I guess it's because Access makes unclear statements about some things that make people suspicious what might be hidden. Even if the sound is great people expect some numbers they think are a must nowadays - but are very probably not there...
These voice counts are max values. A "voice" in the virus is more a unit for processing need than a granted voice as a note.
There are few patches that just use one "voice" per note. Have a look on the "complexity indicator". If you see 5 bars there a note takes 5 "voices".
Then there is unison... don't forget the effects...
50 notes on a snow are theory, like 80 voices on a TI1 or 100 on a TI2. Take a nice horror trip with the min values without unison: 10 voices on a snow, 16 on a TI, 20 on a TI2. Still lust for some unison?... maybe you see now why there are just 4 parts in a snow.
Ok, lay back again - all synth manufacturers do the same cheating with high polyphony numbers on paper - Blofeld, Radias,... read between the lines and you'll find it everywhere.
My point was about a joke. If I missed yours please explain.
That's somewhat silly. What prove do you miss with placebo experiments with clearly significant effects and results? What does it need to make it proven in your opinion? I am not talking about woodoo experiments - that was serious science - done by people like you who where more likely willing to prove that such effects do not exist... but they were scientists and could not deny clear results.
I give up with the sampling rate thing.
A) We agree about shannon theorem defining the maximum theoretical limits for digital capture and reconstruction. If I understand right you also agree that real hw is never better than the theory - more or less - and depending on the converter principle. Until now this all is not about anyone can hear any frequencies or artefactst. That's just the technical properties that apply to an audio card as well as to a GHz range digital oscilloscope or similar devices.
B) Now you quote hearing abilities and I again agree that hardly anyone can hear frequencies of 20kHz or above. But this is a biological constraint and does not influence shannon or the capability of a technical system.
C) Then you put that together and conclude you do not need more than 44.1KHz sample rate to transport frequencies usual humans can hear - and I again agree that this is true if the converters are constructed well.
D) Then you state you can not increase information already captured by using a better resolving system - and again I agree in this circumstance.
E) Somewhere you referred to limited speaker frequency response to make an emphasis on C) But that usual speakers for music do not transmit such high frequencies does not mean that it is impossible to make such or that they can not even exist. But then you would point to B) again and say it's pointless - again true in this context..
What about the scenarios you didn't take into consideration? Simple, they are not relevant to you or you find a context to put it into that makes it irrelevant then, right? Because of A, B, C, D, E? More letters in the alphabet? And if I would pick up another hypothetical example just for the sake of giving another rough idea you will tell this is unqualified nonsense and not state of the art - of course it is not, it is about a rough basic idea.
When I would say F) there can be processing steps wanted in the chain that benefit from even higher sample frequencies to maintain intermediate frequency results that can well be transformed back in the normal acoustic frequency range later an well be important for the sound than you will again find arguments that this is nonsense because of G) Oversampling does the job as well - and indeed I would have to agree again...
As far as it concerns my intentions this discussion gets out of control and value. I agreed to every single point you made referring to the context you put it in and you still think there is something wrong in the chain?
You won - even if I do not know what...
Pffft. I don't insist on lithium...
So again a battery - what's true now?...I personally refer to Ti 1 desktop. Maybe Ti 2 or keyboards are different? That's confusing.
If you need code... why not disassembling it?
"...But not for frequencies already captured - the representation of a 1kHz signal is not improved by increasing the sampling rate beyond 2kHz (plus a tiddly bit) - thats the whole point."
Did I say this anywhere? If that's what bothers you than calm down, that's totally true - no objection.
"...Also, the placebo effect has never been proven to exist. "
This is definitely wrong. Medical studies regularly do double blind studies and the placebo effect has been proved to exist. It's so shocking significant that medical research goes more and more into this. With audio so far I haven't heard of similar research...
Maybe a bit OT but as a live device I asked myself why the virus has just up/down keys to select a patch / multi-.
It's quite unlikely to impossible that you always organize stuff in a straight order so some buttons for random access would be a great deal. Maybe this idea is too vintage or to simple in our pc beloved times...?
Don't tell me one can set program change commands to buttons on a controller keyboard or external device - I haven't seen one yet where this is really simple and intuitive - if it's possible at all without an editor. Editors are useful for detailed editing but usually do not make this simple task fast and more pleasant.
No battery at all - that's good news.
