Beiträge von SimonO

Having been unable to use Virus Control for a few days motivated me to revisit the problem of selecting patches by category via the Virus hardware. It turns out that there is a way of doing it that works. Press the Search button and follow the instructions in the display. In this case soft knob one (WITHOUT the shift button) really does select the category, allowing for patches within the selected category to be scrolled through using the Value buttons.

There's still a bug in the TIOS beta though, not fixed in the latest beta version by the way. The fact that that the word Category is written in small letters below soft know one's Value 1 caption ought to mean that Shif+Soft Knob 1 should allow a category to be selected when in fact it does not do anything useful.

Zitat

I used the free program Vimeo Video Downloader

Having said that, the .mov files for which Ace17 provided the links
http://www.virus.info/_files/VTI_bootcamp_ep1_pwm.mov
http://www.virus.info/_files/VTI_bootcamp_ep2_softknobs.mov
http://www.virus.info/_files/VTI_bootcamp_ep3_onepole.mov
are higher quality (and bigger files) than the .flv files that can be downloaded by the free edition of Vimeo Video Downloader, though it looks like the pay edition of Vimeo Video Downloader, which I have not tried, has options to download higher quality files where Vimeo has a choice available. There's any number of ways of saving those .mov files to your computer. For example, if you are using Firefox, you can paste the link into Firefox's address bar and then, once the video starts playing within the browser, use Firefox's Download Helper add-on to save the file. Once Access Music's webmaster has fixed the Boot Camp page so that the clicking a direct link to one of these files on the page actually works to play the video, you won't have to paste the link to the file into Firefox's address bar.

Simon

The Boot Camp series of videos looks like it will be an excellent addition to the Virus training resources. Thanks Ben. But I would still be interested to know whether or when this missing video from the basic tutorial series is likely to become available.

Simon

I too found that the copies of the videos on the Virus web site would not play in Firefox. But the copies of the videos on Vimeo that are linked to from the Boot Camp page worked fine.

If you want to save streaming videos such as these to files for repeated viewing off-line, just search the web for "video downloader". There are several free or cheap utilities for doing it. For example, to save the Boot Camp videos that are on Vimeo, I used the free program Vimeo Video Downloader.

Simon

Hello Marc. The method you describe is exactly what I do use to make my expression pedals interact with the Virus TI.

Indeed it would be possible to take this technique even further than I have so far done. Not all the CC#s in the matrix need necessarily map to soft knobs. So the potential is there to make each expression pedal control a set set of parameters that are NOT controlled by any of the soft knobs. In that scenario, the player has even more scope for complex dynamic variation of the timbe.

The new feature I am asking for is something different. I would like to be able to select a preset patch I've never played before and always be able to emulate the patch's soft knobs straight away without having to modify the patch.

I estimate that currently I would only be able to do that with a large minority of unmodified preset ptaches, those that happen to have their soft knobs set to what appears to be the most common configuration: CC#1 (MODULATION WHEEL), CC#6 (DATA ENTRY) and CC#3 (CONTROL 3) for soft knobs 1 to 3 respectively, which is what I have configured my three expression pedals to send. I supose theoretically one solution would be for Access Music to police all the preset patches to force them to conform to this as a standard. But that sounds overly restrictive and probably not feasible to enforce.

That is why I am proposing a way of controlling/emulating the soft knobs that would be
a) global rather than patch-specific
and therefore
b) completely separate from the soft knob to matrix linkage.

Hence my suggestion that NRPNs be used instead of CC#s for the proposed new feature. I can make my expression pedals send NRPNs instead of CC#s. NRPNs are guaranteed not to conflict with the matrix configuration of individual patches and also to not conflict with CC#s assigned in TIOS to individual Virus parameters. On the other hand, I have just noticed that CC#98 and CC#99, the two CC#s required to initialise an NRPN, are reserved in TIOS for controlling the Unison Detune and Unison Panorama Spread parameters respectively. Does that mean that TIOS cannot receive NRPNs? If so, perhaps global MIDI control of the soft knobs would have to be done via system exclusive messages. My expression pedals can send those too, but I expect it would not be as efficient as CC#s or NRPNs.

