(Not) another virus vs. VST thread

[Barnelby]

Hey guys,
So all over the web are debates and beyond about the virus vs plugins like sylenth, massive, kore2, the list goes on. I happened upon this thread:

http://www.access-music.de/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=1068&pageNo=1

In which an amateur synth enthusiast posted a simple question regarding the virus and soft synths and got some very heated, rude in my opinion, answers that were uncalled for, disappointing, and just plain childish.
So let me, a very enthusiastic but novice synth user, ask this question (and hopefully get civil, adult-quality answers)

I opened up Logic and made two tracks, one with my TI2, one with sylenth. I set both to init and started plinking away on my midi controller and immediately noticed that the oscillators of sylenth SMASH the oscillators of the TI2 (and I AM running the ti2 through the analogue outs, not USB). I read somewhere that simply focusing on the oscillator sound of a synth is missing the "big picture," and that the virus still has the edge on plug ins, which I am completely open to believing, but I think I need a little convincing from some experts being that the first impression of the sounds of the two would lead me to believe that the soft synths are at least as good as the TI2.

One of my personal mottos and beliefs is that tools are tools and the artist is the artists blah blah blah, whatever :cool: But the way I see it, if it is possible to get GREAT VA sounds out of some computer programs, perhaps the better investment might be something like a DSI prophet or alesis andromeda to get the REAL analogue sound. (then drop in the U-he effects or something like that to add some flavor)

I don't really have a defined question to ask anyone, but I would like to hear the opinions of those who are very familiar with both the virus and the VSTs. Specifically anything that the virus could do that is out of reach of the VSTs (or vice versa?).

[GV1UK]

It's simply a matter of personal preference.

I have probably on of the most powerful Macs in the world, yet the only AU/VSTi's I own are Massive and Albino. Neither can step close to the Virus ... and I'm not talking about processor speeds or ram.

One of the great aspects about the Virus is the sound. It has a unique sound, something that no other synth or VSTi can replicate. The sound quality is awesome.

Think about it logically. Access are a small company. But, the Virus is one of the most sought after synths in the world and they continue to sell out. The majority of people buying the Virus know why they want it. The buyers are not stupid.

The people that complain, are the people that failed to do the research in the first place. They didn't really need the virus, and now they have wasted their money they go on a ranting spree. I can bet money on it those users have never purchased a piece of software in their life.

Creating a sound on a synth is not just about selecting a waveform, wavetable, and fiddling with the envelopes. If you love synths as much as I do, you spend hours creating that perfect sound. I don't know about anyone else but I want that power at my fingertips. Every aspect of the virus does it's job perfectly.

I'm a fanatic.

Refactor the question to say "Why do you prefer the Virus over VSTi's". At the end of the day it boils down to why you like it and nobody else.

[MBTC]

I had a Ti2 desktop briefly. Dealing with latency, only 3 USB outs, polyphony limitations and such prompted me to send it back (mostly latency). In order to justify the price it would have needed to integrate into my workflow pretty much as a VST would, and I just could not get it to that level of productivity.

I do have Sylenth, Zebra2, and a new inexpensive one called Oresus that I think are capable of competing with the Ti2 in many ways. One of the reasons I wanted the Virus in the first place was really to offload rich hypersaw leads, get them off my CPU, to free up the PC to do other tasks. This is quite a fast PC, Core i7-965 Extreme Edition, but in even the best VST a dense hypersaw with lots of polyphony and reverb can end up eating up 35% or so of total CPU, so I wanted more elbow room.

I did feel that the sounds from the Virus cut through the mix a little better than the average softsynth. I also think most hardware filters respond better in some situations when compared to most VSTs. However I also think that the gap between the two has narrowed a great deal in recent years, and I've heard others say (and I do believe) that by the time the mix is all said and done you will not be able to tell which of the sounds came from hardware vs. software.

So to be honest, yes I think that if I demo individual sounds, Sylenth probably sounds as good as a Virus.. the big benefit for me was having a separate module that takes a huge chunk of the processing requirement of fat hypersaws with long reverb tail off my CPU, but all the latency issues just sent me running back to VSTs and RMA'ing the Virus, until at least I have reason to believe they have fixed their buggy software. Great synth but they need to get total integration working flawlessly in all popular hosts if they want to stay in business, because some VSTs are getting REALLY good.

[GV1UK]

I had a Ti2 desktop briefly. Dealing with latency, only 3 USB outs, polyphony limitations and such prompted me to send it back (mostly latency). In order to justify the price it would have needed to integrate into my workflow pretty much as a VST would, and I just could not get it to that level of productivity.

I do have Sylenth, Zebra2, and a new inexpensive one called Oresus that I think are capable of competing with the Ti2 in many ways. One of the reasons I wanted the Virus in the first place was really to offload rich hypersaw leads, get them off my CPU, to free up the PC to do other tasks. This is quite a fast PC, Core i7-965 Extreme Edition, but in even the best VST a dense hypersaw with lots of polyphony and reverb can end up eating up 35% or so of total CPU, so I wanted more elbow room.

I did feel that the sounds from the Virus cut through the mix a little better than the average softsynth. I also think most hardware filters respond better in some situations when compared to most VSTs. However I also think that the gap between the two has narrowed a great deal in recent years, and I've heard others say (and I do believe) that by the time the mix is all said and done you will not be able to tell which of the sounds came from hardware vs. software.

So to be honest, yes I think that if I demo individual sounds, Sylenth probably sounds as good as a Virus.. the big benefit for me was having a separate module that takes a huge chunk of the processing requirement of fat hypersaws with long reverb tail off my CPU, but all the latency issues just sent me running back to VSTs and RMA'ing the Virus, until at least I have reason to believe they have fixed their buggy software. Great synth but they need to get total integration working flawlessly in all popular hosts if they want to stay in business, because some VSTs are getting REALLY good.

I have a TI desktop, and use it for some very big hypersaws, I also make use of the onboard effects. I've never had any issues, although I am using the latest software update.

[Barnelby]

Thanks guys, exactly the kind of knowledge and wisdom I am looking for! Hope more folks can chime in!

