u-he

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:35 pm

BMoore wrote:
Urs wrote:
deltaMACHINE wrote:Diva is good but not the King of Soft Synths
"Diva" means Goddess, not Queen

That said, we are constantly improving her and we're very proud that the majority of people - unlike chilly7 - liked Diva better in the example video. Some comments suggest that we rest on our laurels. That's not true. Please don't confuse a single statement on the internet as an ultimate fact.

However, as chilly7 does not own any of our software and thus isn't familiar with any of it, we wish to reserve our time to discuss such details for those who do.
The premise of that video wasn't "better", but which is which.
So if Diva sounds "better" that a analog synth, does it really sound analog?

Well, the OP turned the premise into a question of "better" or "worse", like many others who imply that "analogue" equals "better". If in turn a digitally generated sound exists that is commonly perceived as better than analogue, I don't mind if it doesn't "really sound analogue".

BMoore · Post by **BMoore** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 6:49 pm

Urs wrote:
BMoore wrote:
Urs wrote:
deltaMACHINE wrote:Diva is good but not the King of Soft Synths
"Diva" means Goddess, not Queen

That said, we are constantly improving her and we're very proud that the majority of people - unlike chilly7 - liked Diva better in the example video. Some comments suggest that we rest on our laurels. That's not true. Please don't confuse a single statement on the internet as an ultimate fact.

However, as chilly7 does not own any of our software and thus isn't familiar with any of it, we wish to reserve our time to discuss such details for those who do.
The premise of that video wasn't "better", but which is which.
So if Diva sounds "better" that a analog synth, does it really sound analog?
Well, the OP turned the premise into a question of "better" or "worse", like many others who imply that "analogue" equals "better". If in turn a digitally generated sound exists that is commonly perceived as better than analogue, I don't mind if it doesn't "really sound analogue".

There are lots of soft synths that could sound "better" than analog. Thats not the real test, is it?!

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:03 pm

BMoore wrote: There are lots of soft synths that could sound "better" than analog. Thats not the real test, is it?!

There's not much use in these tests anyway, as exciting as they can be.

The point is, many people found synth A to sound better in this test and thus voted for A to be the analogue synth. Some of those people have deep knowledge of analogue sound (as can be seen on Gearslutz, where the everyone's vote was revealed).

I personally have moved on. I'm not interested in "nailing" analogue sound. I'm interested in making synthesizers that sound great. We never made a secret about this, we always said that we had vintage synthesizers to compare Diva to and we tweaked her to sound better for our taste than those.

I also don't really think this is relevant. The sonic differences are very subtle, often beyond perception. In addition, there are sonic properties of analogue synths that are not desirable, e.g. such that people would perceive them as bugs. With this in mind it's impossible to create a successful software product that sounds absolutely analogue - it would truely disappoint.

core · Post by **core** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:13 pm

Urs wrote:I'm interested in making synthesizers that sound great. We never made a secret about this, we always said that we had vintage synthesizers to compare Diva to and we tweaked her to sound better for our taste than those.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:20 pm

Urs wrote:
deltaMACHINE wrote:Suppress opinion isn't fair in my eyes.
We don't suppress opinions, not at all. But if you check our forum, chilly7 has a history of "demanding" things from us and spinning off discussions that have no real value for us or our customers. Hence the reaction of some people here.

He's like that on all the forums regardless of developer.

braj · Post by **braj** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:23 pm

Urs wrote: In addition, there are sonic properties of analogue synths that are not desirable, e.g. such that people would perceive them as bugs.

Like constantly drifting out of tune

Gonga · Post by **Gonga** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:58 pm

I've been playing synths since, I think, 1977 or something like that....and my U-He synths are the best I've ever played. They are more powerful, and sound better, than any of my hardware analog synths. And they're much more reliable. Oh, and much cheaper, especially when you factor in repair costs

I remember my Oberheim FVS often cost over $1,000 US per cranky tantrum, and that was 1980 money.

And I could never get the damn thing working quite right. One sound module sounded so different from the others that it got just plain weird after a while

murnau · Post by **murnau** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:04 pm

Change a word and suddenly everything makes perfect sense: "I was pretty disappointed to Diva"

BMoore · Post by **BMoore** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:26 pm

Urs wrote:
BMoore wrote: There are lots of soft synths that could sound "better" than analog. Thats not the real test, is it?!
There's not much use in these tests anyway, as exciting as they can be.
I agree. They're not even exciting.

The point is, many people found synth A to sound better in this test and thus voted for A to be the analogue synth. Some of those people have deep knowledge of analogue sound (as can be seen on Gearslutz, where the everyone's vote was revealed).
But regardless of perception or deep knowledge, it's the analog synth in that test that sounds analog. Not Diva.

I personally have moved on. I'm not interested in "nailing" analogue sound. I'm interested in making synthesizers that sound great. We never made a secret about this, we always said that we had vintage synthesizers to compare Diva to and we tweaked her to sound better for our taste than those.
Well, then you should change up your marketing for Diva, as your homepage reads "authentic, unrivaled analogue sound", and "what sets DIVA apart is the sheer authenticity of the analogue sound."
Even in this thread people are jizzing their pant on how analog it sounds. So they're wrong too.
Maybe "Just better" would fit today.

I also don't really think this is relevant. The sonic differences are very subtle, often beyond perception. In addition, there are sonic properties of analogue synths that are not desirable, e.g. such that people would perceive them as bugs. With this in mind it's impossible to create a successful software product that sounds absolutely analogue - it would truely disappoint.
Anything that makes the "magical" analog sound of a synth should be considered, if authentic analog is the goal. But you and Diva has moved on, so great. Diva doesn't sound analog.

BMoore · Post by **BMoore** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:29 pm

Sorry for the lame multi answer format. Blame Apple.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 8:31 pm

As if you couldn't edit the QUOTE tags manually, tsk

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:16 pm

BMoore wrote:Sorry for the lame multi answer format. Blame Apple.

No worries. I'm also too lazy to disentangle your post...

Tongue in cheek: It's got an unrivaled analogue sound not just in software but also in analogue

Now, before we split hairs and all that stuff, let's figure this out. So we took some things that only analogue synths did back then and digital synths pretty much didn't. But we also left some "bad stuff" away that analogue synths do and we kept some stuff that digital synths are good at. This still, at that time, made Diva sound more analogue than any digital synth I knew. I also think that not much came after that was a better emulation, let alone a more comprehensive one. After all, we wouldn't have these discussions if suddenly the world had become crowded with great analogue emulations.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Wed Sep 30, 2015 10:32 pm

EvilDragon wrote:As if you couldn't edit the QUOTE tags manually, tsk

He mainly likes to attack things... but in this case in a lazy way

sqigls · Post by **sqigls** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:24 am

lock this silly thread PLEASE

goldenanalog · Post by **goldenanalog** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:46 am

Urs (edited) wrote:...We took some things that only analogue synths did back then - and digital synths pretty much didn't. But we also left some "bad stuff" out that analogue synths do; and we kept some stuff in, that digital synths are good at. This still, at that time, made Diva sound more analogue than any digital synth I knew. I also think that not much came after that, that was a better emulation - let alone, a more comprehensive one. After all: We wouldn't be having these discussions if suddenly the world had become crowded with great analogue emulations.

We are currently living through a (fascinating) renaissance of actual analog synths being built that are also affordable - so vsti's like DIVA can be directly compared to not just the classics, but contemporary analog synths as well.

u-he

KVR Audio

I was pretty disappointed in Diva