Most parameters can be controlled by specific CC#s. In the case of a knob that just controls a specific parameter then, yes, a CC# corresponds to the knob and you can say that the CC# controls the knob, though more properly the CC# controls the same Virus parameter that the knob controls. But the three soft knobs are not like that. Each soft knob can control several parameters to differing degrees and even in different directions. That richness and complexity of real-time timbral variation is what I am trying to achieve by mapping expression pedals to soft knobs via CC#s. The several parameters that are configured in a particular patch to be controlled by a specific soft knob can usually each be controlled separately by different CC#s that map to the individual parameters. But that does not help achieve the objective of controlling multiple parameters at once. There are no CC#s that have one-to-one correspondences with any of the three soft knobs on all patches. CC#s can be mapped to soft knobs, but only on a per-patch basis.

I should add that, if I could quickly and easily change the CC# output by each expression pedal, some different approaches could be possible. But, at least with my current gear, I cannot.

The Virus TI's soft knobs (also known as value knobs) can be configured to be controlled by MIDI on a per patch basis by assigning MIDI Control Change numbers to the soft knobs and, in the matrix, assigning parameter changes to the same CC#s.

What is missing is a global, non-patch-specific way of controlling (or is emulating a better word?) the soft knobs via MIDI. Such a feature would need to run in parallel with still being able to control the soft knobs via the specific CC#s assigned to each soft knob (value knob) and matrix slot within each patch. If there are no spare CC#s that could safely be reserved for this, MIDI NRPNs, of which there can be zillions, might possibly be used.

What would be the point of this new feature? Well, I can at least explain what I would use it for. I use four expression pedals / control pedals / foot controllers / continuous controllers / whatever-you-want-to-call-them with my Virus TI. I have one plugged into the Virus's control pedal socket. I always use that one to control volume (CC#7). I have the signals of the other three converted into three different CC#s by MIDI Solutions Pedal Controllers. On my favourite Virus patches, I configure the soft knobs and the matrix so that the CC# of each expression pedal will do the same thing as turning the corresponding soft knob (value knob). This gives me wonderfully versatile dynamic control of timbre without having to take my hands off the keyboard. But I have to configure it on a patch-by-patch basis. It would be so much easier if there were a global way of doing this.

(TIP: In the absence of global MIDI assignments for the soft knobs, if you want to use expression pedals to control / emulate the soft knobs, I recommend using CC#1 (MODULATION WHEEL), CC#6 (DATA ENTRY) and CC#3 (CONTROL 03) for soft knobs 1 to 3 respectively. These are the most commonly assigned to the Virus's preset patches. So having the expression pedals send those three CC#s minimises the work required to tweak the patches to allow the expression pedals to control the soft knobs. )

Simon

I would be keen to have either of those suggestions implemented.

Thanks for the suggestion. I could see that it does look promising. So, with one amp plugged into Output 1 and the other plugged into Output 2, I've just tried changing Surround Output (on the Patch Utility page of Virus control) from the default of Out1 L+R to Out2 L+R. Unfortunately it does not help. In either case, the sound comes out of the amp that's plugged into Output 1.

I'm intrigued to know what Surround Output is for and how it works. I can't find anything in the documentation about it and can only see a few scant references to it on the forum.

Simon

Another option would be allow the Virus to be configured to output its audio to all its pairs of output ports (and S/PDIF) at once. I would then not have to make a selection on the Virus, just turn on whichever amp I want to use. I can see that there might be disadvantages in allowing that to be done though.

Simon

Hello Denis,

I listen to my Virus through powered monitor speakers too. Not HS80Ms, but the principal has to be the same. You definitely do not need a DI box. DI boxes reduce audio signals to microphone level. This is usually for input to mixers. Powered monitor speakers accept line-level audio, which is what the Virus outputs. There are different levels of 'line-level' though. The Virus is rated at +4dbV, the loudest. So you may need to adjust the level controls on your HS80Ms for best match.

There's no need for a limiter either. Powered monitor speakers can accept a large dynamic range of volumes. You should only limit the music if it sounds like the music has too wide a range of volumes. That would not be caused by routing the audio through the Virus to the HS80Ms. If you do want a limiter, Ableton probably comes with a software limiter. If not, you could use a VST limiter with it. So you would not need a hardware limiter, though some people prefer them.

