Gforce Oddity2

[Dasheesh]

Hey is that just the IOS device or is it all their software. I haven't played with anything arturia since 2008.

[david.beholder]

Then neither Diva nor Monark are emulations too, because they don't output the same result.

Diva - Urs has stated it quite a few times - never intended to be emulation. Altho it blows Arturia crapmulation out of water in terms of Oscillators and Ladder Filter behavior.
Monark is opposite. It's actually good emulation of Minimoog

See that's the point you're getting wrong. It's not about good or bad, it's about emulating, and the Arturia synths do that, no matter if you like it or not. We could discuss all day here, but the result stays the same.

Oh c'mon - emulations could be bad, good and perfect very like with proccessor emulation. It's quite easy to draw the line basing on input/outpout. So Monark is good emulation.

No Arturia is not emulation in that terms.

And I'm sorry it doesn't look like discussion more like I'm explaining you what is emulation.

[david.beholder]

Good, that is the point, where to draw the line between a good and a bad emulation. One has to draw that line somewhere. I mean, just think of those Manx emulations...

If you look at my explainations to chk071 it's easy to find criteria where to draw a line and what should be called emulation and what's not.

Proper adjustable PWM and/or adjustable Pulsewidth is not possible using simple samples, except if you use a wavezable with smooth interpolation. Anyway using a PWm wavetable usually seems to sound different to what you get from PWM in those plugins.

This statement is wrong. There are at least two ways to do pwm with wavetables
1. Take 50 samples from 50% to 1% and use floor on pwm
2. Take 1 sample but invert (against x) it at pwm point

[chk071]

Then neither Diva nor Monark are emulations too, because they don't output the same result.

Diva - Urs has stated it quite a few times - never intended to be emulation. Altho it blows Arturia crapmulation out of water in terms of Oscillators and Ladder Filter behavior.
Monark is opposite. It's actually good emulation of Minimoog

See that's the point you're getting wrong. It's not about good or bad, it's about emulating, and the Arturia synths do that, no matter if you like it or not. We could discuss all day here, but the result stays the same.

Oh c'mon - emulations could be bad, good and perfect very like with proccessor emulation. It's quite easy to draw the line basing on input/outpout. So Monark is good emulation.

No Arturia is not emulation in that terms.

And I'm sorry it doesn't look like discussion more like I'm explaining you what is emulation.

I give up. "A car is not a car when it drives badly."

[david.beholder]

I give up. "A car is not a car when it drives badly."

Right. A car is not a car when it's wheelchair.

Btw, prepare some arguments next time "it's a fact" and "you're wrong" are only good with some actual statements, expressios or logic conclusions.

[chk071]

Mhm, yeah. Only that your argument was, and still is "it's no emulation because it sounds bad". At least i tried to explain why an emulation is an emulation, and didn't totally resort to emotional hocus pocus. Just unfortunate that you simply won't, or are not willing to understand what i mean.

[Examigan]

Almost all modern software synths are using single cycle samples as oscillators mapped across the frequency spectrum. It's that shiny new sound made famous by sylenth that sold so well. It's unofficially called "cpu optimization". It's also why most software synths won't modulate at audio rates. It's the worst and most annoying part about software... cpu optimization. The filter is all we got left. The matrix 12 and SEM is probably a newer filter but the same filter.

You could hacve a look at this website concerning arturia oscillators:
https://www.arturia.com/products/ipad-s ... /tae%C2%AE

Quote:

One of the main reasons is that they are "free-running"; i.e., they are not sampled, wavetable-based or generated from a 0-point when a note is played. Each waveform is generated dynamically, which is more consistent with the way the original devices worked and with the laws of physics. Thus our oscillators avoid one of the major tell-tale signs of digital waveform generation and provide that level of "liveness" found in the classic analog synthesizers of the past.

Of course the Prophet VS plugin uses single cyces like the real thing.

Proper adjustable PWM and/or adjustable Pulsewidth is not possible using simple samples, except if you use a wavezable with smooth interpolation. Anyway using a PWm wavetable usually seems to sound different to what you get from PWM in those plugins.

Another example:
"Diversion offers 4 oscillators with a wide range of different waveforms with a near to zero level of aliasing. The oscillators generate sounds in real-time by using our algorithms, which don't degrade the sound quality at high frequencies."

