Diva Vs. Real Analog

[breakmixer]

Please do. (And it's still half price until the end of January!) Those others are all quality products too, try 'em all!

I only have OP-X Pro II and Alchemy for VA softsynth sounds, I didn't get on with Synthix because of the Layer Locking function and PolyKB II didn't click with me to use(I sold both on), Diva whilst very good is still too powerfull CPU wise for my pc, so it's a no-no atm. But at the minute I'm not working so cannot buy anything, waiting for a start, but I'll demo Poly-Ana(last time it overwhelmed me with all the knobs , but I know a little more now ).

[ghettosynth]

I actually don't give a shit how much high quality hardware costs and if I did I'd purchase the real deal and free myself of all the bullshit softsynths offer me.

You know, as someone who loves the sound of analog, and who has had many many many many, did I say many, analog synths. I think that you don't have all of the right variables in your value equation.

I still have far more hardware synths, and ones that many here would be jealous of and wished that they could have, sitting in a closet going unused.

The reason is that I now live in a small house and my studio is small and integrated into my living room. As a music hobbyist I can't justify the space to integrate all of my analogs into my work environment.

Another cost that you're overlooking is the integration cost. It's very difficult to match the convenience of softsynths in a hardware studio. Even if you are not concerned about the limitation of only using each synth in a single instance, it means cables, input channels, midi-routing or midi-cv converters, or additional dc-coupled ouputs, etc. It is time consuming, I know, I stopped gathering synths when I realized that I was spending way too much time integrating them into my rig. If you're running a professional studio, you can justify it more easily.

Softsynths bring all that routing into the box transparently. It makes participating in a music hobby much easier. They have a value that hardware doesn't have, true they have limitations that hardware doesn't have, but it's hard to deny that the balance makes working with music easier.

Really the soft synth era is a ripoff of the highest order (imo)

As my boss is fond of saying, compared to what?

[breakmixer]

I still have far more hardware synths, and ones that many here would be jealous of and wished that they could have, sitting in a closet going unused.

I'll PM you my address, I'll pay shipping only.

I'll accept..

Jupiter 8
Minimoog
Juno
Prophet 5
Micromoog

etc etc...

BTW +1, even my mate setting up a Roland 303 with my DAW seemed a labourious process, ITB is far easier, I would one day like a real analogue though, that Arturia new one seems a nice price point!

Back to Diva, sorry for OT...

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ghettosynth]

I should add that I think that one of the real strengths of Diva is that the components not only sound reasonably close, but behave reasonably close to their hardware counterparts such that when you're building a patch that you can quickly get what you're looking for based on learned behaviors from the real thing. The look is an important part of this immediacy. The look, sound, and feel allows the familiarity that you've learned subconsciously to be immediately useful.

I've used the MKS-50 with the PG-300 and the JX-10 with the PG-800 for example and playing with the DCO is surprisingly familiar when choosing the waveform. It allows one to get into the mindset of programming those familiar Roland synths.

I'm perhaps not doing it justice here with my mediocre description, but Diva is FAR more immediate for me than many other synths simply because it is amazingly flexible while remaining restricted. It emulates well without copying. You don't choose between serial and parallel multiple filters for example, and there aren't too many knobs on the panel. It allows you to, in the middle of a patch, decide that you want a more Rolandish basic sound but you want the simplicity of an ASR eg. You can change quickly and keep rolling without the synth being any more complicated than a typical poly of the era.

If you've worked with these original synths much at all I think that you'll grok what I'm talking about. If you've just fantasized about working with them then you might believe that you're really missing something important if it doesn't sound exactly the same, but, I don't think that you really are, or, to be more precise, I don't think that it really matters unless you are trying to exactly recreate something that you did in the past. Even then I don't think that anyone but you really cares.

In short, I think that it's a really good idea and that the whole is a LOT more than the sum of the parts. Certainly you can achieve similar sounds with other plugins on the market today, but I don't think can accomplish the mindset switching that I'm talking about so easily with anything else. Even products like Arturia's analog factory et al. don't achieve the feel well and they include full models (to some degree of definition of what constitutes a full model) of the synths in question.

