing techniques, otherwise the results are not to be trusted and the agenda of the person or people who put forward the test could be served unfairly. Or, maybe not, maybe it will go against their agenda, but it's an unreliable process nonetheless and deserves to be questioned.

[PAK]

Hey PAK if you're here, do you agree the Zebra attack I posted has a noticably more dynamic transient? Yours is indeed good, but not as...to my ears. I like the OP-X but it doesn't have the pitch bend settings I prefer.

I'm not sure I'd call it more dynamic. Your Zebra example does have a more closed filter, which gives a slightly lower pitch to the click, being slightly more muted by the filter. The OP-X example is more open and louder. So maybe more like a different flavour? Which pitch bend settings do you prefer btw? OPX-Pro II added a bunch of stuff to the pitch bend settings.

[jancivil]

the ones I picked as 'more analog' could have been processed otherwise to obtain that result, I have no doubt of that much.

[A.M. Gold]

all my claims are substantiated. you may question any and all of them to the greatest extent you are capable. i will defend them to the death.

Well, let's not take it that far.

But we can't be surprised that yet another thread on KVR where the terms "analog" and "digital" were incautiously mentioned together in the original post has degenerated into yet another playground-style free-for-all confrontation.

I can actually almost see the corn futures people salivating whenever this happens, since popcorn will be flying off the shelves at supermarkets all over the US, Canada, Europe, etc.

[Gonga]

Hey PAK if you're here, do you agree the Zebra attack I posted has a noticably more dynamic transient? Yours is indeed good, but not as...to my ears. I like the OP-X but it doesn't have the pitch bend settings I prefer.

I'm not sure I'd call it more dynamic. Your Zebra example does have a more closed filter, which gives a slightly lower pitch to the click, being slightly more muted by the filter. The OP-X example is more open and louder. So maybe more like a different flavour? Which pitch bend settings do you prefer btw? OPX-Pro II added a bunch of stuff to the pitch bend settings.

Yup, I changed my post because I agree, it's a very strong transient on the attack. The OP-X is one of those synths I almost bought. If memory serves me, there were two things that gave me pause. I don't think it has a 3-up 12-down bend setting. I know it sounds picky, but for me it's not! The other thing is the sync sweep was stepped I believe, like my old FVS-1 used to be.

A few months ago I picked up the Jup8V along with the ModularV and 2600V (my fav of the three) for $189. The Jup8V also has a stepped freq sweep so the sync is stepped.

[PAK]

PAK, another thing I noticed about the OP-X if I remember correctly, is that the sync sweep was stepped - zippering. Is my memory correct or is there a way around that?

Hmm, not sure what you mean. You mean how it responds to midi data? Oscillator 1's pitch does default to moving up in octaves. You can setting the sides of FQ1 / FQ2 to "LIN" and that will change how they behave. You can then control the pitch in finer amounts with the FQ1/FQ2 trim pots, though its a more limited pitch range than the main pitch knob.

[PAK]

why don't you cut the bullshit

all my claims are substantiated.

You win the internets. Have a nice day

[Gonga]

PAK, another thing I noticed about the OP-X if I remember correctly, is that the sync sweep was stepped - zippering. Is my memory correct or is there a way around that?

Hmm, not sure what you mean. You mean how it responds to midi data? Oscillator 1's pitch does default to moving up in octaves. You can setting the sides of FQ1 / FQ2 to "LIN" and that will change how they behave. You can then control the pitch in finer amounts with the FQ1/FQ2 trim pots, though its a more limited pitch range than the main pitch knob.

Thanks PAK. I like to assign the sync sweep to pedal. That and the pitch bend killed it for me.

[PAK]

In other words, the only differences should be that one is analog and the other is digital, all other aspects of signal processing architecture and voice design, as well as recording technique, should be identical.

I agree. But unless patch import exists between the two sources then subjective decisions by the sound designer must be employed for the two different sources to match. That's just one way were ideals are not always possible. But, I agree, for the most valid comparison such things should be the goal.

Peter is by no means someone without his own kind of agenda on this topic

Also correct, but he's hardly hiding who he is either. I make the assumption (perhaps incorrectly) that people are mature enough to weigh everything up for themselves and attach a weight to those opinions accordingly. Even if you could find a "more independent" source usually, as a hardware owner, they have at least some motivation to justify to themselves why they keep their hardware. Conclusions that they were a dumbass to spend $x on a synth, or have it taking up space, when a far cheaper plugin would suffice, are rare.