Virus C vs Virus Snow?

[Spreader]

Hey!

I am torn between these two models. Unfortunately I don't have the chance to demo the C, which would make this a lot easier.

Feature wise I prefer the snow a bit. But many people seem to be claiming that the C/older models sound better than the newer TI line. For example the guy who created this great sound set: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOTdUsluQk

Or these PWM pads:

http://i.cr3ation.co.uk/dl/s1/mp3/aee7ba565a7755417638298e3b642fc6_virusclassicpads.mp3


Is this one big sham or do the models really sound different?

[Timo]

Hi there, welcome to the mad house.

Feature wise I prefer the snow a bit.

Sound engine feature wise I'd prefer the Snow a LOT! The jump from the C to TI is huge. However the Snow has fewer knobs etc.

A small number people have said the TI sounds different to the C, but to my knowledge this has yet to be proven (with audio examples, etc.). It might even be something as simple as perception of the difference in levels on the outputs, given that the TI natively uses balanced connections (although both can be used) whereas the C primarily uses unbalanced ones, or the increase in definition of the analogue outputs of the TI over the C.

[Spreader]

Thankyou Timo!

I actually sent an e-mail to access regarding this issue and they were nice enough to respond within a few hours.

I think sharing this would be fine:


The filter models and the "classic" oscillator model in the Virus TI are the exact same as in the older Virus models. There was absolutely no change. Of course the TI offers other oscillator types at this point and it also offers more effects, etc., but the base features are the same in all the models - so is the sound.
The difference here are solely the D/A converters, which very obviously got way better over the years, when you compare the D/A converters in a Virus "a" to a Virus b to a Virus c and now the Virus TI models.



I guess it's a myth busted!

It would be nice to hear how big of a difference the AD/DA converters play though. But I can't imagine it being that big. One thing that may also contribute is that it's said the later models have a hi-boost on the presets, which may confuse people. Not sure if that has any merit though.


Anyway this is good enough for me, I think I will be getting the snow.

[oscillator]

Hi Spreader, nice to hear that from Access itself!

I'm a C user, so when you take the Snow we could do a battle! :)

let me know and enjoy.

[namnibor]

Although I do not own any of the Ti Series, I firstly added a Virus KB to my arsenal and **I do not do trance**, rather, more experimental soundscapes to industrial music. I LOVE the KB and wil be diving deeper for many many years in programming, learning new things as well for long time.
A buddy of mine has Virus KC and although he says he really wished he had an KB in addition because of the more aggressive to incredible warm/fatness (which I agree it has and more), he loves the filters moreso on the Virus KC and after playing around for some time on his KC, and liking some newer, more immediate access to the ARP, for instance, without having to menu-dive for it as on the KB, I actually heard ENOUGH of a difference between the two that I had to turn down his offer to buy my KB for more than I paid for it AND a few months ago, bought a Virus KC because due to some menu-diving and my way of working, finding enough distinctions between the two (with some obvious overlap as will not be daft and deny that), at least to MY ears, I love them both and for whatever reason, loving them both, finding the KC more of an aggressively cold (in a great way), and harder to "tame" than the KB. This also obviously could be due to me being newer to the KC.
A newer aufio interface is in future as want to use firewire 400 that's on dedicated DAW PC and use oscilliscope program to compare the basic waveforms from KB/KC, then progressively add same filter, LFO, et al in comparisons between the two to view what differences, if any, show-up there. Not that I DOUBT Access' statement but perhaps there's more identical sound when comparing a Virus KC and a Ti Snow than there is between KB/KC??! My ears and a few others hear what I hear and I guess it comes down to what I like and if it makes me happy owning KB and KC, that's all that matters!
In the same vein, although own a Blofeld keyboard, decided to purchase buddy's Waldorf Yellow Q Rack simply because just like the Virus Line of synths, **nothing**, not even the blofeld's Q-modeled filters come remotely close to emulating this beast! She can be warm and fuzzy but just as literally rip your face off with sound as the Virus synths--yet distinct from the Virus.
These differences in VA's seem heavily located with each of their filter types and ability to modulate anything with everything and of course each of their AD/DA converters.

[TweakHead]

It's more a question of what really matters to you. I made that very same choice myself, once. Got a C. Because to me the hands on approach was the thing, at the moment. Wouldn't mind to have a Snow to, because of features that have been added meanwhile. And that's without mentioning the Virus Control plug-in and it's added convenience. I really learned a lot from building my sounds tweaking knobs instead of going through menus and I feel I've developed a very intuitive way of getting sounds out of it. Most of what people talk about when they go obsessive about some classic is related to both the sound and the way they used to work with them, it's all to easy to get lost just tweaking knobs and playing - it all feels like an instrument.

So you'd probably be better off with a Virus ti desktop version - if you want the best of both worlds: to have the latest features and the knob action, if you ask me. But where money is a problem, you need to ask yourself if hands action and knob tweaking is more important to you then new features and integration with the Daw (that sometimes has it's flaws, like most guys here flame about all the time, but seems to be a lot better these days.

[namnibor]

It's more a question of what really matters to you. I made that very same choice myself, once. Got a C. Because to me the hands on approach was the thing, at the moment. Wouldn't mind to have a Snow to, because of features that have been added meanwhile. And that's without mentioning the Virus Control plug-in and it's added convenience. I really learned a lot from building my sounds tweaking knobs instead of going through menus and I feel I've developed a very intuitive way of getting sounds out of it. Most of what people talk about when they go obsessive about some classic is related to both the sound and the way they used to work with them, it's all to easy to get lost just tweaking knobs and playing - it all feels like an instrument.

So you'd probably be better off with a Virus ti desktop version - if you want the best of both worlds: to have the latest features and the knob action, if you ask me. But where money is a problem, you need to ask yourself if hands action and knob tweaking is more important to you then new features and integration with the Daw (that sometimes has it's flaws, like most guys here flame about all the time, but seems to be a lot better these days.


