Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[Lotuzia]

.......
Possible conclusions:

1) The hardware aficionados of KVR are delusive to an extent where they suffer from auditory hallucinations

Or

2) Urs has made a digital synth that sounds more "analogue" than analogue synths

Or

3) the characteristics associated with analogue synths are bullshit, it is all about whether they are noisy enough to be recognized as such

Add your own. There are probably plenty

Much simpler that all that : Few people know what an OB-8 sounds like ( Or some people have forgotten ... )

If you know what to look for, it's probably much more easier to find it in the end.

[trimph1]

Still on this?

When one gets fluid build up around the heart and lungs one gets a little bit of a sound kicking....

[Z1202]

Thanks for the answer. This is a great pity, because it makes Diva much less usable at 88kHz host SR (usable more or less only for monophonic sounds and even that at the double CPU of Monark). Pretty much similar to the problem I had with Lush-101. This is exactly what I meant, when I said that it would be nice if developers put more consideration to users running at other host sampling rates than 44/48.

Well, at least we *have* quality modes and we *have* an option to render offline at best possible mode. And one *can* improve the sound quality by running it in a higher sample rate. One also *can* remedy CPU issues on a multicore machine by using threaded processing

Surely, but then I have to bounce etc. This is not a part of my current workflow, where I can run everything realtime. Once I did a track using exclusively Monark. 26 instances running simultaneously (no "dynamic disabling" by the host) at 88kHz host sampling rate on a PC with a rather average CPU power. If I wanted to give up this workflow, and start dealing with bouncing etc, I'd probably get a hardware modular instead.

And, sneakily spoken, if Diva uses only twice the CPU at 352,8kHz compared to Monark at 88.2 kHz, I think we've done a hell of a job at optimizing it

For obvious reasons I can't reveal the information about what's going on inside Monark (even if I knew it in the detail), but I didn't imply that Monark runs "internally" at 88kHz. What I was referring to is the "master" SR of the Reaktor ensemble, which is configured to 88/96 kind of "independently" of the DAW's SR. Any internal oversampling, if present, would be done relatively to this 88/96 SR.

So I think we've done a lot, but I admit, there's probably room for more. We've got an option planned for all our plug-ins where the internal sample rate does not scale with host sample rate. We just haven't gotten around to implementing it, also because it wasn't requested often. Diva would still run at 176,4khz internally though.

Such option would be nice. But why don't you provide an "advanced" access to the quality (oversampling and iteration convergence separately?)

[Synthetic Wav]

Urs no plan for a oversampling mode for Zebra ? or it would be really difficult and take much time to implement that it don't worth it and better wait for Z3 ? still really enjoying using Z2 and if it can make it sound even better !!

[Mutant]

Urs no plan for a oversampling mode for Zebra ?

Is there a need for that ?
With my limited time with Zebra2 demo in 44100, i don't remember hearing any aliasing.

[Touch The Universe]

Answers:

Synth A: u-he Diva with Classic OB presets



http://swanaudio.co.uk/

Synth B: Oberheim OB8




Hope you guys enjoyed the test...I will leave up the wav downloads for as long as possible...

looks like I was right any prize

[Touch The Universe]

Hey, since I was the first one with the correct answer, do I win the OB 8? LOL.

I thought I was the only one to answered right, lol, what page did you answer?

[OutCider]

The xils rep was also correct, apparently, though he didn't make a post saying A or B.

[wagtunes]

Hey, since I was the first one with the correct answer, do I win the OB 8? LOL.

I thought I was the only one to answered right, lol, what page did you answer?

The very first one.

[wagtunes]

Here is what I posted on page 1.

Video 1, not a clue.

Video 2, I liked the pad on test 8 a little better for B than A. It had a little richer bottom. So I will say that for video 2, B is the OB and A is Diva.

But honestly, there is so little difference it just reaffirms my feelings that there just isn't a whole lotta difference between today's soft synths (the really good ones) and the $3,000 monsters from 30 plus years ago.

But that's just me and that's all I'm saying on the subject in this thread because I've more than had my fill of this discussion from the last knock down drag out.

Please announce the winner in the title of the thread when you've finally decided to reveal which is which. I am curious.

[Lotuzia]

Another side of the OB-8

[JerGoertz]

Would you be so kind as to provide the MIDI files that were used to create the individual patches demo (the second group of sound examples) along with the names of the patches used for each comparison? Or provide the DAW project file(s) as part of purchasing your soundset?

I bet 1 cookie he will not do that.
I already asked him for the name of the preset used for the first sound in 2nd wav.
Obviously he has something to hide.

nice...
so I decided to keep my ears in place until he reveal that preset name and post unmasked audio samples

I guess we can wait... Very curious myself.

[Cimbasso]

Hahah, burned. I love these blind tests.

BTW, all snobbery aside, the only people I've ever heard moaning about how 'analogue is better' etc. were the amateurs (or, if you will, 'enthusiasts'). 500+ post threads are the living proof. I know many people who produce music for a living (I'm a professional film scoring/media composer as well, using all kinds of gear) and I've never heard any professional babbling how the plugins are inferior and similar stuff. Obsessing over minimal differences, which are impossible to hear most of the time (and these tests prove that 100%) for days, weeks, years is just insane.

For me personally just one thing matters: that the instrument sounds good enough. Be it Diva, Omnisphere or Sylenth, they all sound fantastic and who gives a flying f$#k if it isn't a $5000 30 years old synth? I know that the audience doesn't.

[Ogopogo]

BTW, all snobbery aside, the only people I've ever heard moaning about how 'analogue is better' etc. were the amateurs (or, if you will, 'enthusiasts').

Well, you haven't really been paying attention then. Just see how many popular artists have studios filled with analog synths and other analog gear. They didn't just find it on the curb and they don't just keep using it out of nostalgia. Diva is state of the art too, plugs are just reaching this level of sophistication. The audience doesn't know the difference between a sm58 and a u47 anyway, but that doesn't mean it won't make a difference which one you use.

[Cimbasso]

BTW, all snobbery aside, the only people I've ever heard moaning about how 'analogue is better' etc. were the amateurs (or, if you will, 'enthusiasts').

Well, you haven't really been paying attention then. Just see how many popular artists have studios filled with analog synths and other analog gear. They didn't just find it on the curb and they don't just keep using it out of nostalgia. Diva is state of the art too, plugs are just reaching this level of sophistication. The audience doesn't know the difference between a sm58 and a u47 anyway, but that doesn't mean it won't make a difference which one you use.

I did, and to me it's just the same thing as those gargantuan speakers in the famous engineers' studios - they impress the clients, but in many interviews, most of them (engineers) admitted that they are only there to impress the clients. The real work (95% of it) is done on the nearfields. And walls of synths do look more impressive than some window in your DAW...