So Virus TI uses flash memory to store all non volatile data?
I understood you motivation.
The shannon theorem clearly allows higher frequency response with 96kHz than 44.1kHz - theoretically and practically too - in terms of technical frequency response - the closer the better the constructions are.
Other arguments have been found why the difference for the final audio quality might be less relevant than the price you have to pay on the dsp.
D/A converters have their own properties - i.e. own "sound" - depending on construction and independent from the converted digital signal. This depends on many factors - some have been quoted here, others not.
The whole audio passes a chain of elements and the weakest part will affect the result most. So quoting things like hearing abilities, speaker flaws and other issues is all right. However mixing these can easily lead to a lot of confusion where single points get lost.
Finally even if there would be no measurable difference that does not mean that perception can not be different. Placebo in medicine is also something that should make no difference as it has no medical ingredients - but practically it does even no one knows the reason yet.
Maybe he got the Virus we see in the second video as a present - so he didn't buy it...
Why can't people do their own decision... the first video gives almost no serious evidence why to avoid usinging a Virus.... and honestly, do people just listen to one opinion only?
Is it correct that Virus Ti has a soldered lithium backup battery inside?
If yes I ask myself why makers do not use a socket that makes replacement of these battery more easy.
True. That's why I asked the initial poster what he expects from a virus running on 96kHz sampling rate... except reducing polyphony to about 50%...
Resizable VST windows, as I understand it, is either impossible or a nightmare within a nightmare to realise. ....
Some fixed zoom levels for the total gui would already help. A magnifier is a workaround - not a great one to my taste.
If recursive modulation to shape envelope segments isn't officially supported then I think there should be direct parameters for segment shapes of envelopes.
Didn't realize glitch problems with single yet. Multis may be more challenging so.
Would be really interesting to find out the reason for these glitches. Does this apply to Virus TI OS 3 or OS 4 or both?
I admit I am a bit obsessed by this seamless sound switching problem - something I would expect as normal standard. Reality is glitches are mostly the standard... many VST's are horrible - some even create pops or cracks even if you keep off your fingers from the keys - probably just because there is still something sustaining in the old patch...
I think it's a design flaw in many synths. Not a part should hold the patch data for all notes in it but each note should have it's own patch data copy assigned. With this sustaining notes can sustain with their patch data even if you change the patch in a part.
Finally I think we have over complicated a simple argument we basically agree about.
"The fact that you don't understand the calculations (arm waving ones that they were) involved only demonstrates that you are not qualified to give an informed opinion on the issue."
I am not sure what calculations you refer to... you didn't present these. You quoted some Analog Devices spec sheet data and concluded something... My message was basically quite simple: Quality of real world constructions decide what you get - not just two numbers.
"the theoretical extra precision you get is swallowed up by real world conditions"
That's exactly what I was about - a real world construction is just as good as it's weakest parts - usually not reaching theoretical limit. That's all I was about. 4x.xx sample rate can give us sufficient audio quality if the real wold construction is done proper.
"limited nature of human perception"
Perception is more difficult to discuss as it is different for every human, I wasn't really about that - also I agree that many people may not be able to hear very high frequencies directly.
"The guys that designed this thing - they aren't so dumb, they do actually know what they are doing"
Absolutely - but you imply that highest quality is the only design goal - and that's too often not the case - cheap make is often enough the goal. This includes also combining elements that really do not match like your camera example. But marketing knows about the magic of numbers to people so they still request impressive ones - regardless if this has any practical relevance. Another marketing method is to put numbers into an irrelevant context to make them look good. It's often difficult to rate something from paper - hence my warning just to trust two numbers...
My non arrogant point:
You showed off a great sweeping blow - why not presenting this in a more friendly way? This is discussion and no war. Just "beating" people does not make a community better.
Usually you nor use volume neither velocity for performance volume control with a pedal but midi controller cc #11 - "expression". Therefore these pedals are sometimes also referred to as expression pedal. Often cc #7 "volume" is used instead but that's conceptually somehow wrong because it should define the basic volume in the mix and not the fast live variations - which like you mentioned not necessarily need to affect the total volume range...
I just tell this to make the concept clear. Unfortunately I am not sure if the virus is doing so.
...I guess optimizing DSP load by a lean synth model... as this is somewhat old and inherited in tradition of compatibility from the early virus models.