Posts by AtonyB

    Am I right in thinking that if I loaded a Virus C patch into my TI I should get exactly the same sound? I get the impression that the Virus team are pretty rabid about making new models backwardly compatible.

    Yes it should. Same algorithms, same sound - although the different converters might make VERY subtle differences.

    You might find differences in some mod matrix links, though, as they changed some 'per note' parameters into 'per patch' ones - for example, you can't key track reverb mix polyphonically, now, or you can't link reverb amount to the amp envelope.

    The sound comes from a polymoog keyboard - if you have two sawtooths with two LFOs carefully varying the pitch of each one independently (i.e. LFO1 -> Osc1, LFO -> Osc2, although not LFO1 and 2 ;) ).

    You need to get the speeds and amounts right, but thats the basic idea - you might also get there with PWM, although its a bit hairy on the lower notes.

    The OWT version does not use the same bassline sound, they just use a minimoog - any other performances are mimed so there's no use looking at what they use...

    I do have a large quantity of authentic Numan presets - but for now I'm not going to make them available...

    This happened to me and it was because of the extra usb hubs in my mac keyboard and mac monitor. Removing that stuff fixed it for me.

    Sounds like the sort of thing that should be mentioned in the 'getting your virus running smoothly' thread...

    I tried the Arturia Minimoog emulation the other day as they were doing the offer on all their synths. Compared to the minimoog emulating 'wall shaking' presets I use on the virus (as that is one of the main things you use a minimoog for!) it didn't get very close. Bear in mind these sounds were originally done on a minimoog, so it is a minimoog tone I'm after.

    This will also be down to effects (which many forget, and is a major source of what people mistake for analogue synths being better) - but the Virus has (nearly) all the effects I need all in one place which Arturia lack - I don't know if or what effects the origin come with, but I'm willing to bet they aren't as good as the Virus.

    I agree also, that they have constrained a set of very 'hands on' synths to a box which you can only access via a mouse cursor (or midi controller, say, the virus) which isn't ideal - setting up midi controllers is a major pain in the arse, too.

    you can get any combinations of volumes you want statically by working the osc balance (for any ratio) and the osc volume dial (to get the absolute), and ultimately the patch volume control. If the loudness is changing as you crossfade in a way you dont want you might consider linking a control to both the osc mix and a fixed value linked to osc volume which will take the loudness for osc1 and the loudness for osc2, make them the same, then interpolate as you crossfade... if that makes any sense...

    Yeah that's really annoying.

    I'm also getting noticably lower voice performance for no discernable gain with the latest version - It's a real problem as the multis I will be using at a gig in two weeks no longer work where they worked perfectly (and were carefully engineered to do so...). I will have to work out how to downgrade. I should know by now that 'bugfix' updates are generally voice performance killing releases...

    Oh, and a heck of a lot of crackles and spats and whatever while playing.

    Via analogue - you will lose clarity because of noise, and add extra steps in the chain with potential degradation - but if you like it, then it's better. BUT, as nms says, if you want it verbatim from the virus you cannot get better than recording it via USB (of S/PDIF, i guess as that is a digital connection, too, so long as you bitmatch your recording [if that is supported by whatever you are using]) and evidently the virus set at 48kHz as it seems to perform better at this sample rate. Theoretically, then, offline SRC is best to get it to match your project - and I guess most sequencers will do that automatically, anyway.

    I wonder how 'additive' the hypersaw synth engine is - I guess it has to be on some level... Which means what you speak of may be possible as a modification of that - you don't lose too much polyphony by using the hypersaw module...

    It is almost certainly an ARP Odyssey so it might involve some RM, too. You might also get closer using a distortion (saffron, maybe) and the speaker emulator - depending on how precise you want to be.

    I wonder if I'm too used to using subtractive synthesizers to get on well with things like Sytrus and Harmour. It may also be I'm too used to reproducing sounds made on subtractive synths or making real sounds which I find easier on a subtractive synth - a WWII air raid siren and screaming crowds was my last effort - wheras additive specialises in the unreal... I know people go on about the fact that pianos can be done in additive synths and not subtractive, but I haven't heard a convincing effort from either - aside from the Roland V Piano and I have no idea how that works, and whether it is sample based or not.

    Interesting viewpoint - I have given a brief look at both sides... I say both work, and neither are 'the one true path', with a bias as the alternate stance to yours - all you've done is poorly reference others with no balance and with not a word on how you tried to 'prove yourself wrong'. Think about this - of all the great music that has ever been made using the Virus, how many people would notice if the Virus in question was switched to 44.1kHz instead? How much of it was this the case for anyway?

    Arguing its right because so many people do it is not a valid argument... ever... whoever it is... just as determining whether homeopathy, or perhaps less obviously cough medicine, works by looking at how much money is spent on it is not a valid argument either. Don't forget that the priority for 99.99% of the market is to sell lots of stuff and not simply to make it sound great (it just so happens that they cross paths once in a while) - why do you think KORG have been repackaging the same thing that does pretty much the same stuff for the last 30 years save for some 'bigger numbers'?

    While we're at it 'can handle it' is completely irrelevant - we are talking about getting the most out of a system which is the priority of any engineer since it makes your product the most competative by either outperforming on the same platform or being cheaper by being on a lower spec platform. What if you could make the same music with the same plugins on a pc that cost half the price? Without these considerations mobile phones would not do half the crap they can do and, in fact, most electronic devices you can think of.

    While we are at it, I do test these 'theories' (a scientific term which many people misapprehend), on my project I had to think very carefully about the sample rate I used and I could not get away with just simply making the kinds of argument you made - I tried them, measured performance and reported on it. As it happened turning up the sample rate is probably the weakest solution to problems I had there simply because it wasted memory, bandwidth, overall performance and battery life - where instead a few extra lightweight instructions cured it beautifully.

    I will now desist as I have nothing further to gain from this discussion.