So well said! Without a single doubt, I think it's VERY important for a person to learn "Basic Synthesis 101 and 102" by using a physical interface and learning modulation methods "hands-on" coupled with one's ears. That could be a real analog or a virtual analog, using subtractive synthesis and actually, even using a cheap Korg Monotron to firstly see and hear the basic components' interactions with each other. Mentioned this because if one wants their sound to "be their own", regardless of which synth one is using, it really requires one to KNOW how to get beyond the facade of presets. Technological advancements are continuing to be great for musicians but what I have repeatedly seen through ALOT of reading many pro forums is this "immediacy approach" where people have owned a synth and do nothing but purchase new preset soundsets rather than actually go down the rabbit hole and learn to make entirely original sounds on their own and this seems to apply to alot of vst-based synths. I think this also contributes to stereotypes about certain synths "ONLY" good for trance, et al! It would do alot of people some good to get back to basics and even learn what the definition of musical synthesizer is even. Here's a cool link that I found that takes one on this journey and is a keeper : http://moinsound.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/is-there-a-perfect-synthesizer/ Lastly, as tweakhead said quite rightly, alot of factors should be considered when choosing your synth because the physical interface is just as important as the key-action. My 3 or 4 cents! HAPPY NEW YEAR!

[subblack]

I would recommend the Virus C, not the TI. Some the new whizbang features of the TI include instability, unreliability. For example, the atomizer rarely works...I have to go to the edit menu and toggle the atomizer on/off setting a coupla times to get it to work at all. I sold my Virus C for a TI and I miss the sound of the C also.

[Spreader]

A bit too late to get the C as I already have the snow. No problems so far...

I would be glad to do a comparsion....


One question though, is there anyway to get the filter decay to be more linear? I think it's too snappy to get good plucks.

[oscillator]

I am glad to do a comparison too.

We could use the same patch in single mode, same volume, export as wav and load in soundcloud for a side by side ear test.

I will post a patch asap.
(of course we will use a Virus C patch for compatibility reasons)

[namnibor]

I am glad to do a comparison too.

We could use the same patch in single mode, same volume, export as wav and load in soundcloud for a side by side ear test.

I will post a patch asap.
(of course we will use a Virus C patch for compatibility reasons)

Perhaps having ALL effects and modulations off/removed from both sounds and using rather an init simple sine wave, for example, would then be comparing sound without that given Virus version's embellishment of effects, which would kind of be a fly in ointment of a true comparison. Just a thought.

[namnibor]

I say this because soundets would be obviously different from say a Snow, Virus B, and Virus C. A test of same waveform "naked" would make more sense as a whole different can of worms of same "patch" with same effects and modulations could be done as well.

[Spreader]

Here is a comparsion with the video I posted eariler. For now I won't say which is which or anything more than this. Can you guess which is which? There is a pretty big difference.

http://www9.zippyshare.com/v/68074414/file.html
http://www.mediafire.com/?nt5be03k83obox8
Virus.wav - 1.5 Mb (http://www2.zshare.ma/be167xy41inb)

[Timo]

One question though, is there anyway to get the filter decay to be more linear? I think it's too snappy to get good plucks.

Set the decay time roughly to what you want.

Then in the modulation matrix, use FiltEnv as a modulation source, and FltDecay as the destination. Nudge the destination amount upwards slightly (~15-30) to make it it less logarithmic and more linear (as shown in yellow, it's still a curve, though, with a slight ease-in and -out). Increasing positive number for destination amount even further will make the decay last a longer time before falling off quickly (shown in red).

http://www.infekted.org/virus/images/various/decaycurve.png

Negative values (blue) will decrease the curve even faster.

[Timo]

Here is a comparsion with the video I posted eariler. For now I won't say which is which or anything more than this. Can you guess which is which? There is a pretty big difference.

http://www9.zippyshare.com/v/68074414/file.html
http://www.mediafire.com/?nt5be03k83obox8
Virus.wav - 1.5 Mb (http://www2.zshare.ma/be167xy41inb)

The recorded levels are different. The latter half sounds cleaner, more separated. Sounds like the oscillator that is running an octave higher is given greater prevalence (osc balance) in the latter than the previous one, or there is a oscillator sync/phasing difference, or EQ, etc.. More programming issues rather than a D/A difference. Did you load a TI patch into the C (or vice versa)? Very important. Or did you start each patch from scratch?

I absolutely, categorically, do not think you can compare Virus patches in such a loose fashion.

We're not talking simple static samples here, but patches that have free running oscillators, polyphonic free running LFOs, free-running polyphonic unison, natural phasing, and a whole host of other programmed 'instabilities' put in place (via mod matrix or otherwise) to make the sounds less ordered and more organic or thicker, along with any differences in stereo, free-running delay lines and time-variant modulated chorus/phaser effects in full stereo, PureTuning, and recording issues such as tuning, transposition, levels, time-bases, and any midi modulated (velocity, etc.) parameters, etc.

Try recording the same midi riff ten times using just the same synth. I can guarantee you it will sound very different every single time due to the above.

Even LFOs running in poly mode is enough to dramatically change things every time due to phasing, let alone anything else.

To really compare, it'd have to be done in a methodic strict fashion, starting from scratch, entirely stripped of the ambiguous free running stuff, and ensuring that both synths used only common features between them, and strict recording policies were used.

[namnibor]

The recorded levels are different. The latter half sounds cleaner, more separated. Sounds like the oscillator that is running an octave higher is given greater prevalence (osc balance) in the latter than the previous one, or there is a oscillator sync/phasing difference, or EQ, etc.. More programming issues rather than a D/A difference. Did you load a TI patch into the C (or vice versa)? Very important. Or did you start each patch from scratch?

I absolutely, categorically, do not think you can compare Virus patches in such a loose fashion.

We're not talking simple static samples here, but patches that have free running oscillators, polyphonic free running LFOs, free-running polyphonic unison, natural phasing, and a whole host of other programmed 'instabilities' put in place (via mod matrix or otherwise) to make the sounds less ordered and more organic or thicker, along with any differences in stereo, free-running delay lines and time-variant modulated chorus/phaser effects in full stereo, PureTuning, and recording issues such as tuning, transposition, levels, time-bases, and any midi modulated (velocity, etc.) parameters, etc.

Try recording the same midi riff ten times using just the same synth. I can guarantee you it will sound very different every single time due to the above.

Even LFOs running in poly mode is enough to dramatically change things every time due to phasing, let alone anything else.

To really compare, it'd have to be done in a methodic strict fashion, starting from scratch, entirely stripped of the ambiguous free running stuff, and ensuring that both synths used only common features between them, and strict recording policies were used.