On top of all that, to my ears, it really does sound great.

[pdxindy]

You are right... as far as a financial investment... but I don't buy instruments as an investment, I buy them to make sounds I like for playing music and the software synths I have today blow any hardware I have had out of the water, including my old OB.

Which begs the question why are so many developers and users trying so hard to emulate the hardware synths of yesteryear.?
Isn't that the rough philosophy of what Diva is trying to achieve ?
You know to emulate things that once were but in a purely digital enviroment ?

Its like there's a mindset in the softsynth world where everything must sound phat and analogue in order to be credible when the real credibility most often comes from being original and unique.

I don't think you can make the case that so many users and developers are trying so hard to emulate analog synths. DX-7 was one of the biggest selling synths of all time and it is/was digital. Look at Native Instruments. Absynth, Massive and FM8 are all digital synths and not trying to emulate analog. Spectrasonics Omnisphere is not an analog emulation either. Alchemy and Zebra are digital synths too and not emulations. Look at something like String Studio by AAS and the new Diversion. Those are not at all analog emulations.

[zerocrossing]

I once owned a Prophet 5 and its one of my all time favourate hardware instruments.

Wait... you owned a Prophet 5 (a synth that sold for $3500 in 1980s money currently commands $3000-$4000 on eBay) and you're calling a $179 piece of software "a rich man's toy"?



Also, considering you can barely write, my guess is you can't code at all, or design even the simplest electronic circuit, so why would you think you'd have the right to question how much someone who can makes on their product? I can't design analog synths, or code one either, but I've taken basic classes on each, and let me tell you, coding is not easier and neither task is easy. To get good takes years of learning, practice and trial and error. My guess is the amont of effort to make something like Diva is on par with the design of a hardware synth. The main advantage of the software developer is they don't have to have a manufacturing step. The disadvantages are their hard work often gets pirated and they have to make sure it runs on a giant number of machine/OS/DAW combinations. Not an easy task.

No one's saying you have to buy or like any soft synth, but you you're here in a software forum. May I ask what it is that you do and how much you're paid for it?

[ghettosynth]

I once owned a Prophet 5 and its one of my all time favourate hardware instruments.

Wait... you owned a Prophet 5 (a synth that sold for $3500 in 1980s money currently commands $3000-$4000 on eBay) and you're calling a $179 piece of software "a rich man's toy"?

You do know that they were about $600 or so in the early to mid nineties, right? I'm not necessarily agreeing with aquar, however, there is a difference between a hardware synth and a soft synth in terms of the tangible property that it gives you and this directly translates to different use cases, e.g. I can play a hardware synth live easily.

What I'm saying is, you're making the same mistake that he is comparing the prices of apples to oranges. I read him as saying that he feels that $180 is too much for a software synth, not that $180, or $1800 even is necessarily too much for ANY synth.

I totally think that DIVA is worth the introductory price certainly, but, there are other soft synths that cost much less, which will remain unnamed, that I don't think are worth 1/10 of the price of DIVA. And I dwell on software for a long time before I pay much more than $100 for it, and that's any kind of software. The issues with longevity far trump hardware issues with maintenance.

As I said above, I think that aquar's biggest mistake in valuation is in not valuing how the user interface and overall design influences productivity. But, in any case, it's fair that he compares Diva's features to other soft synths and draw his own conclusions about their relative value.

[zerocrossing]

I once owned a Prophet 5 and its one of my all time favourate hardware instruments.

Wait... you owned a Prophet 5 (a synth that sold for $3500 in 1980s money currently commands $3000-$4000 on eBay) and you're calling a $179 piece of software "a rich man's toy"?

You do know that they were about $600 or so in the early to mid nineties, right? I'm not necessarily agreeing with aquar, however, there is a difference between a hardware synth and a soft synth in terms of the tangible property that it gives you and this directly translates to different use cases, e.g. I can play a hardware synth live easily.

