New DIVA components

[Nokenoku]

Hmmmm ...
Yeah, for certain things the "wrong" way with 1df might actually sound better than 0df.
You can get that behaviour by putting the quality settings of DIVA on "draft", right?

Edit:
Just tested this on those bass-sounds I made.
For the MS-20 filter I might actually prefer "draft" quality, while with the Uhbie filter I tend to like higher quality settings more (tested with "devine").

After all, it's good to have that option.

[spacecult]

I wouldn't mind if lfo's had a one cycle option so they could function as envelopes... with the default waveforms and rate mod they can create lots of shapes. That would not add anything to the gui but give some extra flexibility

Did you read "LFO as ramp generator" in the Diva Manual (looked it up to be sure, page 36 of newest manual version that I have)? Basically set rate all the way down and use delay to control it.


This doesn't work for you?

(And for etc. and extra stuff, you can insert super fast transient into beginning of an envelope by using saw down lfo in this way with small delay setting * envelope. Super drumz or clicky plux! And not have to blow your other envelope. So with shaping by mods you kind of do have functionality of extra envelope stages, even. Or, add a brief hold time, which some people regard as 'punchy'. And, etc.)

[Blue-eyed Blonde Ape]

Hmmmm ...
You can get that behaviour by putting the quality settings of DIVA on "draft", right?

Yes, as you've already figured it out .

[LFO8]

Next up is the CS-80 Whohoooooo!!

I for one would LOVE that. I don't have the Arturia stuff anymore because U-he sound is superior, but have always loved the CS-80 sound.

Would love to hear U-he do it.

[Nokenoku]

I agree.
I think I even voted for the CS-80.

[Blue-eyed Blonde Ape]

since now diva has a jp8xxx, acid filter would be the icing on the cake hahah
Though, I've always loved prophet 5 very much
Patrick Cowley FTW!

[fmr]

Someone please remind me what the Prophet V2 brings new to the table, considering what's already there.

I still think that an emulation of the CEM3320 Filter chip (multi), preferably with the configuration used in the Oberheim Xpander/Matrix-12, would be a great addition. This is the same chip used in the Synthex, another highly rated synth.

That and perhaps a modification of the Osc modules (or a new module, eventually based on the Yamaha CS-80) that allow us to select more than one waveform at the same time.

[Breeze]

Actually, with all this talk of other synths, seems to me the Uhbie isn't finished yet: one of the most distinguishing features of the ob series is the oscillators. Is a complete "Uhbie", along with envelopes, in the cards?

[Urs]

Actually, with all this talk of other synths, seems to me the Uhbie isn't finished yet: one of the most distinguishing features of the ob series is the oscillators. Is a complete "Uhbie", along with envelopes, in the cards?

Well, the OB-X' VCO section doesn't exceed the Dual VCO in features, nor does it sound vastly different. The main difference are individual trimpots for tuning, and those have been in Diva since the beginning. The same can be said about the envelopes.

I think that spending time on this would only benefit our non-existant marketing department ("now with full emulation of…" ), while the musical benefit would be in doubt. I even think that the extra choice would cause an unnecessary distraction.

[Urs]

Someone please remind me what the Prophet V2 brings new to the table, considering what's already there.

The sound of the filter is remarkable (judging from the analogue replica in our Eurorack modular)

That said, I'm not sure if any further OTA cascade filter would bring too much new stuff. I think we should consider modifications to the current setup, such as an overload circuit for the transistor ladder or a multi-input choice for the Bite filter (turning it into a Steiner-Parker-filter as in Synthacon and Minibrute). I could even imagine that a bit of recalibration could turn the OTA cascade into something similar to a filter based on a CEM 3320 or even a SSM 2040. The outside circuitry is pretty much all the same, there's just different levels and parameter choices.

The only filter type that is really missing is a diode based filter. That would be my preferred choice for an addition, either in the form of a diode-based Sallen-Key/Steiner-Parker or an EMS/Roland-style ladder.

- Urs

[fmr]

Well, the OB-X' VCO section doesn't exceed the Dual VCO in features, nor does it sound vastly different. The main difference are individual trimpots for tuning, and those have been in Diva since the beginning. The same can be said about the envelopes.

I think that spending time on this would only benefit our non-existant marketing department ("now with full emulation of…" ), while the musical benefit would be in doubt. I even think that the extra choice would cause an unnecessary distraction.

The VCO section of the SEM allows to select both the Pulse and the Saw waves at the same time. the VCO section of the CS-80 is even more flexible. But you can, of course, allow for multiple selection in the Dual VCO, and that will do the trick (at least for me, I am no fanatic that goes around with an oscilloscope to analyze the waveforms produced by any synth on the planet).

[Urs]

But you can, of course, allow for multiple selection in the Dual VCO, and that will do the trick

That should be possible, or am I missing something? (Dual VCO, not Dual VCO eco)

[Aiynzahev]

Urs could you please shed some light on the snappy envelope issue?

I would like:

You to shed some light on why we might be perceiving Diva as slow or sluggish compared to other synths (even analog ones). For example Monark seems to have a much tighter response and is ideal for all things fast and clicky like percussion.

I would also like to know what you think some work arounds may be, we have already been discussing this here. For example the simplest envelope type seems to give the most responsive sound, digital seems to me the be the slower of the three. And using multiply on the envelope and using the envelope to modify the volume seems to give a snappier sound.

If you think the problem is actually a limitation in Diva (in other words, it's real) is it possible to change it and give us a much faster response? Or are we talking about limitations in the way Diva works fundamentally that makes it impossible?

I find that my idea is the fat rich sound of older synths but with fast percussive attack transients that make it easier to work with for modern music, especially dance music. Every analog synth I've used has had a pretty good attack, but I've mostly used modern ones. So in order for Diva to truly replace analog synths in my studio it would need to behave like them in terms of attack time as well. I am just an example of some potential customers is all I am saying.

Thanks

[Urs]

Well, we timed the envelopes of our vintage synths and used that as a base. Hence I'm quite unsure what it is everyone is talking about. We replicated them as closely as we possibly could.

I think that anyone missing "snap" would be highly disappointed by our analogue synths

The only thing I would consider doing is to shorten the Attack phase of the Minimoog emulation. We know that our minimum is maybe a millisecond or so longer than the possible minimum of a Minimoog envelope. But then, this is how ours sounds...

[Aiynzahev]

Ok, thanks for the info!