Simon

Welcome, Chris.

The Quickstart was the only printed manual when I bought my Polar a couple of months ago. When you download the software, you will find that it includes several PDF manuals, including a later version of the Quickstart than the printed one (unless they've just done a reprint).

(What's the one withe the orange "flame" type cover?)

Simon

Thanks for the insight, AtonyB. From what you have written, it sounds quite promising that it might not be too difficult to implement Sostenuto. So maybe it will get done, especially if some users indicate their support for the idea.

Simon

Access Music do not publish a MIDI implementation chart for the TI, but Samuel Backer has posted one here:
http://www.2shared.com/file/10…4f5a613/VirusTI_MIDI.html
This lists three "pages", labeled A, B and C, each of 128 control change numbers, though some numbers are unused. I don't know how control change numbers on pages B and C may be sent: when I send the TI a CC# it is evidently the one on Page A by default. But it does suggest that it is actually possible to control more than 128 Virus TI parameters via MIDI.

By the sound of it, I'm not getting nearly the extent of problems with VC that SOS is, though I do get the odd glitch. Possibly because my needs are simple, I don't know. And it did take me a lot of experminatal tweaking to get it working as well as it does now. So a patch editor does sound like a good suggestion.

I do understand that the patch editor request is different from a stand-alone Virus Control request. A patch editor would still allow integration with a sequencer, while a standalone Virus control would have all the advantages and disadvantages of communicating with the synth the native TI way rather than via MIDI. But the two requests do have one objective in common, to minimise problems of commuinication between the synth and the computer.

I have actually had much worse results hosting VC in Savihost than in either of the DAWs I have tried, Pro Tools and Ableton Live. So I would be keen to try either a patch editor or a standalone VC, though SOS does make a persuasive argument that a MIDI patch editor might be more effective at eliminating communications glitches.

djantimatter, if you would like to support the standalone VC proposal in addition to this MID patch editor proposal, you could post to the Standalone Virus Control thread:
http://virus.info/forum/index.…light=standalone#post3397

Simon

Thanks for the feedback. That's right, you've got some RAM patches that duplicate ROM patches because the previous owner did what I've been doing and has copied some of the ROM patches to RAM. Of course, just because a RAM patch has the same name as ROM patch, it does not necessarily mean it is is identical in every respect. The previous owner has quite likely made some modifications to some of the RAM copies of patches without changing their names. I have been doing that.

I presume that this thread was given the title "OS 5 Feature Requests" by The_Outsider because in the thread's first post he made several unrelated requests. Some of the replies, especially early on in the thread, commented on The_Outsider's original requests. That is of course entirely appropriate. But other replies have introduced new requests that are unrelated to ones that had previuosly been discussed in the thread.

May I suggest that, despite the all-embracing-seeming title of this thread, a new thread be started within the Feature Requests sub-forum for each new request (unless, perhaps, you have a long list of them, as The_Outdiser did)? After all, that is the purpose of the Feature Requests sub-forum. I suggest that whether or not you think your request is likely to be implemented in TIOS 4.x or 5 should have no bearing on this, again despite the reference the reference to OS 5 in this thread's title,

Starting a new thread within Feature Requests for each new request is the approach I have taken myself. It has several advantages. It more easily draws the attention of forum browsers (including, most importantly, Access Music staffers!) to new feature requests. It encourages any subsequent discussion in the new thread to remain focused on the new request. In particular, it makes it easy for other musicians to "vote" for the new request, to hopefully help get it some priority, by posting a simple reply saying something like "I too would like to see this new feature" or "I vote for this" or even, as I have seen several times, just "+1".

Simon

The Quickstart manual explains the difference between RAM banks and ROM banks:

Zitat

RAM/ROM?
The Virus TI contains 4 banks of RAM, followed by 26 banks of ROM for storing sounds or ‘patches', with each bank containing 128 sounds. ‘RAM' stands for ‘Random Access Memory', which means any of these locations can be overwritten with your own patches, whenever you like. ‘ROM' stands for ‘Read Only Memory', meaning these locations are permanent, and you cannot store your edited patches here normally. It is possible to flash a ROM bank with a customised bank using Virus Control Center however, which is ex-plained in detail later in this guide.