[MBTC]

I have a TI desktop, and use it for some very big hypersaws, I also make use of the onboard effects. I've never had any issues, although I am using the latest software update.

No latency problems at all? What was your host and operating system? I was using FLStudio on Win7 64bit. Others running different hosts reported no latency problems so mileage definately varies, but if you look through some of the various troubleshooting posts here you'll see there are lots of other folks having various issues, whether its latency, timing synchronization, other other quirky behavior (usually software related). Maybe my luck would have been better if I were using Cubase or maybe 32 bit version of Windows? I did a lot of research as this was something I had wanted for years, so I tried hard to make it work.

[fgimian]

Hey friends, I can also shed some light on this one since I've been a softsynth user since the start, and then bought my TI at the start of last year.

I also own, Massive, Zebra2 and Sylenth1.

I truly think that each have their place. I absolutely adore these 3 softsynths, particularly Massive and Sylenth1 at the moment. They are truly amazing bits of kit. Their oscillators do indeed sound pristine compared to the Virus TI, however, they simply can't sound quite as gritty as the Virus. The Virus TI has a completely different tone to any of my VSTis, it sounds a bit more human, a lot more imperfect, which I just love for certain tasks.

Also, the TI filters are just incredible and the effects have a different character to most.

I have tried time and time again to replicate some of the TI sounds with software synths and can't come even close, and vise versa. Take the TI's "boingy" preset for example, really cool sound that is incredibly hard to replicate on anything other than a Virus. On the other hand, the TI can not do the insane, crazy sounds you can do in Massive for example.

Do you prefer Strawberries or Grapes? Both taste good, just depends on what you are the mood for. There is no better or worse between the Virus and native VSTis for me, they both rock and they both have their place, just like PCs and Macs.

:)

[Barnelby]

But strawberries definitely have better hypersaws. :cool:

[fgimian]

But strawberries definitely have better hypersaws. :cool:

lol, yeah they do :)

Though I must admit that Zebra2, with it's Eleven mode can do a decent job too.

[MBTC]

lol, yeah they do :)

Though I must admit that Zebra2, with it's Eleven mode can do a decent job too.

Not to mention you can have 4 of those if you want 44 saws!, running through all kinds of modulations and envelopes. It's the only plug-in I have that gives the flexibilty of modular synthesis, yet saving you from the drudgery of dealing with cable ins and outs.

Zebra takes a little longer to learn than the average synth, but the reward is worth it. Sylenth's beauty lies in its simplicity, and its ability to just sound beautifully analog, while Zebra can sound like analog or anything else you want it to (including synthetically emulating acousting instruments in a way sometimes indistinguishable from samples, although that takes more effort to get there.) The user defined filters and MSEG envelopes of Zebra give crazy possibilities.

Aside from those two staples, I've recently discovered Oresus, an amazing product, especially considering its only $45 US! The versatility is not in Zebra's league, but to my ears sound-wise it can compete with Sylenth, the Virus etc. and it's easy to program. It has an interesting UI that controls exponential / logorithmic filter variations that make it quick to make sounds that are harder to achieve on other synths.

Omnisphere is another one I really like. It's not cheap though, and one instance of the plugin feels kind of bulky, both in usability and CPU consumption. I should reach for it more often but for whatever reason I don't. It has such a massive and great library of waveforms to start with, but then I always end up stripping them out because I want the organic nature of a synth instead of a rompler (even though there is a lot you can do with them).

As far as VST versus hardware... I almost wonder if the next stage of advancements in CPU (or also possibly increased general use of GPUs for musical instruments and effects) will almost put the nail in the coffin of hardware synths. Personally I hope not. I cut my musical teeth on hardware, and there is a very special place in my heart for these instruments. They have a character and mystique that software will never have. But as CPUs and GPUs get faster and programmers get more clever, unless the integration of hardware synths can learn to not get in the way of workflow (latency, cables, synching everything up, etc) then I have to remain firm that I think software is the future.

[Barnelby]

Gah! No oresus for mac. Sad.

[HUROLURA]

Just a Virus newbie 2 cents tribute to the discussion (I just bought an old Virus A so I cannot tell anything about the Virus TI2).

First for me when thinking about such topic, is to keep in mind that sound and music are the most important.

Then working/playing flow is also of interest.
Value over lifetime is also important.

My general opinion is computer is at its best for sequencing, sampling and managing sound libraries.
Hardware is for me better solution for synth.
Any attempt to merge the best of both world is interesting for me (virus TI, clavia modular series, ... CreamWare/SonicCore Scope).

But here we should keep the discussion on sound synthesis quality.
There is theoretically no reason why a "hardware" VA should sound better or worse than a VST VA except for the programming talent of their designers.
Only other thing that can enter in line is DAC quality.

My experience so far is limited to hardware VA as I prefer hardware for workflow/lifetime value reasons.

The sound you can get out of different VA synth I own(ed) is obviously different from synth to synth because of their architecture differences.
I once had a Rompler with some synth abilities (digital filter ...) but the sound of VA is far nicer to my ears.
The model I know most are:
- Waldorf MicroWave: this one has its own flavour because of its synth principle (Waldorf WaveTable synthesis is really something special)
- Casio CZ: this one is special also because it is not a VA but the sound you can get out of it reminds the one you can get out of a filter though there is no filter inside. Once again some really special oscillator here.

These first two both have non standard oscillator that offer nice sound sources, combined with other nice tricks regarding enveloppe and modulation matrix to make the sound more living.
I do not know many VSTi offering such oscillator type, with the exception the propellerheads THOR which offer both these special oscillator types.

Clavia modular series is also a special thing in itself for its flexibility.

Regarding over VA I know: Waldorf MicroQ, Chameleon Australis, Novation KS and Access Virus are more similar in term of architecture but still sound quite differents because of details and specific tools they offer.