[david.beholder]

At least i tried to explain why an emulation is an emulation,

Just unfortunate that you simply won't, or are not willing to understand what i mean.

So I read what you mean, disagreed, showed you an example from other area where word emulation is used.
Showed you ways of determining emulation and qualities/metrics of it.
Answered your comments about Diva and Monarch, showed you definition of what is quality of emulation.
And how it's different form no emulation at all.

and didn't totally resort to emotional hocus pocus.

Right,
Commenting on definition of emulation, definition of quality of emulation is emotinal hocus pocus.
Repeating "I don't hear you hater, Arturia plugins are emulations" is not.

[whyterabbyt]

So I read what you mean, disagreed, showed you an example from other area where word emulation is used.
Showed you ways of determining emulation and qualities/metrics of it.

Looks more like you gave one single example (one that's technically more about transliteration than anything pertaining to the kind of physical-world simulation that would be relevant here), and no metrics or 'ways of determining' whatsoever.

showed you definition of what is quality of emulation.

No, you didnt actually.

[david.beholder]

So I read what you mean, disagreed, showed you an example from other area where word emulation is used.
Showed you ways of determining emulation and qualities/metrics of it.

Looks more like you gave one single example (one that's technically more about transliteration than anything pertaining to the kind of physical-world simulation that would be relevant here), and no metrics or 'ways of determining' whatsoever.

I actaully did, you just not looking careful enough. Repeating.
In microprocessors processor 1 (or sw on it) is emulating processor 2 when giving similar input i.e. assembly instructions sequence for processor 2 would give same/similar/adequate output on processor 1. So there are relation between input and output that should be consistent for emulation.

This idea could be applied to synths with some adjustments due to physical nature of original synths and the nature of comparison. And I could elaborate more on boundaries and comparison here.

I'm open to additional questions or to discussion with person who is able to carry it on.

showed you definition of what is quality of emulation.

No, you didnt actually.

Quality of emulation: perfect, good, bad and no result.
Prefect emulation is always giving proper result.
Good emulation is often of the time giving proper result.
Bad emulation is when it's sometimes giving proper result.
No emulation is obvious.

[whyterabbyt]

So I read what you mean, disagreed, showed you an example from other area where word emulation is used.
Showed you ways of determining emulation and qualities/metrics of it.

Looks more like you gave one single example (one that's technically more about transliteration than anything pertaining to the kind of physical-world simulation that would be relevant here), and no metrics or 'ways of determining' whatsoever.

I actaully did, you just not looking careful enough. Repeating.

You actually didnt, because a metric requires quantification.

In microprocessors processor 1 (or sw on it) is emulating processor 2 when giving similar input i.e. assembly instructions sequence for processor 2 would give same/similar/adequate output on processor 1. So there are relation between input and output that should be consistent for emulation.

Exactly what I said. One single example, with no metric or 'way of determining'. Saying 'they should give similar output' isnt a metric. Go and find out what a metric actually is.
And 'if they give similar output' isnt actually any definition of a way of determining anything because you dont adequately define 'similar' or 'adequate'.

All you're doing here is saying 'its a blahblah if it has woohoo' without defining either term adequately. That's barely an example, and its certainly not got even a hint of 'metric' about it.

And I could elaborate more on boundaries and comparison here.

Of course you could, its always possible to elaborate more than providing nothing of any actual use.

Quality of emulation: perfect, good, bad and no result.
Prefect emulation is always giving proper result.
Good emulation is often of the time giving proper result.
Bad emulation is when it's sometimes giving proper result.
No emulation is obvious.

Without adequate definitions of 'perfect', 'often', and 'sometimes' (you know, with universally agreed metrics, to quantify them) the only one of those which is even vaguely not completely useless is the last one.

[david.beholder]

You actually didnt, because a metric requires quantification.

I actually did because I provided definitions and path to/criteria of measurement. Metric doesn't require any numbers - it's just a concept. And when people are talking about concepts they are "agree on concept, let's proceed", "disagree on concept, let's discuss". You're none of above. Sapienti Sat

Of course you could, its always possible to elaborate more than providing nothing of any actual use.