YOU SAID what I would have liked to have, but much more eloquently, TIMO! Like I said in earlier posts, ANY true comparison needs to be BARE BONES without embellishments. Again, I am saying compare a basic since wave side by side with no mod routings, etc, etc. Comparing Virus C to Ti this way using the visuals of an oscillascope with these bare bone tones rather than soley human ear will even be better. But I did not initially comment after listing to both clips because I did not think it was proper way to make ANy kind of emperical comparison.
Thankjs TIMO for saving my brain from having to stress beyond the perhaps simplistic initial reply I made, but all the same, my initial reply WAS germaine.
Robert

[Spreader]

The recorded levels are different. The latter half sounds cleaner, more separated. Sounds like the oscillator that is running an octave higher is given greater prevalence (osc balance) in the latter than the previous one, or there is a oscillator sync/phasing difference, or EQ, etc.. More programming issues rather than a D/A difference. Did you start each patch from scratch? Or load a TI patch into the C (or vice versa)? Very important.

I absolutely, categorically, do not think you can compare Virus patches in such a loose fashion.

We're not talking simple static samples here, but patches that have free running oscillators, free running polyphonic LFOs, free-running polyphonic unison, natural phasing, and a whole host of other programmed 'instabilities' put in place (via mod matrix or otherwise) to make the sounds less ordered and more organic or thicker, along with any differences in stereo, free-running delay lines and modulated chorus/phaser effects in full stereo, PureTuning, and recording issues such as tuning, transposition, levels, time-bases, and any midi modulated (velocity, etc.) parameters, etc.

Try recording the same midi riff ten times using just the same synth. I can guarantee you it will sound very different every single time due to the above.

Even LFOs running in poly mode is enough to dramatically change things every time due to phasing, let alone anything else.

To really compare, it'd have to be done in a methodic strict fashion, starting from scratch, entirely stripped of the ambiguous free running stuff, and ensuring that both synths used only common features between them, and strict recording policies were used.

Hey!

I loaded that patch to my snow. Is there something I should be aware of?

And yeah the patch is free running, but I think that the spectral differences are pretty clear. However it would be great if one of you would try that out on C. It's possible that the brighter tone comes from more aliasing. Or perhaps a pre-amp. Or maybe the settings are indeed different. Not sure if I should be aware of some initial different settings on the snow...

Interestingly, the C example produces a lot more artifacts in the low end. Something weird going with stereo as well (shifting from left to right). But I agree that it sounds better, (it's the 2nd) and I couldn't get the snow sound like that. I used the USB outs. BTW the C clip is MP3, so that may explain something too.

But yeah, maybe simpe saw wave would be a more scientific test. The samples are pretty close to RMS matched, but brighter sounds sound louder.

[Timo]

I loaded that patch to my snow. Is there something I should be aware of?

After reading the above, there are so many things I wouldn't know where to begin, other than saying what you did is not a controlled test. Absolutely countless things could cause the differences in the clip. We as mere listeners have no insight over how the test was prepared and conducted.

You cannot merely take a random patch from off the shelf, load it into both Viri', and then record them however you wish.

I have a Virus Indigo (B series). Unfortunately I don't have a TI to compare the two under controlled conditions. :|

[Spreader]

After reading the above, there are so many things I wouldn't know where to begin, other than saying what you did is not a controlled test. Absolutely countless things could cause the differences in the clip. We as mere listeners have no insight over how the test was prepared and conducted.

You cannot merely take a random patch from off the shelf, load it into both Viri', and then record them however you wish.

I have a Virus Indigo (B series). Unfortunately I don't have a TI to compare the two under controlled conditions. :|

I didn't mean that example to be some kind of end-it-all test.

I simply recorded the part on snow and compared it to the original recording. I have no idea how the original was even recorder so yeah...

I would like to know if there are some settings on the snow that I should check for best compatibility though.

[namnibor]

I correct my misspelling of "SINE WAVE", the most fundamental of all tones and could in-fact be viewed as it is in wavetable synthesis, as the sine wave without ANY extra filtering, modulational or otherwise routings and of course bare of any effects from both instruments, not to mention the audio quality that for instance MP3 is sort of a "downgrade" in audio quality.
For a true scientific test with emperical results, it would require if even such a "fair and equal" test atmosphere could be produced; both instruments would have the EXACT same amplification, speakers, and the real "FLY IN OINTMENT" is the fact The Virus SNOW requires a computer environment as its role also of an interface, of which the Virus C does not require. THEN that presents the impossibilities really of such a comparison because even the Digital/Analog/Digital Converters would be different.
I suggest we all just enjoy our individual incarnations of these wonderful instruments Access produced for ours and those we may entertain WITHOUT prejudice because ultimately, the evolution of the Virus is just that, based upon it's predecessor's engine and improved in different ways but, in the end, BOTH are Virus synthesizers and each version still to this day surpasses most of which is out there and has been produced. The only exception in my opinion would be another German manufacturer, the former incarnation of Waldorf, the Q engine and the newer incarnation of Waldorf, The Blofeld.
I think proposed tests such as this really do nothing more than place a divide amongst us, whether intended or not and again, we should simply ENJOY owning the most advanced instrument that's ONLY limitation is one's own creativity and imaginations!
Let's live without petty indifference of what Viri is "better or best", rather, continue to push the limits not yet discovered with EACH incarnation of indeed the SAME engine, with simply another name.
We can ALL agree that the German's RULE the synthesis technology many times over and that the old rule of the "Big Three in Asia", is relatively past tense!
Fervently,
Robert

[namnibor]

Why does this REALLY MATTER?!! The engineers at Access stated themself that the Viri engine IS the same save from some digital/analog converter differences! Who are WE to really question THAT coming from the emperical "horses mouth"? Really!

[namnibor]

I happen to own a Virus KB and KC because I like fundamental differences in the interface and filters but that has nothing to do with the basic waveforms; it's just my preference for what each instrument offers in the physical interface and what I as a musician would like for immediacy in playing for layering sounds. This point of which is "better" is oxymoronic in SO many ways!

[oscillator]

What do you think of a semi-controlled test using Ableton live with fixed settings inside and a midi clip, routed to Virus Ti and and C simple waveforms without effects?

We should only not consider volume differences because of different audio cards used... But just compare tone, timbre.

If there's someone with Ableton and Virus Ti who want partecipate please trow your email into my private message box.

[Spreader]

What do you think of a semi-controlled test using Ableton live with fixed settings inside and a midi clip, routed to Virus Ti and and C simple waveforms without effects?

We should only not consider volume differences because of different audio cards used... But just compare tone, timbre.

If there's someone with Ableton and Virus Ti who want partecipate please trow your email into my private message box.

Yeah that would work, then sample align and phase invert.

Or just play back the same clip I did, and if it's again noticebly brighter, it's pretty likely because of the C. It's a good patch to test aliasing since it's worbly and high pitched.