Now I should come to my favourite sounding VA synth which for me are sounding warmer than the others: the CreamWare/SonicCore gears which provide more warm bass sound. The Minimax, Pro12 and Prodyssey replicant just sound good though their sound design architecture is simpler than the one provided by the Virus/MicroQ for example.
The Minimax is meant to be a DSP clone of the original Minimoog (I do not have any Minimoog so I wouldn't dare to pretend it sounds the same) and provide a really good sounding solution (compared to the Arturia VST I already tried by a friend of mine for example) and the hardware control panel is just a pleasure compared to mouse editing. If we stick to sound only, this one (and the two other also) is also available in Scope PCI DSP boards, Noah and the cheap Plugiator/ASX series with similar quality (actually it is the same plugin powered by similar DSP with different host). Here a special mention about the really nice filter which is way ahead what I have with the other VA gears.
I have the same feeling regarding the Pro12 (inspired by the Prophet 5) which inherits from the more elaborate Prophet architecture (modulation matrix, unison, sync Osc). I also tried the VST form Native Instrument and Arturia without being really convinced (the idea of Arturia of merging Prophet 5 and Prophet VS in one gear is quite nice though). I do not mean they do not sound good, I just prefer the CreamWare sound.
Regarding The Prodyssey (an ARP Odyssey), the particular archtecture of the original Odyssey is great and the nice addition of the Minimax filter alternative is nice to have. Sadly, I never had the chance to compare it neither to an original Odyssey nor to their VST clones.

But I am really interested in what is offered by some more recent VSTi which I feel are offering new possibilities (propellerheads Thor, VA-1, Rob Papen VSTies, NI massive and Absynth ...) and the launch of the Muse Research Receptor and the SMProAudio V-Machines series could rise interest for me as I could have a hardware gear to host them.

I also would like to test the more recent Virus TI/TI2 and the Arturia Origin as I feel these are some of the most interesting of their generation.

[feedingear]

I think its easy to get lost in the hype... a good songwriter and a good producer will make it sound good. For mine, the TI has a definite warm and dark vibe. It blends nicely with the VSTs I prefer to use - Alchemy, NI Massive, and some other NI products (Reaktor/FM8, Kore 2) etc. I have no issues with getting it to work in my sequencer, and bouncing in real time is really not such a big deal. Perhaps a tad tongue in cheek, but if people spent less time posting about how long it took to bounce a track, and just spent it writing their music, then perhaps they would worry less :).

[HUROLURA]

I think I guess I understand the trouble you can have...
Bouncing with a sequencer is something I just avoid.
To be clear: I only make home music based on "real" synths or scope DSP synths and FX.

For me, the most important in the sequencer is still the MIDI part. The Audio part is only used for final audio file mixdown. I know you could find me oldfashionned but that's my workflow.

For that reason, I do not have to deal with latencies issues and so on.
The CreamWare stuff is the only DSP solution I use. They provide a so called XTC mode which is meant to provide something similar to what is provided by UAD, TC, Duende and Liquid Mix DSP boards but there you have to take latency into account as audio flow has to be sent to DSP from the sequencer and then sent back to the sequencer.

That is just not the way I use the Scope DSP as I just send MIDI to the scope devices and then mixdown everything under scope in the original so called (low latency) Scope mode and feed the resulting audio flow from the scope into the seq.

That is also because the other devices I use are hardware ...

[MBTC]

Perhaps a tad tongue in cheek, but if people spent less time posting about how long it took to bounce a track, and just spent it writing their music, then perhaps they would worry less :).

Except for the fact that some of us have access to a web forum at times when we do not necessarily have access to our music making gear. ;)
Honestly, I think the bouncing down discussion has already been done, but my feelings there were more about the inflexibility of an audio file that represents what I did with the track at one point in time, versus one where I can still manipulate in real time RIGHT when the inspiration strikes to do so. I wasn't knocking those who have made bouncing down an integrated part of the process. It's just a shame we have to at all with all of the CPU power available these days.

[MBTC]

Gah! No oresus for mac. Sad.

That might be one reason the price is so low. Sylenth was PC only until not long ago... it seems to be the trend for many synths to begin on PC, so maybe an Oresus Mac port will appear some day.

[synthfiend]

i think this type of discussion is pretty difficult to make sense of.
how can you compare a piece of hardware with 1's and 0's (software)...its like trying to compare apples and oranges.
for starters you can sit down in front of a Virus and start jamming etc...you dont have to boot up your PC and fire up software.
I love both, but they are completely different beasts.
As for the sound difference, that is personal preference, although i do love the sound that a dedicated DSP creates.

[HUROLURA]

With the exception of real analog synth, there is also software embedded in hardware synth. Both apples and oranges are fruits but they do not taste the same.
But both taste good !!!

[MBTC]

i think this type of discussion is pretty difficult to make sense of.
how can you compare a piece of hardware with 1's and 0's (software)...its like trying to compare apples and oranges.
for starters you can sit down in front of a Virus and start jamming etc...you dont have to boot up your PC and fire up software.
I love both, but they are completely different beasts.
As for the sound difference, that is personal preference, although i do love the sound that a dedicated DSP creates.

Well in my case, my PC is always on (no booting required) because I use it for other things :) I would never leave my music hardware on 24x7, heat dissipation and airflow in music hardware is nothing like a good tower case, just begging for failure and higher power bills.

But I agree it is an apples and oranges comparison. I cut my teeth on a pure hardware environment and I am now almost exclusively software. If only I could find a way to benefit from the beneifts (and coolness factor) of hardware with the workflow ease, flexibility, and perfect timing/synchronization of software.
I love acquiring new synth gear, its a feeling buying a new VST doesn't really give me. And I like the modularity of adding new pieces of dedicated kit that are responsible for its own processing instead of all needing to pass through a single CPU.

What irks me though is I started with hardware back in the 80s. We were thrilled to have MIDI back then. The reality was that to get the timing of everything just right was a real pain. And 25 years later, it seems like a lot of the same issues exist. But then if I produce solely with VSTs, I get perfect timing, no latency of running through cables, perfect compatibility, ease of automation, ease of everything.

There is nothing I'd love more for hardware vendors to figure out how to give the dedicated processing of hardware, but the integration of VST. Sadly it seems like things in the hardware scene have stalled, while VSTs continue to get better sounding.