While I agree with you, I don't see anything in your point that counters what I wrote. The mid-90s is not today. If you want that today, you pay today's prices. In the mid-90s there was no such thing as a softsyth like Diva or a personal computer that could run it, so that's your beef, jerky?

I'm just pointing out that with a modest financial outlay one could buy quite a bit more "instrument" ITB than you ever could OTB. Hell, my first windows machine was funded by the sale of a single piece of audio hardware, and the kicker is that a single free VST more than covered the functions of that piece of hardware.

So, as a robberbarron, I just have a hard time relating to the 99%ers who feel that $179 is too much to pay for Diva. Hell, I just lit my cuban cigar with a $500 bill because I like how the orange flame looks against the green with the brown cigar background. That's how I roll. Crap! My monocle just popped out into my Champaign again! Damn it! Urs made me feel bad now for getting in on the early bird special. I should have waited to pay full price so he could eat cake.... or kuchen or what ever the peasants in Deutschland eat these days.

[ghettosynth]

I once owned a Prophet 5 and its one of my all time favourate hardware instruments.

Wait... you owned a Prophet 5 (a synth that sold for $3500 in 1980s money currently commands $3000-$4000 on eBay) and you're calling a $179 piece of software "a rich man's toy"?

You do know that they were about $600 or so in the early to mid nineties, right? I'm not necessarily agreeing with aquar, however, there is a difference between a hardware synth and a soft synth in terms of the tangible property that it gives you and this directly translates to different use cases, e.g. I can play a hardware synth live easily.

While I agree with you, I don't see anything in your point that counters what I wrote. The mid-90s is not today. If you want that today, you pay today's prices. In the mid-90s there was no such thing as a softsyth like Diva or a personal computer that could run it, so that's your beef, jerky?

Right, but, he said that the "had" one, he might have purchased it when the price of a prophet seemed cheap relative to his value. I'm just saying that you can't call him out for being cheap because he's comparing a $180 to a product that is currently $3500. Even with those numbers his other points about investments "may" hold, that is, you are more likely to get all of your money back with a vintage analog purchase than with a soft synth. Granted, there are a lot of holes in that line of reasoning.

I'm just pointing out that with a modest financial outlay one could buy quite a bit more "instrument" ITB than you ever could OTB. Hell, my first windows machine was funded by the sale of a single piece of audio hardware, and the kicker is that a single free VST more than covered the functions of that piece of hardware.

Absolutely, now you're preaching to the choir.

So, as a robberbarron, I just have a hard time relating to the 99%ers who feel that $179 is too much to pay for Diva.

No, that's wrong. This is where you're making the same mistake. It's not about the price of something, it's about the price relative to the value. Aquar is just saying that he thinks that for what you get with Diva, that it's overpriced relative to other synths. From what I've read, and I didn't read the whole thing, he's saying that he's owned analog synths so he knows how close you need to be to satisfy his tastes and he doesn't believe that Diva is close enough. I don't particularly care, I like Urs' products, but not everyone agrees, and that's ok. I think Omnisphere is way overpriced, there's no way in hell I'd pay $500 just for high quality libraries. This just demonstrates that I don't value synth programming as much as I value synth engineering. We all have different skills and tastes.

Hell, I just lit my cuban cigar with a $500 bill because I like how the orange flame looks against the green with the brown cigar background. That's how I roll. Crap! My monocle just popped out into my Champaign again! Damn it! Urs made me feel bad now for getting in on the early bird special. I should have waited to pay full price so he could eat cake.... or kuchen or what ever the peasants in Deutschland eat these days.

Ok, 10 points!

You do know that the early bird special is on purpose though? Don't feel bad, it's symbiotic. It generates cash after an expensive investment period and gets more people actually using the synth seriously which gets more feedback to fix latent defects. Sure, I played with the beta, but I never commit to projects until I've purchased a license. Early bird specials attract early adopters and reward them with a slightly lower price for contributing to the success of the product.