[oscillator]

yes, i can prepare the Ableton file with all clips inside, send the project to someone with the Ti, export wav, then done.

who want to partecipate?

[Timo]

yes, i can prepare the Ableton file with all clips inside, send the project to someone with the Ti, export wav, then done.

who want to partecipate?

Make sure anyone who participates checks and uses the same global settings as your own, including PureTuning, Global Transpose and Master Tuning.

[namnibor]

:confused: Perhaps those participating and conducting this futile test need to read the definition of what "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD" is for ANY emperical results to be relavent. There's just way too many uncontrollable variables and The Scientific Method INVOLVES a controlled environment as well as a control group. I still hear no talk about using an oscillascope program because if you are reliant only on different set of human ears--there's another huge variable.

[TweakHead]

I think there should be no pre-amps pulling the volume on this, to. which is so easy to forget when recording audio with an interface. and even without that, which can be thought off as another stage of processing by itself, I'm pretty sure that different interfaces may produce a different sound...

so my advice would be, if this is done by the same person, to use the stereo outs on both the b, c and ti. so that the signal path would be the same in all examples.

but even though it's kind of futile, I confess I'd like to listen to such tests done right. and analyse them myself to. I guess it's the geek side of me speaking here. No shame though. Cheers

[namnibor]

What makes absolutely no sense here is "Spreader" was given "THE ANSWER" from Access as copied/pasted from his own post at start of this thread, yet obviously refutes the very engineers that definitely know more than any of us on this forum: Originally Posted by access:

"The filter models and the "classic" oscillator model in the Virus TI are the exact same as in the older Virus models. There was absolutely no change. Of course the TI offers other oscillator types at this point and it also offers more effects, etc., but the base features are the same in all the models - so is the sound.
The difference here are solely the D/A converters, which very obviously got way better over the years, when you compare the D/A converters in a Virus "a" to a Virus b to a Virus c and now the Virus TI models"
Also, TIMO said rightly about the audio differences in balanced/unbalanced outputs, et al. It's just anoying when one was given their answer from Access themself, yet has some Ego or Id thing to prove here!
Robert

[feedingear]

My humble opinion, the more people post in forums griping, the less time they spend actually writing/producing/synthesising/learning to use their ears ;).

But i've been lucky with my TI working for the most part as it should - with the only quibbles being dropped clocks now and again, and some scary moments using betas, and its been painless since os4.

[Spreader]

What makes absolutely no sense here is "Spreader" was given "THE ANSWER" from Access as copied/pasted from his own post at start of this thread, yet obviously refutes the very engineers that definitely know more than any of us on this forum: Originally Posted by access:

"The filter models and the "classic" oscillator model in the Virus TI are the exact same as in the older Virus models. There was absolutely no change. Of course the TI offers other oscillator types at this point and it also offers more effects, etc., but the base features are the same in all the models - so is the sound.
The difference here are solely the D/A converters, which very obviously got way better over the years, when you compare the D/A converters in a Virus "a" to a Virus b to a Virus c and now the Virus TI models"
Also, TIMO said rightly about the audio differences in balanced/unbalanced outputs, et al. It's just anoying when one was given their answer from Access themself, yet has some Ego or Id thing to prove here!
Robert

Why are you spouting stuff I didn't say all the time? Could you please tell me where I "obviously refuted the engineers from access"?

All I did was that I put a clip here, saying pretty much nothing and now all the sudden you are complaining I am refuting access?

People, LIGHTEN UP. It's not my fault that you intepret my words as something they are not and then blame me for actually claiming it's supposed to be something it's not. FFS.


For clarification (I believe this is the 2nd time now?): I did NOT mean that test to be scientific test. I just wanted to compare how the snow sounded compared to the clip. Just something fun, that's all. I do believe the engine is the same, but the AD/DA conversion+DIs+pre-amps etc, will make a difference. Also the FFT would suggest that there is more aliasing in the C, which there probably is. Again, not claiming there necessarily is.

That being said I would like to know if there are some settings I should check on the snow when loading banks made with A/B/C to make them sound like intended.

[oscillator]

C'mon guys, it's just a game, it's just for fun.

Don't take the comparison proposal too seriously...

[TweakHead]

My humble opinion, the more people post in forums griping, the less time they spend actually writing/producing/synthesising/learning to use their ears ;).


so true... but it's cool to feed the geek side ;)

[Spreader]

so true... but it's cool to feed the geek side ;)

Indeed.

I have spent some time with the snow now. It's a great synth for that kind of worbly lead sounds, the FM, ring mods, LFOs are great.

However, the filters... I don't like them. Or rather I don't like the envelopes. They sound plasticky to me due to the exessive punch they have. I usually roll attack point down to 2 to get rid of that clicky, "compressed sounding" attack (maybe someone knows what I mean - or perhaps I am crazy?). I usually roll of the punch just a bit as well, I can't stand that "compression sound" for a lack of a better word.

The trick that Timo posted here works great though, I guess I just prefer the more linear shape of the envelope. The only problem I have with the trick is that it slows down the filter A LOT, which would not be a problem, except for the fact that the scale runs out. So even on fastest setting there is still too long decay to get my favored pluck sound. Any ideas to make the attack faster?

That said I dig the LP18 analog filter... Yuuum.:cool: More synths should have these.

[TweakHead]

Not sure what you mean. But by default the oscillators on the virus behave like analogue, that means "free running", try to adjust their "phase" and it becomes more steady - saying this because sometimes this can create some sort of click, with very snappy envelope settings. If you think it's hitting hard, take away the punch intensity all together. About Timo's tip: it's called recursive modulation, very useful and shouldn't lead to any increase in attack time, it's just the curve that changes, also can be done for the decay and release. I don't agree that the envelopes behave badly on the virus at all...

maybe post an example for us to listen to, would be easier ;)

[namnibor]

Not sure what you mean. But by default the oscillators on the virus behave like analogue, that means "free running", try to adjust their "phase" and it becomes more steady - saying this because sometimes this can create some sort of click, with very snappy envelope settings. If you think it's hitting hard, take away the punch intensity all together. About Timo's tip: it's called recursive modulation, very useful and shouldn't lead to any increase in attack time, it's just the curve that changes, also can be done for the decay and release. I don't agree that the envelopes behave badly on the virus at all...

maybe post an example for us to listen to, would be easier ;)

I entirely agree with Tweakhead in that the Virus envelopes behave exactly like "BASIC 101 SYNTHESIS ADSR" with the Virus also having a "T" for Time factor within envelope structure. I own both a Virus KB and KC and I learned basic 101 synthese back in 1982 on a Korg MS20, a classic real analog monster monosynth.
Matter-in-fact, the envelopes are extremely versatile in that couppled with Keytracking and modulation routing, one can have quite the evolving sound over a great period of time or be made to get beautiful pluck-type attacks akin to cello with fingers.
Then when a person dives deeper in basic 101 synthesis and learns how to manipulate bipolar and looping envelopes bringing LFO's into the manipulation--the possibilities are only limited by one's creativity or ability/knowledge.
There's free download on Access' website that was included with at least the B and C series synths called "PROGRAMMING ANALOGUE SYNTHS--Virus Tutorial By Howard Scarr". Suggested for all levels of synthesis, including even the novice--FYI.