[HUROLURA]

There is nothing I'd love more for hardware vendors to figure out how to give the dedicated processing of hardware, but the integration of VST. Sadly it seems like things in the hardware scene have stalled, while VSTs continue to get better sounding.


I wouldn't agree on that. VSTi is easier to design (no hardware constraint). So more people can offer new advanced solution without being forced to be big companies.

On the hardware side, after the rise and fall of hardware samplers which are mainly replaced by software based DAW, the synth inovation landscape showsome enhancement from time to time among which I would notice:
- the Virus TI concept which I find really clever though actually I never tested it but I feel this is the challenge for other maufacturers.
- the virtual modular concept initially invented with 2 different solution by clavia with their Nord Modular and CreamWare with their PCI DSP based Modular/Elektra solution at the end of the 90's were really interesting and still made progress rencently on the Scope size with the launch of the Mod IV version associated withe the Xite-1 rack.
- the Arturia Origin which provides a new attempt to get something symbiotic out of a hardware and software modular mix
- the awaited John Bowen Solaris

Actually I think there is more space for VA synth now than for Rompler as one could get better result with VSTi and maybe a solution with VSTi host like Muse Research Receptor or SMProAudio V-Machines...

I just think hardware control on a synth is just a must.
Access Virus and Clavia nord lead have shown the way in their time providing good sunding instruments easy to edit and fun to play.

[MBTC]

I wouldn't agree on that. VSTi is easier to design (no hardware constraint). So more people can offer new advanced solution without being forced to be big companies.

Well you're right that actually producing and selling a pure VSTi solution is easier to get out the door, but that makes an even better case for why innovation might be occurring more rapidly here, thus resulting in VST improvements happening faster than hardware can keep up (my original point that I think you were disagreeing with).



On the hardware side, after the rise and fall of hardware samplers which are mainly replaced by software based DAW, the synth inovation landscape showsome enhancement from time to time among which I would notice:
- the Virus TI concept which I find really clever though actually I never tested it but I feel this is the challenge for other maufacturers.


Aha... this probably explains why we aren't on the same page here. Any issues I have with the Virus as an instrument have nothing to do with how good it is as a standalone keyboard. I've mentioned this before but if I could only have one keyboard on stage with me it would be a Virus. If I did play live (I don't), having hardware like that would be much more important to me than lugging around a laptop, controller, dinking with stuff in software, etc. But it is the DAW integration I'm talking about here. If your music creation centers around the software host, getting a bunch of hardware to behave as well as a softsynth can be a chore. I fall into that category of folks who is very DAW-centric. So, my only rationale for adding hardware would be (A) offload processing power from the CPU (B) get better sound than a softsynth can provide, hopefully via things like more responsive filters and dedicated fx that do not have to compete with an mainstream PC OS for resources. However, if in the quest for (A) & (B) I am for one moment burned with misbhaving hardware, synchronization issues, latency issues, USB limitations, etc., then the advantage of having hardware at all can be a huge disadvantage. Everyone's workflow is different, I acknowledge, but for me I have very limited time to create music, so nothing must stand in the way of the creative process. If it does, it is a tumor in my workflow and will be removed.

I love the concept behind Total Integration -- I think they have the right idea, they just need to improve upon it. I am very eager to see if they solve this with the next generation of Virus products, nothing I'd love more to own one but it must promise not to misbehave too much :)

[HUROLURA]

OK, maybe a SonicCore Xite-1 could satisfy your (A) and (B) point then.
Lot's of CPU power (DSP actually), a bunch of good sounding synths, ultra low latency and a flexible rig including mixer, FX ...
But they still have to work on the VST/DAW Integration point.
Latencies issues are mainly due to sending data to the hardware and then back but this is the same as with UAD2, PowerCore, Duende or Liquid Mix.

The advantage of both Virus TI and Xite-1 is that they provide their own outputs so they can act as if they were your DAW "soundcard" outputs.

The tremendous advantage of the Virus is its well designed control surface. This is one of the main reason of the success of the first Virus I think.
I just prefer real knobs rather than mouse clicks.

On a similar level one should also check the Arturia Origin which also looks quite promising.

I also agree that VSTi being "easier" to design allows much more clever people to offer innovative synth concepts. It just allows more people to provide new concept without the need to worry about hardware ... except that they also have to deal with new OS issues

[MBTC]

OK, maybe a SonicCore Xite-1 could satisfy your (A) and (B) point then.
Lot's of CPU power (DSP actually), a bunch of good sounding synths, ultra low latency and a flexible rig including mixer, FX ...


Looks interesting, although $4k and then I have to buy plugins is quite steep. Plus my lack of familiarity with the product -- I might be inclined to look at Powercore first just to get the Virus plugin.


The tremendous advantage of the Virus is its well designed control surface. This is one of the main reason of the success of the first Virus I think.
I just prefer real knobs rather than mouse clicks.


I agree the overall control surface is nice. In my case, tweaking them as I played didn't do me a lot of good because of the other issues I mentioned, but as far as the knob layout, the feel of them, etc I wish all synths were like the Virus. Also, the Virus Control VST user interface is great... its just that with FLStudio on 64-bit Windows, using VC was impractical for me. Granted, if I was on 32bit Cubase I probably would not have had as many issues.

Sad really, I wanted to make it work from so many angles.

[HUROLURA]

Difference between Xite-1 and PowerCore is that the use of PowerCore is limited to the VST mode, whereas Xite-1 has a hardware mode possible because of the integration of the I/Os.
The Xite-1 is already provided with a bunch of marvellous plug-ins and especillay synth plug-ins (Minimax, Pro12, LightWave, Vectron, Modular 2/III, UKNOW 007, BlueSynth) and there are also great freebies. Only Scope plug-in can run on it though.
So no Virus plug-in available except for some attempts (I think the commercial Void is something like this)
I do think that the PowerCore is missing some integrated I/O: I would have been interested in it for the Access Virus and Novation V-station on that platform but there you need to go through a VST host sequencer with latency issues. With the Scope Xite-1 mode you can plug a MIDI IN and play live as if it was a Hardware synth (you just need a host PC for let the thing start and manage presets).