[pdxindy]

What I'm saying is, you're making the same mistake that he is comparing the prices of apples to oranges. I read him as saying that he feels that $180 is too much for a software synth, not that $180, or $1800 even is necessarily too much for ANY synth.

He said softsynths are a rip-off and blamed developers. That is very different than simply saying he does not find it worth his own dollars.

As for a resale value, it does not matter whether I can sell my softsynths in some years. I already lost more on the resale of hardware synths over the years than I will EVER spend on software synths period.

[ghettosynth]

What I'm saying is, you're making the same mistake that he is comparing the prices of apples to oranges. I read him as saying that he feels that $180 is too much for a software synth, not that $180, or $1800 even is necessarily too much for ANY synth.

He said softsynths are a rip-off and blamed developers. That is very different than simply saying he does not find it worth his own dollars.

Well, what exactly is there to say about a statement like that. I didn't read that, so maybe I missed some of the really juicy parts.

As for a resale value, it does not matter whether I can sell my softsynths in some years.

To you. You can't project that onto others.

I already lost more on the resale of hardware synths over the years than I will EVER spend on software synths period.

That might be, but that doesn't invalidate his point. Without looking into the detailed economics of development, soft synths should cost less. Think about it, what's a modern hardware synth? It's a soft synth implemented in custom electronics combined with a computer and controller.

Of course, because it's a niche market you are going to spend more than you would on software for mass markets, perhaps that's what he's not getting.

[Ingonator]

Finally this thread seemed to turn into the same old "analog vs digital" discussion with only few relation to Diva and even fewer sound examples.

Urs was right that a really exact 1:1 comparison of Diva even with it'a hardware counterparts could be misleading. Anyway i had posted a comparison with a Moog Slim Phatty which is not too far from a Minimoog's sound. The differences i found are also based on a special design of the Phatty like the filter overload which i mentioned in my post (which was somewhere at the beginning of this thread). Urs even mentioned they wil maybe have a look at that feature of the Phatty. I had tried to check most of this thread but so far i found no other comparison which was the original sense of this thread i guess.

For those who still don't get it: I am NOT against Diva, i purchased it (at the 1st day where it was possible) and made a bunch of factory sounds for it. My personal result was that Diva maybe lacks a little in the low end in comparison to my Slim Phatty but i am not able to compare it to a real Minimoog for example. I also don't have the other emulated synths so i don't give a comment there. Based on the short time where i had a Jupiter 8 back in 2004 and the audio demos i used for reprogramming some factory sounds i could say that the Jupiter 8 in Diva sounds better than e.g. the Arturia emulation (while Arturia seems to be better in calibration of the parameters).

This is the kind of discussions which was needed (or not) in this thread and not the strange discussions which go on here since a while.

For those who forgot. Here is the important part of the OP:

So the question here is this. Can Diva compete with actual Analog synths? I doubt that VAs will completely replace real Analog within the nexc 10 years or so, but I think Diva is probably up there with some of the good Analog synths on the market right now. Does anyone own an anlog synth like the Evolver, Little/Slim Phatty, Voyager or the like? Have you compared Diva to one of these? My guess is that Diva would hold its own against some of these synths. I don't mean to say that it's necessarily a perfect reproduction of analog sound, but it has its OWN sound that is extremely flexible and as sweet to the ears as some analog synths.

Ingo

[pdxindy]

Even with those numbers his other points about investments "may" hold, that is, you are more likely to get all of your money back with a vintage analog purchase than with a soft synth. Granted, there are a lot of holes in that line of reasoning.

You are more likely to get all of your money back cause you never will with a softsynth. But the amount of money you spend is far higher so all it takes is for something to go wrong and you will lose far more than the softsynth cost.

I really doubt you will get 5 years of daily use out of an already old synth without some mechanical problems that will cost you more than the total cost of the software synth.

[pdxindy]

I already lost more on the resale of hardware synths over the years than I will EVER spend on software synths period.

That might be, but that doesn't invalidate his point.

It is evidence that the assumption he is making that hardware is a better monetary investment may not be a correct assumption.