[namnibor]

Not sure what you mean. But by default the oscillators on the virus behave like analogue, that means "free running", try to adjust their "phase" and it becomes more steady - saying this because sometimes this can create some sort of click, with very snappy envelope settings. If you think it's hitting hard, take away the punch intensity all together. About Timo's tip: it's called recursive modulation, very useful and shouldn't lead to any increase in attack time, it's just the curve that changes, also can be done for the decay and release. I don't agree that the envelopes behave badly on the virus at all...

maybe post an example for us to listen to, would be easier ;)

That "CLICK" Tweakhead mentioned happens to also be a very desirable attribute when programming a classic Hammond Organ sound, especially hand when velocity triggers it and that type of click coupled with noise/filter takes you down the drum kit path as well.
It should go without having to say this but there's seperate envelopes for say the filter, amp, etc.

[Spreader]

Played with the snow a bit more.

Indeed, if someone knows of a way to make the filters faster with the more linear envelopes, that would be great. I don't have problems with the "click" sound, it was just an observation. Many synths make way more obvious click sounds.

BTW, are the presets for virus A/B/C available somewhere? I heard that the famous Darude "sandstorm" lead sound may be a preset from the B and while I am not the biggest fan, it would be cool to check if that has any merit (I think it's from the TB though).

[TweakHead]

The Filters on the Virus are pretty standard. You can adjust the Envelope Amount of modulation for each of the two filters, which means exactly that: how much you want the Filter Cutoff to be modulated, either way (positive to the right of where it rests, negative to the left...).

I think you should probably try this with a "init patch" on your virus. Put the filter balance all the way to the left. And then play with just these settings so you get to know them well. Don't even change the CURVE of the envelope's attack, decay and release...
I don't mean to be rude here, but it shows you need to learn some basics ;)

you have some dream machine to do that!

EDIT

the envelopes are fast enough to synthesize very hard hitting drums, or to modulate the filter for very precise and very fast psychedelic trance bass, even on 170+ beats per minute... so it's just a matter of knowing what you're doing, really...

try this, have a low pass filter, close the filter so the tone gets deep enough, then on the filter envelope, put this settings: no attack, a bit of decay, no sustain, and no or very short release, then slowly adjust the envelope amount knob, and play with it, or turn on the arp with "hold" setting enabled, the simple pattern 1 will do... play with it, the punch intensity brings more energy to the sound - so it's just another parameter to play with, for hard hitting sounds it's probably a good idea to turn in up, the other way around, just bring it down, that's it... if you want your waves to recycle on the same point (phase) for each note (which is really important for psychedelic trance bass and other similar sounds where you want it to play in a very stable fashion, adjust the "phase init" parameter, and you get all the precision you need.

Now, if you want it to wooble or sweep, turn the attack up, if you want it to rest on some cutoff point, turn the sustain up, the release is the time it takes to get back to the point where the cutoff knob rests. Play with it! Tweak that thing and open your ears! No problem with the envelopes or filters on the virus. Pretty much the same on any given synth out there (even software ones). Also try the negative polarity on the Filter Envelope. Try to turn down the "tracking of it", which just means that the Cutoff will vary it's position based on the note you press on the keyboard, useful for sounds that cover a larger scale on the keyboard. For examples: when you play low notes, the filter is very closed, when you go up an octave, it opens to allow more content to pass, so forth and so on. It let's you choose the root note for this as well...

Only after you get comfortable with all these settings, you should start experimenting with the two filters combo, either in serial, parallel or split modes.

[Spreader]

The Filters on the Virus are pretty standard. You can adjust the Envelope Amount of modulation for each of the two filters, which means exactly that: how much you want the Filter Cutoff to be modulated, either way (positive to the right of where it rests, negative to the left...).

I think you should probably try this with a "init patch" on your virus. Put the filter balance all the way to the left. And then play with just these settings so you get to know them well. Don't even change the slope of the envelopes.

I don't mean to be rude here, but it shows you need to learn some basics ;)

you have some dream machine to do that!

Why does everyone here misread me? LoL. Perhaps I should be more articulate.

I want the filter envelope to be linear, so to achieve that I do what Timo suggested. Everything is great so far. The problem is that the filter envelope slows down greatly when you do this. So if I set the Filter env amount to positive by as much as I would like the filter decay is slow, even when it's on the fastest setting.

So I can't have more linear envelope + fast decay on the envelope. Maybe some of you know some trick on the virus to make it faster.

[TweakHead]

But... that's exactly what it's meant to do! Just think about it:

You have, for example, an audio file on your DAW, and you place a fade out on it. Guess what, if it's linear, it takes more time for the volume to fade then with a negative value curve, right? Even though the length of the fade/curve is exactly the same. And for very short decay times, does it even make that much of a difference?

[Spreader]

But... that's exactly what it's meant to do! Just think about it:

You have, for example, an audio file on your DAW, and you place a fade out on it. Guess what, if it's linear, it takes more time for the volume to fade then with a negative value curve, right? Even though the length of the fade/curve is exactly the same. And for very short decay times, does it even make that much of a difference?

Yes? My point wasn't that it's broken. Rather it was that the decay is too long. Is there any way to make it shorter?

[TweakHead]

yes, there's a way to make it shorter, make a negative curve for the decay or just leave it alone, by making the curve linear you're the one making it longer... ;)

also... what kind of sound are you trying to make there? really curious...

should go without saying, you've made some very contradictory posts here...

about the excess of punch, take down punch intensity.

about making attack faster, turn attack knob to the left.

about making decay faster, turn it's knob to the left

adjusting the curve of either attack, decay or release: follow Timo's tip, don't complain if you make the opposite of what you want, sound wise, it's not the Virus's fault, just yours.

about knowing how to get the sounds you want: keep tweaking. read the indicated "how to program analogue synths" like indicated here...