Another interesting attempt to unleash the softsynth creativity on a hardware synth was the Soundarts Chameleon. More complex to program software on this on (this is real hardware), but I love this idea too.
Their Australis also sound great but they now lack some DSP power and advanced digital I/O. The user interface was also too limited but it would be possible of building up a more Virus like one.
Regarding the synth control interface, Novation KS series, clavia Nord lead series and the Waldorf MicroWave XT and Q were also quite straightforward.

[MBTC]

Thanks for the info, I am increasingly keeping an eye on these dedicated DSP solutions. The one thing I wonder about is -- do we really need dedicated DSPs in the future with CPUs getting all these additional cores? IMO, the limitation right now is software not making effective use of parallelism. I've got a dual-GPU card (which supports CUDA), and folks are already starting to come out with things like plugins that use the extra GPU (can't remember the name of it but there is a convolution reverb that uses CUDA). I'd imagine the GPUs in my video card are way more powerful than both the Ti2 DSPs put together, and as long as that GPU isn't already processing graphics, why can't it take on the workload of oscilators or fx? Just thinking out loud here, maybe a conversation for another thread.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have all the gear you've mentioned. Give me 2 Viruses and a Nord Lead, and I'm done -- just lock me in a room... until I want to produce a well-timed track then I'm hosed.

As I was typing this, I came to a realization why my software integration expectations are so high. The first hardware synth I ever owned was a Kawai K5 additive synth -- I see new synths touting "additive" synthesis, supposedly the only form of synthesis that truly has the (almost unapproachable) capability of truly synthesizing any sound (without cheating like sampling). But most of these are not a true additive synth the way the K5 was. It was a bitch to program, but I had "Dr. T's Editor" for the Atari ST computer which enabled me to draw waveforms with the mouse etc (for those too young to remember, the Atari ST was a computer with built in MIDI ports --- it WAS the audio interface.. :) ) So fast forward from 1987 to 2010, and the synth hardware to software interface has not really changed much. In fact, on my OS/DAW combination, the Virus Control plug-in to the hardware was worse - full of latency and bad performance, and I'm very technical and relatively good at troubleshooting anything in that realm. Was it the immaturity of Access' 64bit drivers perhaps? Maybe, but that should have been corrected by the time that 64bit Windows 7 was selling like hotcakes and becoming defacto. I'd like to think I can buy a Mac and all my problems will go away, but I see Logic folks complaining sometimes too.

So, I'd just like to see it all work. Or at least well-tested enough that they can clearly tell me the computer hardware environment required to make it all work.

Until then, I may be a purely software guy. Also, as much as I love the hardware and the musical inspiration that comes with it, sometimes I hear great tracks produced with Virus + VST only to find out the part that really caught my ears was the VST.. Side by side, once crunched down to MP3, I'm not sure anyone can know the difference.

[HUROLURA]

Just noticed there is something new regarding "hardware" VST Host like Muse Research Receptor or SMProAudio V-machine ...

the FellTune Rhizome :
http://www.feeltune.com/products.php

I think one of the most innovative feature of this one is its hardware controller implementation. I feel the integration is the main feature of this one.

[MBTC]

I think that is primarily a PC (running Windows XP), so I think of it like a laptop with knobs. The processor is considerably less than what I run in my PC now, although it would probably perform better due to lack of lots of other services, etc.

There are some similar solutions here: http://www.openlabs.com

However, with these I'd be giving up my large monitor, computer keyboard and mouse for editing in favor of portability. I'm kind of wishing in the other direction, where I could have something like a Ti Desktop or Snow (or actually many of them if it were cost effective enough) which I can control through my host.

But I think the Rhizome, Neko etc. probably don't have latency issues.

[HUROLURA]

Your wish will keep you having to deal with latency issues as you would have to deal with sending sound flow to these devices and then back to your host which then send it to its own DAC ...

[MBTC]

Indeed.. this is why I'm pure softsynth at the moment and loving it.

[HUROLURA]

And this is why I am using hardware combined with Scope DSP ... ;)
The Dac of the Scope are more than enough for me and provide a bunch of I/O. It is true that Scope also provide mixer, FX, and so on which is maybe unavailable with the TI
I just still wonder why you don't use the Virus as a real world output for your whole system ...

[MBTC]

Do you mean use the Virus as the sound card? I tried that, made no difference in latency.

However, today using a device unrelated to music, I discovered that there may be some issues with USB and Win7-64 bit on my system. I have no idea what at this point or if it's isolated to a specific port, hub, related to mobo firmware or what, but if it turns out to be my system it would mean that once resolved there could be a Virus in my future again at some point at least.

[sacredgeometry]

Its all about sound design for me to be honest, I would love nothing more to have albino/predator, sylenth, gladiator, ace or massive in a hardware synth it would allow me to get the most out of them which is hard even with the amount of control surfaces i have.

There is something special the virus though sound-wise, it really does make my excited when i make sounds on it I have had this experience with vsts too but of different flavours and in different places. Seriously though "Sound Quality" wise hardware has next to nothing to offer and all the sounds on any digital hardware could be recreated using pretty much identical algorithms on computers as thats all that they are in the end bar a few differences.

And the only reason we choose it over software is as a preference to that particular sound. Not because its any better or worse but because we prefer it.

I think alot of people enter into it expecting all their sound design problems to disappear. They think that because they have x synth and y multi effects module that they will be able to create Z sound. These are the people that tend to get disappointed. When they realise that all the sounds they make are exactly as limited as their own motivation to learn and that those synths they initially listed as useless were actually more capable then they were I can imagine its quite upsetting looking at an expensive lesson in patience.

[MBTC]

I agree with you, and this is why to some extent, in terms of pursuing a particular sound at least, it's better to be a master of one good synth, and know it backward and forward, than it is to have a huge variety of synths. Note I did say "good" synth.. something like Zebra2 comes to mind. It has a learning curve, but if you know it well, the limitations of sound design are pretty much removed.