However the sentence following the above in the Quickstart manual is wrong for my TI2. Perhaps it was right for the TI1:

Zitat

The RAM banks of the Virus TI contain a showcase of sounds selected from the ROM banks, so you needn't worry about replacing any of them.

My TI2 came with all four RAM banks empty or, more exactly, with every RAM patch populated with an identical copy of the INIT patch. So there's no duplication, in my TI2 at least, in the RAM banks of the patches in the ROM banks. My TI2 came with ROM banks A to U populated with patches, presumably all unique, and ROM banks V to Z populated only with copies of the INIT patch.

If the reference in the manual to a selection of ROM patches being duplicated in the RAM banks is true of the TI1, then having the RAM banks initially empty on the TI2 is an improvement in my opinion. It encourages the musician to save his or her own selection of favorite ROM patches in the RAM banks (or indeed to create his/her own patches!). Personally, in the couple of months I've had my TI2, I've been happily exploring the ROM banks and saving my favorite patches to the RAM banks. I have customised some of the RAM copies of the patches.

Simon

I vote for this one too. I'm an improvising musician with no interest at all in sequencing. Nor do I have any interest in routing the Virus's sound to anything other than its own outputs. So having to having to load Virus Control via a sequencer is just an unnecessary overhead and complication. I just want the graphical interface to the Virus provided by Virus Control. And I want to be able to run Virus control on my netbook, which is not powerful enough to host some of the supported sequencers.

I've taken up the suggestion of running Virus Control via a VST host application. I've tried four of them and not been able to get any of them to work properly. None of the VST hosts are supported by Access Music, so I cannot raise support questions to get them working. I did start a thread asking for help getting Savihost working, as that appears to be the most recommended VST host, but got no replies. Eventually, I discovered that I had a free licence for Ableton Live Lite, which is lightweight enough to host Virus Control on my netbook. So I have had to go through a great deal of trial and error to achieve something straightforward.

Every time I launch my dummy Virus project (all it does is host Virus Control) in Ableton Live Lite, I have to manually open Virus Control and, within Virus Control, click the Direct button and the Live button. Yes, these are very minor inconveniences, but again they seem pointless when I'm just trying to achieve something so simple.

So, as well as stand-alone capability for Virus Control, I would like to see an enhancement whereby Virus Control would remember my preference for the Direct button and the Live button, so I don't have to click them every time I start Virus Control.

Simon

By convention, MIDI control change number 66 is for Sostenuto. But Sostenuto is not implemented on the Virus TI, as Access Music Support have confirmed: see http://virus.info/forum/index.php?page=Thread&postID=13996. Configuring the Virus to interpret the hold pedal (foot switch) as indicating CC#66 Sostenuto has no effect.

If you are wondering what Sostenuto is supposed to do, it emulates the behaviour of a grand piano's middle pedal. With Sustain, note release is blocked for all notes played while the hold pedal is on. With Sostenuto, all notes that were already on when the hold pedal is pressed will have their releases blocked while all notes played while the hold pedal is on will release normally. A typical use would be to play a chord and, while the chord is held down, press Sostenuto, then, while Sostenuto is on, take the hands off the chord and play some more notes. This is really good for sustaining a chord without having to hold it down while playing a melodic run over the top of it.

If Sostenuto were to be implemented on the Virus, I think I would use it more than Sustain. With many of the more full-bodies patches, Sustain very quickly becomes overwhelming. Sostenuto would get round that problem by allowing the musician to decide which particular notes are to be sustained.

Of course I don't know how feasible it would be to implement Sostenuto on the Virus. I can see that it might take more processing power. With Sustain, the Virus only has to process Note On and Note Off differently once the pedal is pressed. With Sostenuto, while the pedal is not pressed, the Virus would always need to keep a record of which notes are currently on, in case the Sostenuto pedal is pressed. Maybe this information is already available for other purposes, I don't know.

Simon

I asked a support question about this and have received this reply from Jörg:

Zitat

This is simply the name of this particular Midi Controller number in the Midi implementation, but this doesn't automatically mean this controller is implemented and useable with the Virus sound engine. For all Midi units out there this Midi Controller number is "sostenuto", however it is not used in the Virus.