[Timo]

However, the filters... I don't like the[] envelopes. They sound plasticky to me due to the exessive punch they have. I usually roll attack point down to 2 to get rid of that clicky, "compressed sounding" attack (maybe someone knows what I mean - or perhaps I am crazy?). I usually roll of the punch just a bit as well, I can't stand that "compression sound" for a lack of a better word.

Do you have Punch Intensity turned up? Punch is a feature that places a single-cycle pulsed 'click' at the front of the sound when you hit a key. By default (on an initialised patch) it's at 64. If you don't want it, turn it down to zero. I don't like it either when I'm programming sounds. I usually add it at the end, if at all.

I want the filter envelope to be linear, so to achieve that I do what Timo suggested. Everything is great so far. The problem is that the filter envelope slows down greatly when you do this. So if I set the Filter env amount to positive by as much as I would like the filter decay is slow, even when it's on the fastest setting.

So I can't have more linear envelope + fast decay on the envelope. Maybe some of you know some trick on the virus to make it faster.

If you're using my trick to attempt to linearise the curve, you shouldn't increase the FiltEnv > FltDecay amount any further than 30 or so, otherwise you'll bend the curve beyond linear and blow it completely outwards.

Remember, by modulating FiltDecay by FiltEnv, you're literally multiplying the curve by itself.

[namnibor]

Why does everyone here misread me? LoL. Perhaps I should be more articulate.

I want the filter envelope to be linear, so to achieve that I do what Timo suggested. Everything is great so far. The problem is that the filter envelope slows down greatly when you do this. So if I set the Filter env amount to positive by as much as I would like the filter decay is slow, even when it's on the fastest setting.

So I can't have more linear envelope + fast decay on the envelope. Maybe some of you know some trick on the virus to make it faster.

People are not misreading you, it seems you may be a bit defensive in accepting answers and suggestions others are giving. Learn to program your virus or any subtractive synth by using the downloadable book Access produced for just that aformentioned in previous post I made.
FYI--ALL the factory presets for all models are avail for download at Access' website under discontinued products. You have ALOT of options using modulational routing as well as envelopes to do what you need right in front of you.

[Spreader]

FYI--ALL the factory presets for all models are avail for download at Access' website under discontinued products.

Thanks, so which set do I download for virus B ROM presets? Everything before 2000s?

[namnibor]

Thanks, so which set do I download for virus B ROM presets? Everything before 2000s?

What it seems would benefit you best is under Downloads/Discontinued Products, "Manuals And Tutorials", "Tutorial On How To Program The Virus In English", [The analogue synth programming tutorial by Howard Scarr is a must for every Virus user. This archive includes the tutorial sounds.] Also on same page of download aformentioned, pdf download of "Diagram of Virus Signal Flow".
These two things will get your fingers on knobs along with Howard Scarr's tutorial, of whom is a formost sound designer in which he contributes to both Access and Waldorf's presets and the tutorial will give you a hands-on approach like none other as if you are only after "instant satisfaction" with immediacy only via presets, as wanting original factory soundsets or other's, you are not going to learn neccessity of basics of subtractive synthesis; starting as Tweakhead appropriately suggested in starting to work with ONE osc, using signal flow chart and twisting knobs through VCA and an envelope, then basic filter frequency and resonance, then learn how the LFO's further manipulate using modulation modifiers; doing all by starting with an init basic pulse or sine wave.
Matter-in-fact, if you have a paper usuer manual or do not, download it because the Virus B and C manuals actually take your from the beginning reading through, giving exercises hands-on and explaining through doing and hearing and of course memory--the best way to learn that although this is subtractive synthesis, when you are adding modulation routing and modifiers such as TIMO gave you, a person has to realize that what one does to one area of signal more times than not affects other areas that then will also have to be adjusted down or up to prevent unwanted artifacts in sound. This is not something one "picks-up" in an evening session or two; rather, like ANY instrument, there's basic need to know dynamics of reading language of music, but at same time whether a clarinet or piano, how to control that instrument through dynamics--in our case, learning how to route electrical signal of waveforms via osc's and and basic synthesis tools, then add more learning once mastering one thing e.g. modulation routing tools and how they affect the filter for instance. Tweakhead also stated most rightly that since we own some of the most sophisticated synths, starting with ONE TYPE of filter to master, before even tackling parallel/serial/looping/bipolar/comb, et al. The effects chain should really be least of worries as they are an extra "garnishment" that whilst learning programming could hamper training of ear in using the tools in front of you. It's not an immediate but rather progressive learning because these same tools are utilized in other synths and a sound designer or keyboardist must be able to say for instance in my case, be able to use same knowledge on my Waldorf Q, or DSI MonoEvolver Keyboard--all of which have totally different interfaces and lay out BUT indeed utilize ALL the same basics you will benefit from Howard Scarr's aformentioned download and most importantly, the User Manual. Nice thing about downloading pdf user manuals is you can use the search feature within that to more quickly find every instance that say "filter modulation" or "aftertouch as modulation source".
However, if you do not care about all these things and just want to use presets, YET wish to edit said presets without doing the work to learn it and post questions about things that the manufacturer has made readily available to you on various forums dedicated to the brands/types of synths you own or homerecording.com or gearslutz.com, or SoundONSound.com, you will realize we on infekted are quite accommodating, whereas some other sites will perhaps seem to come across crass when they often will answer such questions by "RTFM", meaning Read-The-F***ing-Manual. I rather direct a person to the tools readily available for their journey in wonderful world of sound design and making the sounds your own. Hope this has helped in a non-demeaning nor crass way. In my humble opinion, believe you could benefit from these things soley by posts here. It's a bit like someone wanting to play a synthesizer but does not know about music theory whatsoever and only interesting in letting arpeggiators and sequencers do all the music production for them and buying a Virus just because they read a certain music group uses it and they want to sound "just like them, but in their own style"...they are missing the point of all the practice we ALL have had and continue to do AND are STILL learning new things because that's how incredibly feature-rich the Virus for instance is.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using presets! However, if you are wanting to ideally know how to alter said preset I suggest taking one preset and you will notice on Virus C or B as you change program presets the led's will change reflecting what is active and not in each and by deconstruction of a preset you can also learn how and what made it sound the way it does, why the mod wheel does what it may do to alter it, and even how aftertouch further evolves that sound by what else lights up in course of pressing harder while holding key(s). These "tools" apply no matter what style of music you are wishing to compose and contrary to average music listener's assumtions, ambient electronic and even IDM style or drones even can be really more complicated in modulational routings as opposed to typical trance-stylized music. Good reading and folowing exercises contained within is ahead of you and never forget to HAVE FUN in process. Repetition is also very good in learning process while learning in series of blocks and progressively getting more complicated--but get yourself so that by listening to other's music, you can hear how a sound changes and morphs and being able to say, AHA, THAT was a short attack with an envelope decay but with a long release while an LFO is bringing-in another type of filter , etc etc....Korg is re-releasing in March the mini-MS20 monosynth that's 86% size of original from like 1977, with same all analog, two osc, two filters, two env generators, with all the patchable bays for $599. and that's what I learned on in 1982 and even something like a monotron $59.usd, you can learn so much of basic subtractive synthesis. Starting out on an Access Virus in this knowledge is really akin to someone as a freshman in college wanting to jump right off into Quantum Mechanics of Phsics yet with absolutely NO know-how in mathmatical skills, let alone Calculus or Trig. Again, good luck on your journey as synthesis is so fun whether intended as a hobbiest or with ambition to produce music commercially, or even sound design for people to download.
Robert (with tired typing fingers)