[HUROLURA]

Much of the various synth available either as software or hardware have similar structure (each with their own special tricks or add-on).

Let's say oscillators (with or without extra waveshpae features) mixed/routed to filters then processed by amplifier + mod matrix.
This layout has been used for the very beginning based on the early Minimoog/Prophet 5/Odyssey ...

Some do provide some more advanced/flexibility but here we enter in the modular spirit gears/softsynths. This liberty has a cost regarding the learning curve.
My own way of using sound is not really attempting to get a special type of sound but more about man to machine interaction by twicking some parameters from a start sound basis and let thing progress iteratively. Hardware control is more comfortable/necessary for that purpose. I also use this process with softsynth but I miss the quick interaction possible with well thought and layout control hardware. Using the mouse is slowing down the process.

[MBTC]

My own way of using sound is not really attempting to get a special type of sound but more about man to machine interaction by twicking some parameters from a start sound basis and let thing progress iteratively. Hardware control is more comfortable/necessary for that purpose. I also use this process with softsynth but I miss the quick interaction possible with well thought and layout control hardware. Using the mouse is slowing down the process.

Have you ever looked into the Novation Automap software? It basically brings what you've mentioned above to the soft synth world, although it does require a Novation controller (not a bad thing since they are great hardware anyway). If you can imagine all of your soft synths being controlled using the same knobs/buttons for the same functions (i.e. cutoff is always in the same place etc) you get the idea. This could of course be accomplished with most midi controllers / soft synths anyway, with some tweaking and set up, but there are hassles that go with most of those approaches that Automap makes a lot easier, for example it has built in templates for all the popular soft synths and it just detects it when you load it and maps it for you (assuming that's what you want it to do). Its basically designed to keep your hands on the knobs more than the mouse.

Even though I have the software and use the controller, I tend not to use Automap much, but that's just a matter of my own workflow. I tend to use the mouse and software UI to navigate and tweak the main things, like finding a sound or fiddling with the range of a knob to see how it will sound while automated. Then at some point, once I've already integrated the sound into part of a track / a loop or whatever, I will manually link the mod wheel and one or two of the knobs along the top to whatever I plan to tweak in real time (that's when the part of the hardware interaction you spoke of happens in my workflow).

Now that I formally think about it like this, 99% of the time, as part of the music creation (not sound design) process I am only going to be tweaking 1 or 2 values in realtime, so depending on the sound I almost always map the mod wheel to either cutoff or a vibrato/pitch warble, and one other knob across the top to maybe one other parameter. When I am creating new sounds or dramatically tweaking existing sounds, I'm much more mouse oriented. There are some things with sound design that are just extremely limited by most hardware control surfaces. Even 20+ years ago, with certain hardware synths I prefered a computer based editor for some things, because it just takes too many steps to get to some functions with a limited set of buttons/knobs / readouts. When I think about a modular synth like Zebra, even attempting to make all of the same functionality available on a hardware device without a mouse, typing keyboard and decent sized screen would be a nightmare.

[HUROLURA]

I just spent a few hours today remote controlling my NOAH from a Prodyssey ASB and this is just the most efficient way of designing sounds on that plug.
I still just love this kind of synth providing dircet acces to the sound and I tend to collect some of them.
The most efficient I ever experineced are:
- the Creamware/soniccore ASB range (Minimax, Pro12, Prodyssey,B4000)
- my brand new Virus A
- the Novation KS series

The Waldorf low cost MicroQ is also well-thought and easy to program but not as straightforward.
I also made some MIDI templates to remote control hard or soft synth from BCR2000 or X-Station ...
I just love to play music without being forced o switch on the computer !!!

[infraction]

There is something special the virus though sound-wise, it really does make my excited when i make sounds on it I have had this experience with vsts too but of different flavours and in different places. Seriously though "Sound Quality" wise hardware has next to nothing to offer and all the sounds on any digital hardware could be recreated using pretty much identical algorithms on computers as thats all that they are in the end bar a few differences.


When I had my poco version, up against sylenth it wasn't that bright and didn't stand out in the mix more, but sylenth still sounded cheapish quality wise (now my TI eats both for breakfast :D).

A lot of native vst plugin developers (especially the best synth ones at the moment like u-he and lennard digital) seem to be one or two man teams unlike access which is something like a 20 strong team and IMO not a fat lot of research gets put into the vst synths. If a say twenty strong team of native plugin developers got together and decided to make a more professional product than no doubt it would easily compete or maybe surpass the virus sound.

But that isn't happening, even novation who seem to be very pro software keep their best algos in hardware these days. Maybe the fear of warez is to blame for the lack of really good quality softsynths that can match their hardware counterparts?

[MBTC]

If a say twenty strong team of native plugin developers got together and decided to make a more professional product than no doubt it would easily compete or maybe surpass the virus sound.

But that isn't happening, even novation who seem to be very pro software keep their best algos in hardware these days. Maybe the fear of warez is to blame for the lack of really good quality softsynths that can match their hardware counterparts?

I would definately agree that piracy fear holds back VST progression, but I couldn't agree that there aren't some soft synths taking it to the next level with large teams of talent. Take a look at something like Omnisphere or Alchemy. Especially with Omnisphere, you can browse around it and immediately see that there were a lot of folks involved in it's making. Granted, we are talking $500 softsynths at this point, but they are out there.

If I could try to identify one item that contributes to the widespread mediocrity of so many "regular" soft synths, it may be the availability and use of open-source algorithms to do much of the processing or filter work. I think many of these VSTs are based off the same common library that provides much of of the math functionality so the developer can focus on the creation of the instrument. The instrument itself may turn out unique, but that uniqueness is defined by the UI, the range of parameters, the included patches, etc.

At this point, the VST developer has made the choice of not re-inventing the wheel... this is typically a good idea in software development, finding ways to re-use work others have done, but when creating virtual instruments or similar, it can be enormously stifling to creativity and uniqueness to have a common foundation of re-use across projects.

