Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[IncarnateX]

For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)

Good luck "proving" that one. Especially since the OP never said anything about which one was sounding better. First it was asked whether you could guess the difference, thus presuming you could not hear any and had to guess. Later it was edited to whether you could tell the difference. In both cases, no one were asked to judge which one is better, so if analogue wanted to make a bias in that direction, he couldn't have made a worse job.

And for the record: Any test with only one trial and two options cannot be used to judge any individual performance since at hit could be due to pure chance and that goes both for this test and the xhip/diva test.

Besides even if there was a sufficient amount of randomized options, you would spoil the scientific part of it the same moment you distribute the test in public so the responses can be seen by everyone and accumulate a bias for further answers.

[Mutant]

Dwl.. clearly.. I see Mutant is still at it, some, is it two weeks later?
rsp

"It" ?
The saw shape thing was solved a week ago.

Am i not allowed to post kinda on topic here ?
The topic is Diva vs some other synth and a (flawed) test to see if we can tell which is which.
Am i not allowed to state the truth that a for a real test, the one that makes the test should not be biased, because even unconsciously he will design it in a way that will get him a result that will prove something he believes ?

[Mutant]

For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)

Good luck "proving" that one.

I don't need to prove it.
Read the wiki page i linked and think for a minute or two: for what reason(s) could the OP be biased in this test.

[chk071]

Well, it's obvious that you are biased when you want to market your soundset, which is supposed to sound similar to the analog synth it's modelled on. Is there even such a thing as an unbiased test? I mean, considering you have to artificially add noise to the signal means that you're trying hard to make the soft synth sound like the analog counterpart. Which is kinda contrary to an unbiased test, for which you'd compare the raw sound with similar settings. In the end, you'd always end up trying to match the one of the other. And that'd mostly be matching the soft synth to the analog synth, which is kind of the whole point.

[Mutant]

And for the record: Any test with only one trial and two options cannot be used to judge any individual performance since at hit could be due to pure chance and that goes both for this test and the xhip/diva test.

My test (which was not a real test) was not to measure the performance (which is better) of the 2 synths, but closeness of the sounds.

The closer the sounds are, the fewer people will be able to tell which is Diva and which is Xhip.

The more different the sounds are, the more people will be able to spot characteristic nuances of the 2 synths and correctly tell which is which.

So it more about closeness to 50%/50% than if more people got it wrong or right.

[Mutant]

Well, it's obvious that you are biased when you want to market your soundset, which is supposed to sound similar to the analog synth it's modelled on. Is there even such a thing as an unbiased test? I mean, considering you have to artificially add noise to the signal means that you're trying hard to make the soft synth sound like the analog counterpart. Which is kinda contrary to an unbiased test, for which you'd compare the raw sound with similar settings. In the end, you'd always end up trying to match the one of the other. And that'd mostly be matching the soft synth to the analog synth, which is kind of the whole point.

I am happy there is someone here who understands what i am saying.

[IncarnateX]

In this case it is so simply that you obviously fail to see it. If there was a bias it was a bias presuming that you you cannot hear the difference, not that A sounds better than B, which was Mutant's assertion

[Mutant]

fail to see it

[Hanz Meyzer]

Hm, I really don't believe this hype. what I can hear is that synth A uses slightly more analog detuning / individual osc detuning than synth B.

The detuning on B sounds kind of predictable or the oscs each de tune somehow dependant. This could either mean that the author missed here to use the same setting, or caused by the electronical osc structure in the hardware synth, or because urs did program it in this way (which I doubt).... Or a chorus was used here instead.

That's why A sounds better. It's shimmering, very beautifully.

[IncarnateX]

fail to see it

Oh. You have already forgot your claim. Then let me kindly remind you:

For obvious reasons A was MADE to sound better while still close to B (possibly unconsciously, but probably not)

Lets us test it. Is the claimed bias that the two examples sound alike or that A was made to sound better than B?

Go figure!

[penguinfromdeep]

Hm, I really don't believe this hype. what I can hear is that synth A uses slightly more analog detuning / individual osc detuning than synth B.

The detuning on B sounds kind of predictable or the oscs each de tune somehow dependant. This could either mean that the author missed here to use the same setting, or caused by the electronical osc structure in the hardware synth, or because urs did program it in this way (which I doubt).... Or a chorus was used here instead.

Yeah I can definitely hear that too or something similar, I noticed it immediately but couldn't really put my finger on it what was it

[trimph1]

So. Did the great conspiracy get proven? Yet?

[IncarnateX]

So it more about closeness to 50%/50% than if more people got it wrong or right.

What can I possible say that "don't apply for College". Your notions of science and statistics are beyond any sensible level and will not help you get accepted.

However, no matter what I say, I already know that you cannot be convinced. Here is a well known and widely accepted theory about why facts cannot beat beliefs. We know it from the case of Jehovah’s witnesses:

"No major Christian sectarian movement has been so insistent on prophesying the end of the present world in such definite ways or on such specific dates as have Jehovah's Witnesses (….). During the early years of their history, they consistently looked to specific dates-1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and others-as having definite eschatological significance...When these prophecies failed, they had to be reinterpreted, spiritualized, or, in some cases, ultimately abandoned. This did not deter Russell or his followers from setting new dates, however, or from simply proclaiming that the end of this world or system of things was no more than a few years or perhaps even months away."

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/cogni ... onance.php

According to Leon Festinger’s Theory (1965) it is all about reducing so called “cognitive dissonance”, that is the psychological discomfort that arises from belief-threatening information by virtue of several forms of defences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Here is a beautiful quote that can be applied universally and not at least signifies why there are no such thing as “winning” an internet-debate:

(….) man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

Last part sounds familiar?

So by all means, continue your accusations, Mutant. What prick am I to deny you reduction of the discomfort from cognitive dissonance?

[Mutant]

So by all means, continue your accusations, Mutant. What prick am I to deny you reduction of the discomfort from cognitive dissonance?

Dude you have absolutely no idea what i am talking about lol.
Admit you did not read that wiki page about double blind test i linked.
And these are not accusations but widely known facts - the researchers beliefs and convictions will influence the end result if the test is not double blind.
I accuse the OP of being a human, not some immune to bias, perfect being from outer space.
Read what chk071 wrote if you need it in different words.

[beely]

This all reminds me of the many thousands of "photographers' who don't take pictures and instead spend all their time doing focus tests and lens calibrations - "measurebators" they are known as.

The comparisons are interesting up to a point, but I think the point has been made many times. For me, it's about whether an instrument can produce good and inspiring sounds to make music with - no matter whether it's a Roland Jupiter8 or a Casio VL-Tone. It's not important to me that instrument X sounds 2% "better" (subjective) than instrument Y, and I think some people get lost in this too much.