[Spreader]

What it seems would benefit you best is under Downloads/Discontinued Products, "Manuals And Tutorials", "Tutorial On How To Program The Virus In English", [The analogue synth programming tutorial by Howard Scarr is a must for every Virus user. This archive includes the tutorial sounds.] Also on same page of download aformentioned, pdf download of "Diagram of Virus Signal Flow".
These two things will get your fingers on knobs along with Howard Scarr's tutorial, of whom is a formost sound designer in which he contributes to both Access and Waldorf's presets and the tutorial will give you a hands-on approach like none other as if you are only after "instant satisfaction" with immediacy only via presets, as wanting original factory soundsets or other's, you are not going to learn neccessity of basics of subtractive synthesis; starting as Tweakhead appropriately suggested in starting to work with ONE osc, using signal flow chart and twisting knobs through VCA and an envelope, then basic filter frequency and resonance, then learn how the LFO's further manipulate using modulation modifiers; doing all by starting with an init basic pulse or sine wave.
Matter-in-fact, if you have a paper usuer manual or do not, download it because the Virus B and C manuals actually take your from the beginning reading through, giving exercises hands-on and explaining through doing and hearing and of course memory--the best way to learn that although this is subtractive synthesis, when you are adding modulation routing and modifiers such as TIMO gave you, a person has to realize that what one does to one area of signal more times than not affects other areas that then will also have to be adjusted down or up to prevent unwanted artifacts in sound. This is not something one "picks-up" in an evening session or two; rather, like ANY instrument, there's basic need to know dynamics of reading language of music, but at same time whether a clarinet or piano, how to control that instrument through dynamics--in our case, learning how to route electrical signal of waveforms via osc's and and basic synthesis tools, then add more learning once mastering one thing e.g. modulation routing tools and how they affect the filter for instance. Tweakhead also stated most rightly that since we own some of the most sophisticated synths, starting with ONE TYPE of filter to master, before even tackling parallel/serial/looping/bipolar/comb, et al. The effects chain should really be least of worries as they are an extra "garnishment" that whilst learning programming could hamper training of ear in using the tools in front of you. It's not an immediate but rather progressive learning because these same tools are utilized in other synths and a sound designer or keyboardist must be able to say for instance in my case, be able to use same knowledge on my Waldorf Q, or DSI MonoEvolver Keyboard--all of which have totally different interfaces and lay out BUT indeed utilize ALL the same basics you will benefit from Howard Scarr's aformentioned download and most importantly, the User Manual. Nice thing about downloading pdf user manuals is you can use the search feature within that to more quickly find every instance that say "filter modulation" or "aftertouch as modulation source".
However, if you do not care about all these things and just want to use presets, YET wish to edit said presets without doing the work to learn it and post questions about things that the manufacturer has made readily available to you on various forums dedicated to the brands/types of synths you own or homerecording.com or gearslutz.com, or SoundONSound.com, you will realize we on infekted are quite accommodating, whereas some other sites will perhaps seem to come across crass when they often will answer such questions by "RTFM", meaning Read-The-F***ing-Manual. I rather direct a person to the tools readily available for their journey in wonderful world of sound design and making the sounds your own. Hope this has helped in a non-demeaning nor crass way. In my humble opinion, believe you could benefit from these things soley by posts here. It's a bit like someone wanting to play a synthesizer but does not know about music theory whatsoever and only interesting in letting arpeggiators and sequencers do all the music production for them and buying a Virus just because they read a certain music group uses it and they want to sound "just like them, but in their own style"...they are missing the point of all the practice we ALL have had and continue to do AND are STILL learning new things because that's how incredibly feature-rich the Virus for instance is.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using presets! However, if you are wanting to ideally know how to alter said preset I suggest taking one preset and you will notice on Virus C or B as you change program presets the led's will change reflecting what is active and not in each and by deconstruction of a preset you can also learn how and what made it sound the way it does, why the mod wheel does what it may do to alter it, and even how aftertouch further evolves that sound by what else lights up in course of pressing harder while holding key(s). These "tools" apply no matter what style of music you are wishing to compose and contrary to average music listener's assumtions, ambient electronic and even IDM style or drones even can be really more complicated in modulational routings as opposed to typical trance-stylized music. Good reading and folowing exercises contained within is ahead of you and never forget to HAVE FUN in process. Repetition is also very good in learning process while learning in series of blocks and progressively getting more complicated--but get yourself so that by listening to other's music, you can hear how a sound changes and morphs and being able to say, AHA, THAT was a short attack with an envelope decay but with a long release while an LFO is bringing-in another type of filter , etc etc....Korg is re-releasing in March the mini-MS20 monosynth that's 86% size of original from like 1977, with same all analog, two osc, two filters, two env generators, with all the patchable bays for $599. and that's what I learned on in 1982 and even something like a monotron $59.usd, you can learn so much of basic subtractive synthesis. Starting out on an Access Virus in this knowledge is really akin to someone as a freshman in college wanting to jump right off into Quantum Mechanics of Phsics yet with absolutely NO know-how in mathmatical skills, let alone Calculus or Trig. Again, good luck on your journey as synthesis is so fun whether intended as a hobbiest or with ambition to produce music commercially, or even sound design for people to download.
Robert (with tired typing fingers)


Thanks. Actually I am pretty experienced with synths and the virus is not my first synth by any means, Kutzweil synths are much more complicated than at least what I have seen so far IMHO. The only thing in Virus I haven't had experience with is the granular synthesis stuff. I will take a look on the tutorials though, maybe there is something useful there. The MS-20 reissue looks cool indeed.