Some of the most famous synthesizers were created by one or two guys, and what often gave the synth their unique sound was really a flaw or bug in the design that manifested in ways that was recognized as character. If we saw more of that in soft-synth creation, the end result would be better, but there is a resistance to recreate all algorithms from scratch (first because it's really damn hard work and not everyone has the math skills to do it, second because its a means to an end and most synth creators would prefer to work at the end).

Back to the subject of piracy for a minute, although as a developer of business software I am not up to date on embedded systems / DSP programming, I am unaware of anything that would prevent the code that powers the Virus from being completely reverse-engineerable. In fact I'll step out on a limb and say that someone has surely done it already. Furthermore, the fact that they offer a pure software solution that requires only powercore tells me that there is nothing necessarily magical about the algorithms in the Virus, someone has surely already dissected them.

I think hardware has a bit of sound advantage simply due to power of dedicated processing. By that I mean the DSP in the virus is doing one thing and one thing only -- producing sounds. The actual power of the unit is rather pathetic compared to a modern CPU, but the difference is that it is not producing sounds for multiple, disparate instruments on top of all the executing code for the host software which is running atop a gazillion services, which is running atop the OS kernal itself which is of course way more general purpose than a synth DSP. Multi-threading / multi-core helps with this problem but it's only as beneficial as the software is designed to take advantage of it, and since multi-threaded code is hard and limited by the presence of any serial-execution tasks, there is a seriously limiting lowest common denominator here.

So by adding a hardware to the arsenal, you are guaranteed a certain sound output. It doesn't matter how many other pieces of kit make up the studio, each one always produces constant output. I can't say that for a VST environment on my current PC, even though its a nicely powered CPU. I can add a VST, whip up a sound, and compare that side by side with a Virus and be amazed that the VST sounds as good or in some cases better. But once I've built out the mix such that there is A LOT going on, the sounds coming from that VST can be muddied up or lagged by other things -- in some cases the entire DAW starts wigging out from just too many instruments, effects, etc all bogging down the same chip that is also running regular OS services. Meanwhile the Virus is able to do it's sole job, producing a consistent sound that doesn't change as you add more hardware synths (it could of course as you add more effects or somethign to the virus sound itself, which may affect polyphony etc).

But despite all that, and the elegant simplicity we should get from just plugging in another piece of hardware kit, it seems we are still plagued with timing / latency issues, integration problems in general. Now we are at the core of why I am remaining software based at the moment.

[FSTZ]

I think that one thing that discoraged me is the learning curve on the virus is pretty steep. took me a while to get the hang of it, whereas synths like Albino and the Novation Vstation came pretty easily.

but after some help from friends, and the helpful people on this forum, I am starting to get the hang and learn my way around the my virus ti

but as far as sounds, the TI cannot be beat

[HUROLURA]

More flexible, more complex ... so not that easy to learn in detail.
Direct access through front panel should ease a "quick edit" mode, no ?

[HUROLURA]

Regarding the DSP power.

Here the power provided by some recents intel Core :

- Q6600 is around 29 000 MFLOPS
- QX6700, 32 000 MFLOPS
- QX6800, 36 000 MFLOPS

The SonicCore Xite-1 provides 29 988 MFLOPS dedicated to Audio
John Bowen Solaris provides 14 400 MFLOPS
Arturia Origin provides 7 200 MFLOPS

I do not know what an Access Virus TI provide ...

[HUROLURA]

I found the DSP chip inside the Virus TI: Freescale DSPB56367PV150 (2 pieces).

This one provide 2 x 150 = 300 MIPS but I have no MFLOPS figures (I guess the Freescale DSP use fixed point instead of floating units).

[HUROLURA]

And the newly introduced Xite-1D provide 9 600 MFLOPS ...

http://sonic-core.net/joomla.soniccore/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40&Itemid=124&lang=us

[Synthjockey]

It's not one or the other you can use both.

[HUROLURA]

Yes of course.
My feeling is that hardware stuff tends to be less computer dependent (obviously) and also have longer lifecycle ... all give them a chance to be more future proof.
On the soft plug-in side, you are OS dependent and newer version often cost money (different to the Access Virus OS update policy). Soft synth are also suffering from a non dedicated hardware platform (i.e. computer) so the same computation power cannot be used at its best.

On the other side there is not really anything left that can compete with a computer when you look at sampling or sequencing.

So you are right, the best is to combine both world ...

[MBTC]

Yes of course.
My feeling is that hardware stuff tends to be less computer dependent (obviously) and also have longer lifecycle ... all give them a chance to be more future proof.


I see things a different way. Hardware is a tangible, manufactured good, and the only element of it that is future proof is the fact that some features are software upgradable. Soft-synths take that level of upgradability and flexibility to a greater dimension.


On the soft plug-in side, you are OS dependent and newer version often cost money (different to the Access Virus OS update policy). Soft synth are also suffering from a non dedicated hardware platform (i.e. computer) so the same computation power cannot be used at its best.


Well if you look at the products by OpenLabs, they integrate the hardware with what is in essence a dedicated/optimized operating system or very close to it, but at the end of the day it is a dedicated PC / MIDI controller that runs VSTs.

I also have somewhat the opposite opinion about OS dependency and cost with regard to newer versions. I've found that most of my purchased plug-ins provide updates at no cost, and the cost of the plug-in itself is so low (relative to hardware) that it seems very disadvantageous to hardware to allow the topic of cost to even arise. Also as far as I know, in most cases of my purchased instruments I can switch to the Mac version if I wanted without extra cost.

[HUROLURA]

If you look at NI Komplete set of plugs, the upgrade from one version (looks like any) to the last is not free but you have to pay less (175€) for an upgrade rather than buying the full version (466 €).

Same for Reason 5 update (98 €) compared to full version (298 €) ...

This is just fair as one could have to pay for extra features (and extra work from the plug-in "manufacturer").

I just felt the Access upgrade policy to be clever as with free upgrade you can get new features and upgrade your Virus as long as the DSP can bear it.

The idea behind this is that as hardware is often more expensive than software, this is just a kind of compensation and could prevent people from waiting before buying that the last upgrade is out (which could be neverending).