I see you also have no objections to the idea in general and more like 'well you're using imperfect terms, no exactl numbers etc'. And I'm trying to point you to

This idea could be applied to synths with some adjustments due to physical nature of original synths and the nature of comparison. And I could elaborate more on boundaries and comparison here. I'm open to additional questions or to discussion with person who is able to carry it on.

I don't like your "chaaaaarge" mode.

Without adequate definitions of 'perfect', 'often', and 'sometimes' (you know, with universally agreed metrics, to quantify them) the only one of those which is even vaguely not completely useless is the last one.

Well you're wrong "Perfect emulation" is perfectly defined there. "Often" and "sometimes" are very easy to define, don't you see. So you don't have actual disagreement or agreement here, you're more like "OMG there is no number, but losely defined word". Well it's on purpose there. Don't you see?

[ariston]

Awright, to settle this learnèd dispute once and for all: here's a guy trying to emulate a guinea pig. It might not be perfect, but it's still an emulation if there ever was one.

[whyterabbyt]

You actually didnt, because a metric requires quantification.

I actually did because I provided definitions and path to/criteria of measurement.

No, you didnt. You merely said something about 'consistent' and 'same/similar/adequate', neither of which thngs actually 'provided definitions' or 'path to/criteria of measurement'.

I see you also have no objections to the idea in general and more like 'well you're using imperfect terms, no exactl numbers etc'. And I'm trying to point you to

You made a claim, and you've failed to justify it. What you're retrospectively painting around it doesnt change what that was.

I don't like your "chaaaaarge" mode.

I dont give a toss what you do or dont like.

Well you're wrong "Perfect emulation" is perfectly defined there.

No, I disagree. But go ahead and state what the 'perfect' digital emulation of all instances of an analog device, entails, given that's the specific thing we're talking about here. That's of a set of analog devices which intrinsically will have variance from each other.
A simple description of how you'll test, absolutely, for that perfection would be useful.

"Often" and "sometimes" are very easy to define, don't you see.

No. I disagree.

So you don't have actual disagreement or agreement here

Yes I do. With the original assertion I addressed, and subsequent assertions you've made making in support of it.

you're more like "OMG there is no number, but losely defined word". Well it's on purpose there. Don't you see?

I have no idea what you think you mean here.

[david.beholder]

You actually didnt, because a metric requires quantification.

I actually did because I provided definitions and path to/criteria of measurement.

No, you didnt. You merely said something about 'consistent' and 'same/similar/adequate', neither of which thngs actually 'provided definitions' or 'path to/criteria of measurement'.

Yes I did. Please reread once again and quote what exactly is not "definition" or "criteria".

I see you also have no objections to the idea in general and more like 'well you're using imperfect terms, no exactl numbers etc'. And I'm trying to point you to

You made a claim, and you've failed to justify it. What you're retrospectively painting around it doesnt change what that was.

Your in circle here. Please be constructive.

I don't like your "chaaaaarge" mode.

I dont give a toss what you do or dont like.

I really love the way you're showing off.

Well you're wrong "Perfect emulation" is perfectly defined there.

No, I disagree.

OH FINALLY something constructive.

But go ahead and state what the 'perfect' digital emulation of all instances of an analog device, entails, given that's the specific thing we're talking about here. That's of a set of analog devices which intrinsically will have variance from each other.
A simple description of how you'll test, absolutely, for that perfection would be useful.

Selection in bold is what you've said.

This idea could be applied to synths with some adjustments due to physical nature of original synths and the nature of comparison. And I could elaborate more on boundaries and comparison here.

That's what I've said.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was mentioning that comparison would be different because/in boundaries/with error because they are analog and always have differences.

"Often" and "sometimes" are very easy to define, don't you see.

No. I disagree.

Very interesting explanations.

So you don't have actual disagreement or agreement here

Yes I do. With the original assertion I addressed, and subsequent assertions you've made making in support of it. [/quote]
I don't see your explanation on what would prevent me to define often and sometimes. Especially after there would agreement on measurements.

By the way my main point is still:

In microprocessors processor 1 (or sw on it) is emulating processor 2 when giving similar input i.e. assembly instructions sequence for processor 2 would give same/similar/adequate output on processor 1. So there are relation between input and output that should be consistent for emulation.

I see no comments about most important part, only some notes on wordings still.