Daftest synth plugin press release blurb ever?

[aciddose]

Well no, you had it wrong because you took it at face value and believed those saying such things were being both technically accurate and honest, while in reality they are neither.

The most "circuit modeling" software I'm aware of is actually the work by mystran to create a genuine (although greatly simplified and inaccurate) circuit modelling plugin capable of performing genuine circuit modelling in real-time.

His plugin actually takes a schematic and applies component models to actually model the circuit you input. The results are also great, although anyone working with spice on more serious electronic models would likely be horrified, in audio we don't care about all that stuff.

If you input a circuit into mystran's code, it does compute the power supply currents.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 6&t=398728

You can even input a real psu circuit driven from a sine... although currently, unfortunately implementing this fully remains impractical. mystran has said he would like to invest more effort toward this, but he doesn't see it as likely having much of a payoff in the near future.

[Ph-J]

Since when did it become real analog Kullervo?

well i don't know about 'real analog', that would be a oxymoron for a plugin, no ?
But closer to the behavior of some of those old electrical machines ?
As I said above, I'm a complete layman concerning those things, it's just that the idea of modeling the behavior of some of the electrical parts of analog hardware sort of made sense to me.
(or to put it another way I found the sound nice enough to bother reading the claims )

[Ph-J]

Well no, you had it wrong because you took it at face value and believed those saying such things were being both technically accurate and honest, while in reality they are neither.

well, technically accurate, I wouldn't know anyway, honest I obviously believed.
(now I'll have to look into it more to have a definite opinion, if I can be bothered anyway)
I guess I'll have to keep making decisions based on what my ears like & don't like.
(yeah I know you sometimes advocate against it )

mystran has said he would like to invest more effort toward this, but he doesn't see it as likely having much of a payoff in the near future.

that's surprising because it seems to be the current trend (the new Roland or Yamaha hw now also claim to use some form of modeling)
Maybe Apple will buy him if he keeps at it

[aciddose]

Well this is just a misnomer, what they mean is they're using methods that more accurately attempt to emulate the behavior of a circuit. You could call this a "model", but it isn't including individual component models or anything like that in most cases.

What it amounts to is simply having a more complex equation that covers more of the effects than what has been possible in the past. It is no surprise of course that the complexity tracks right along with the power of processors.

If we double or more the power of processors again I wouldn't be surprised to see models like mystran's become entirely practical. Currently it is only really practical to model a simple circuit like a distortion pedal using 100% of a single core, and it must be a powerful core at that, and you must put up with some error and aliasing and other issues.

I don't suggest not to use your ears, only to beware trusting them if you remain ignorant of sources of bias.

I agree that software like diva is a step ahead of the stuff that came before it. I just don't agree that it should be referred to as a "model" If it actually included any sort of component model, that would be very surprising to me.

Since I have the actual circuits available to me, I have absolutely no interest in something like diva.

(uhe has said himself, [paraphrased from memory] "the different filters and other parts in Diva are not circuit models of a specific circuit, they are rather generalized versions which are comparable to something like say a 'ladder filter' vs. the minimoog filter.")

Something like mystran's project however would be very useful as a tool for me to use while working on circuits.

For the average music person without access to such circuits or skills, it would also be a great tool to get a rough idea of what some circuits are capable of first-hand rather than through 15 layers of "chinese whispers".

[Examigan]

Don't they mean VCO -> VCF -> VCA -> ?
(Note "analog" is a term used incorrectly as a synonym for subtractive.)

I found this while googling for "vintage analogue routing"
http://www.oldcrows.net/~oldcrow/synth/tips.txt

"These part numbers are used in large numbers in analog synthesizers as they allow the
routing of analog control signals either by front panel switches
controlling the chips directly or under microprocessor control as is done
in programmable synthesizers."

Maybe that's what they meant?

[aciddose]

Not a chance. What you linked seems to refer to CMOS switches.

I'm 100% certain they mean VCO -> VCF -> VCA.

As opposed to some other configuration such as stereo (unison) VCO or stereo samples -> VCF1 <> VCF2 > A/B or L/R or whatever matrix > waveshaper 1 <> waveshaper 2 > delay -> VCA or something.'

"Vintage analog" means "the way synthesizers used to be typically in the 80s or before" which translates to stuff like the minimoog or in other words VCO -> VCF -> VCA.

[jacqueslacouth]

And here I thought I was about to read a slightly humorous take on advertising blurb. But no, as per normal it degenerates into typical ego clashing wank.

[aciddose]

I have a low tolerance for stupidity.

[camsr]

And here I thought I was about to read a slightly humorous take on advertising blurb. But no, as per normal it degenerates into typical ego clashing wank.

It might have been funny if somebody actually pluged the cable right.

[aciddose]

And here I thought I was about to read a slightly humorous take on advertising blurb. But no, as per normal it degenerates into typical ego clashing wank.

It might have been funny if somebody actually pluged the cable right.

That's what she said.

[Urs]

About the 'ZDF' thing, I don't understand what the general idea is, so I can't comment

While the term has been overused and often abused to exaggerate all sorts of bullshit, it initially started with a nice idea: There are loads of filter algorithms that one can harvest from papers or code snippets on the internet. Many of those may at first glance look like they mimic the signal flow of an analogue circuit. Looking deeper, most of those have a flaw: There's a delay of 1 sample added into the code that is not present in the analogue circuit. This 1 sample delay is usually located in the feedback path. This is utterly common. Virtually 99% of all digital synthesizers have this in their filters.

Nonetheless, one can create filters with out such a delay, and it's been done in abundance lately. By today's standards, having this delay in the feedback path makes a filter's resonance sound shit compared to analogue circuits. Eliminating this delay and thus creating a "zero delay feedback filter" sounds exceptionally more better.

However, even with this knowledge there's plenty of room to f**k the sound up, and there's plenty of people ("experts") who can't (or won't) come to terms with it.

[whyterabbyt]

And here I thought I was about to read a slightly humorous take on advertising blurb. But no, as per normal it degenerates into typical ego clashing wank.

Sorry, I rather naively thought I was starting a thread about slightly humorous takes on advertising blurbs. Outcome shoulda been predictable. Ho hum.

[toothnclaw]

<...>There's a delay of 1 sample added into the code that is not present in the analogue circuit. This 1 sample delay is usually located in the feedback path. This is utterly common. Virtually 99% of all digital synthesizers have this in their filters.

<...> By today's standards, having this delay in the feedback path makes a filter's resonance sound shit compared to analogue circuits. Eliminating this delay and thus creating a "zero delay feedback filter" sounds exceptionally more better.

Sorry, I don't understand why? Is 1 sample delay even perceptible? Do you mean to say that all digital filters' resonance (even hardware) sounds shit?

[V0RT3X]

*edit* im just gonna stay out of this.

*gets popcorn out*

[Urs]

Sorry, I don't understand why? Is 1 sample even perceptible?

Because it's a feedback loop. The error accumulates over time. The result is a perceptible difference in how filters with resonance sound, especially when you sweep them. Synths with such filters don't necessarily sound bad. They just won't sound like they have analogue filters.