Still reselling software is not that easy, especially if it is not up-to-date. Maybe it is easier with hardware as long as this hardware has proven to be future proof ...

[MBTC]

Hardware is more responsive than software when you are interacting directly with the hardware itself (live on stage, in studio etc). However when you get closer to what you want to produce, I find hardware MIDI delays/latency etc to be an issue, which makes it much less responsive if thats the right word.

As far as Komplete and Reason... I'm not sure about those since I have used neither. I could name three VSTs that could all be purchased together for probably under $600 US that will solve almost any synth need, polyphony only limited by the CPU you have, no latency, there would be no upgrade cost beyond that, and you would get both PC and Mac for same price. I'm not sure the same value situation exists in the hardware synth world.

[HUROLURA]

So which one ?

[MBTC]

You mean which VST do I like best right now? If I could only keep three, it would probably be:

Dune http://synapse-audio.com/dune.php
Zebra2
Sylenth1

In that order, but that depends on what kind of music you want to make.

If nothing else, spend 10 mins or so with the Dune demo. Programming it will feel right at home after the Virus.

[HUROLURA]

I meant which one you like best and you do not have to pay any money for upgrading from one version release to the other...

[MBTC]

Right now, Dune is my favorite due to CPU usage, Virus-like (VA style) programming, and I don't think its more for the Mac version? They certainly did not charge me more for version update from 1.1 to 1.2.

Also, Zebra2 has undergone many transformations but never charged me beyond what I originally paid them.

Sylenth I think has only undergone 1 or 2 upgrades in the 2-3 years I've owned it, but I've never paid more than once.

Having the three of those in your arsenal would be under $600 US, give you an astounding library of free sounds, and I don't think there would be any cost beyond that.

Dune is new, but I think it will be around a while. Zebra2 and Sylenth1 have been around a long time, have never fallen out of style, and the developer has never hit me up for more money.

[oscillator]

I like hardware because there's nothing like tweaking for an hour to find the sound in your head. I don't tweak software synths beause of the mouse point and click sadness.... So i find myself using some presets in this case.

With the Virus i tweak everything because i don't like too much prest patches since i am new-sounds-experience oriented, so not euro-trance-hypersaw musician.

The question is not to fall into a search-for-a-sound-nerver-heard-before madness but have the mind focused on the final work, which could have, in some cases, a sound we don't like if listened by itself, but with the best results, expressing what we want, inside a mix.

[MBTC]

I like hardware because there's nothing like tweaking for an hour to find the sound in your head. I don't tweak software synths beause of the mouse point and click sadness.... So i find myself using some presets in this case.


I find I have so much more control with a mouse. Not for something like performing live, and for on-stage visual appeal it is no doubt a lot sexier to be seen tweaking knobs on a hardware synth. And there is a visceral element to it that is nice.

I do a certain amount of tweaking with the knobs on a Novation controller. Software like Novation Automap or just proper use of the DAW can make the need for mouse very minimal.

But, because I like the mouse, the whole physical layout of my setup is designed to make it easy to get to. I see some studios where the mouse is such an after thought that it looks painful to use... So I think if you dont want the mouse, get set up to use the controller knobs, its quite easy. But, for really fine control and things like drawing complex envelope segments or things like additive harmonics, it is way easier with a mouse than trying to use a tiny screen on the hardware.

But I understand how folks have different styles. I just hate to hear someone sticking with presets on softsynths when they are the type that are into sound design, as am I.

[sacredgeometry]

I find I have so much more control with a mouse. Not for something like performing live, and for on-stage visual appeal it is no doubt a lot sexier to be seen tweaking knobs on a hardware synth. And there is a visceral element to it that is nice.

I do a certain amount of tweaking with the knobs on a Novation controller. Software like Novation Automap or just proper use of the DAW can make the need for mouse very minimal.

But, because I like the mouse, the whole physical layout of my setup is designed to make it easy to get to. I see some studios where the mouse is such an after thought that it looks painful to use... So I think if you dont want the mouse, get set up to use the controller knobs, its quite easy. But, for really fine control and things like drawing complex envelope segments or things like additive harmonics, it is way easier with a mouse than trying to use a tiny screen on the hardware.

But I understand how folks have different styles. I just hate to hear someone sticking with presets on softsynths when they are the type that are into sound design, as am I.

Only problem with a mouse for tweaking is that you cant tweak two things at once. This is a very important thing my opinion. The amounts of sounds that would have otherwise have gone unnoticed if I wasn't randomly tweaking two
knobs and found a sweet spot between the two that some rare magic arose.

That said Using any midi controller gives you identical levels of control. They are relatively cheap and reusable with other synths. Synths do tend to come alive when you have knobs to tweak, i'm not sure if its psychosomatic but having something tangible seems to give you a physical link to the sound you are producing.

To OP I love VSTs/soft synths...they sound easily as good as hardware these days, are portable and you can wadge as many as you want on a song at relatively low cost (computers being considerably cheaper than synths).

I bought a virus because I liked the character of it, my reason for buying synths generally is so I dont have to load up a computer to play music. Computers, wonderful as they are, drain creativity I feel. They distract and even the hum of one in the background is a constant ositnato which can influence and distract me. Being a musician/intrumentatlist its nice to just be able to grab a guitar, or sit down at a piano etc. A singular-purpose non diluted tool.

Ramblings over.

[MBTC]

Many good points made in the above post, and I do often feel the process is more musical/physical, and overall more fun with hardware knobs.

Although I've found as much as I enjoy interacting directly with hardware, if I played out my ideas first without immediacy with regard to software integration, my ideas will probably get lost (or important components of originally inspired idea dropped) as I try to port that idea over to the software environment for proper recording/producing.

With regard to tweaking 2 at once, as you mentioned I think it is best done in conjunction with a midi controller. I tend to map the modwheel temporarily to one parameter, work it with left hand, and work another parameter with the mouse. There are also a number of X/Y axis solutions (Zebra and some others have this pad built into the software), or it can be done in any VST with a DAW X/Y controller, giving you the ability to control 3 things at once assuming you don't want one hand free to play notes (which I often do).