Posts by tonstudio96

    Yes, it's amazing what a difference there is between the USB and the analog outs.

    Could you describe the differences? The digital <udio from USB should be the same, except the effects introduced by the internal DA-stages. This finally means, you compare the virus's DAC to another one you used to listen to the digital data. (WHICH?)

    The piano's hardware is pretty complex and cannot be modelled with common synth's architectures. Think only of the interaction of the strings within a triple string group especially when played in sostenuto mode. You will have to apply energy interchange effects. I did an approach using specialized equations in own DSP System taking such effects into account. The problem is the processing power and the money such a system would cost.

    I am working on USB 3.0 (not Audio related) and have low knowledge about MAC's Hardware but what I would say that this should not be a problem of the hardware layer.

    Anyway I was interesting to know if you have any similar difficulties with your USB running different devices? USB 3.0 is very vulnerable regarding bad cables for instance.

    Wow, today one needs an attorney and special FBI agents among the personal friends just in order to like a musical instrument safely.

    Seriously, what do you expect from facebook? This is no private university network anymore as it used to be, but a company with economic interests. Their shares are out and trade at stock already, aren't they? I see no need to inform a private US company about my likes and my business, like many "modern" people obviously do, when they show interest for new goods, material and even start negotiations about business activity and freelancer projects as I have seen recently. If they want to make money by trading based on such information, they have to search for it themselves.

    it would not sound nearly as good as the TI sounds..

    Hm, if the software stays the same, it should be right. Basically it is only a matter of calculation power, whereby it might be an enourmous work to change a DSP software to optimized Intel or MAC code. I recently did that for a radar app moving the firmware of formerly used 8 ADSPs to on INTEL core running on a VPX. Works perfect.

    Theoretically you could run every music software on a large PC and with current 64Bit OS they should have also enough speed for that, but I doubt if it makes sence to do so. CPUs for PCs and also their hardware (especially RAM) is not really optimized for signal processing and most probably will never be. PC based apps are usually low cost versions in comparison to dedicated DSP hardware. Also even with 64Bit MCUs current PC music platforms seem to be busy already processing the host app :-)

    If synthesizers had more demand to operate in parallel, GPU usage was another idea, but as I found with another recent project, the GPU also becomes quickly expensive too or you have to add an extra device of it, if you want to have relevant power.

    I could imagine running more SynthSoftware on anonymous DSP hardware inside PCs, since PCI offers much better integration and a higher data speed interface than accessing outboard. On the other hand, USB 3.0 has all to quickly interlink any hadware to your music host PC.
    I guess a soft synth won't be much cheaper anyway (as long as you pay for it and do not use cracked sw), and if you add a good midi controller and ADC/DAC hardware and the 30% price of the PC the softsynth occupies, you almost have the price of a hw synth.

    This sounds like a problem of arrangement, in detail the balance of the sound of all your instruments in the band. Many people can't hear themselves neither in recording situations nor live situations and even not on the CD, or they have the impression, that they are not present enough - so they tend to increase their loudness, possibly by compression, even increasing the problem:
    The higher the average level (= lower dynamic) the more is the level of importance and slight changes will let one instrument dominate and the another one "die". Try to use uncrompressed music and use in-ear-monitoring with increased individual volume. When rehearsing identify those passages of a mix, where individual instruments were to loud or not loud enough and change this individually. The musicians have to learn to do this. A Trick: Try to rehearse with the very lowest level possible and make sure still all instruments are present they way they have to for the particular role and point of time.

    For Keyboarders and Synthieplayers fo example, one has to distinguish the parts in the mix where accompaingment and supporting is required and when solo or emphasis is done. Usually this is not possible to do without some loadness change during songs, and this often requires touching the volume knobs for certain channels (left hand, right hand, bass etc). Sometime a foot controller helps.
    General emphasis by compression, presence-EQ-ing or enhancing by exciters are of no advantage and will lead to the loudness battle.
    In some cases, expanders are usefull to emphasize an instrument's activity

    Similar with me: Returning user, allready having participated in the old forum / music mailing list. Having used Waldorf and Virus Synths from the mid of the 90tees - still owning a "B" and "Q.". Running a studio for production and recording (mostly acoustical musics). Primary business is electrical engineering / digital signal processing - mostly imaging, rarely audio.

    Created own sounds and music / sound algorithms, starting in the 80tees with C64, since the 90tees in C at Microprocessors (TMS320X, DSP5630X), since 2003 with FPGAs. Created an own music workstation with virtual audio processing DSPs, midi like tone generator and sound synthesis with currently up to 1024 voices polyphony at 192kHz (4096 at 48kHz) spreaded over 6 FPGAs.

    Why do people prefer knobs all over their synths?

    Live Performance? Ever did that?
    And also with Computer-only music, you will need some physical controllers anyway, no matter if you add a USB-based device to your computer and route it to VSTs, Rack-Modules or whereever - or have MIDI-Controllers in between the source and destination.
    I do not excpect you to use just a mouse?

    >the manual for TI is like a...
    Really that bad?

    You sold it or gave it back because of midi routing issues?

    Well talking for Virus B, it responds to 16 tracks so, making it a multitimbral player is just a matter of midi wiring logistics.

    I am using a hand made midi router in an electronic device to seperate a track into 16 channels to use e.g. 16 drum tracks simultaneously coming fomr channel 10 in MIDI tracks. There are a number of instrument hardware units out doing this too, if somebody cannot do it from software.

    Without drum tracks, it should be even easier to use 15 tracks simultaneously apart from the fact of course, that the synth has limited number of voices.

    This should work with all synths and all midi setups, so I consider issues in software handling. Either your tracks are not joined correctly to one physical midi channel or the track parameters intersect with each other.

    ROM banks are most useful for patches which would most probably never change, such as sounds you want to use again and gain. An example was to create patches covering soundbank constellations know outside the virus world, where instrument numbers refer to standards like GM. For exampe you could reserve one bank for GM and another for GM drums, so the virus can play standard midi for rehearse.

    Ok, thanx for the information. For the moment the Access Virus Version seems to crash for some reasons, while the Emagic Version works. It also connects to the Virus and I can edit patches. Both are namend 3.0. (Virus Setup 01.03.2001 9:47)

    In the Internet I found 3.04 on some mirror pages. But they are using download functions which seem to be a bit unsafe to me.

    What looks fine is this here: - but it is for the virus only.