As for the presets, I am just interested if the famous Darude lead sound is from the virus B mostly. Maybe someone already knows the answer to this here?

[namnibor]

As far as massive modulation possibilities, having both the virus KB and KC, I'd say they along with my Waldorf Q and Microwave XT--are collectively the most complicated in a good way as far as plethora of options for sound design and I will freely admit that the Waldorf Q definitely out-powers in every way both my Virii...but with it's filters and distinct sound that sets the Q completely apart, it compliments the Virii quite nicely. Kawai K5000 is an additive synth and although never owned it, it makes deep programming a DX7 seem like a cakewalk.
Good to know you have some synth experience. Do know though subtractive synthesis programming is similar from synth to synth but when you massive modulation capabilities such as any Virus or as mentioned Waldorf Q, it makes in neccessary to indeed study the MANUAL download from Access VERY useful. The tutorial series on Access are for the Ti series as far as I know called, Programming Bootcamp...but this may carry over to some extent to prior incarnations of virus, so not to quote me there. Even though you have synth experience, I know people that have had ALOT of pro experience that have benfited GREATLY from Howard Scarr's Programming Subtractive Synths...download it and go through it and by all means read the f***ing manual! We have more filter options than all other hardware synths aside from Waldorf Q and the newer Blofeld, which I absolutely love as well and compliments the Virus sound. Listened to an ambient music post you have on Soundcloud that sounds cool in playing filters and very much like some of the stuff i experiment with currently the other day...good stuff by the way!
Robert

[namnibor]

As far as massive modulation possibilities, having both the virus KB and KC, I'd say they along with my Waldorf Q and Microwave XT--are collectively the most complicated in a good way as far as plethora of options for sound design and I will freely admit that the Waldorf Q definitely out-powers in every way both my Virii...but with it's filters and distinct sound that sets the Q completely apart, it compliments the Virii quite nicely. Kawai K5000 is an additive synth and although never owned it, it makes deep programming a DX7 seem like a cakewalk.
Good to know you have some synth experience. Do know though subtractive synthesis programming is similar from synth to synth but when you massive modulation capabilities such as any Virus or as mentioned Waldorf Q, it makes in neccessary to indeed study the MANUAL download from Access VERY useful. The tutorial series on Access are for the Ti series as far as I know called, Programming Bootcamp...but this may carry over to some extent to prior incarnations of virus, so not to quote me there. Even though you have synth experience, I know people that have had ALOT of pro experience that have benfited GREATLY from Howard Scarr's Programming Subtractive Synths...download it and go through it and by all means read the f***ing manual! We have more filter options than all other hardware synths aside from Waldorf Q and the newer Blofeld, which I absolutely love as well and compliments the Virus sound. Listened to an ambient music post you have on Soundcloud that sounds cool in playing filters and very much like some of the stuff i experiment with currently the other day...good stuff by the way!
Robert

sorry, THAT was OSCILLATOR's Soundcloud I listened to and accalades need to go there instead, sorry!

[oscillator]

Thanks Robert! :D

[namnibor]

Thanks Robert! :D You are welcome and sorry I had not gooten around to re-reply and give kudos where warranted! Yes, that reminded me of some of the experiments I had of playing open filter types in kind of way I have seen people use a T-Reonator, but of course with Virus or my newly acquired Waldorf Q! Nice! I am yet to set-up a SoundCloud account but once am ready have bookmarked your account and will make a comment once joined. Being I am ex-military, and privacy issues are pretty high for me on the list, Facebook is something that I never warmed-up to idea of as critical thinking tells me sharing that much or leaving one's self open could easily be used in a scarey way by other's in an information/identity theft way--otherwise a comment would have been left by that means!
Robert

[Timo]

Attempted to linearise the curve moreso tonight.

Learned a few things.

The first experiment, initialised a patch, and set the Decay knob to zero, Sustain Level to maximum, and used the (Sustain)Time knob to simulate decay, instead of the Decay knob itself. Believe it or not, the slope of the Sustain(Time) is also a logarithmic curve, and is not a linear slope (although it appears a teensy bit more linear than the actual proper Decay curve)!

So I thought to myself, if the Decay curve isn't linear, the SustainTime curve isn't linear, what IS linear?...

... A falling sawtooth waveform.

Re-initialised a patch again. Then turned Decay to zero, SustainLevel also to zero.

Then chose an LFO, selected a sawtooth LFO waveform for it, put the LFO into EnvMode (one shot), made sure the LFO is in poly mode (so a new LFO is used per voice, as needed), and set the LFO Assign destination as AmpSustain with the amount set to maximum (+63).

The LFO 'Rate' effectively controls the length of the decay hereon.

Worked well, until I played several notes in quick succession, the LFO glitches up and doesn't retrigger new notes correctly, even though the LFO is in Poly mode, and even with TrigPhase set to 1 (to make sure the LFO is firing from the start [the top] of the sawtooth).

Did a bit more testing and I found it only farks up when you hold down one note and then play another note elsewhere.

So, it appears I've found my first bug on the Virus (Indigo)!

However! Using the ModMatrix to assign LFO > AmpSustain, instead of selecting AmpSustain from within the LFO section itself, works properly, as it should do, with no LFO poly issues or glitches.

http://www.infekted.org/virus/images/various/lfo-env-decay.png

It's still not a perfectly linear slope, but you lose the rapid fall off at the beginning and the half-life of the waveform is more towards where you want it to be, along with a more consistent linear fade-out at the very end.

And it's yet another different curve to add to your synthesis toolbox (compared to modulating FiltSustain by FltEnv, or AmpSustain by AmpEnv, earlier in the thread).

BTW, for the above screengrab from Wavelab, I modulated the Amp envelope - not the Filter envelope - as it's easier to get a visual representation of an envelope when merely recording signal levels as opposed to a filter sweep (furthermore, audio frequencies themselves aren't linear).

[TweakHead]

Hat's off!

[Timo]

The ultimate would be if you could draw your own LFO vector waveforms (from within Virus Control, when in the studio) and add them to a user LFO-waveform preset library to choose from whenever you wish.

How great would that be.

You could make all sorts of curvy/bezier/blippy/steppy/scratchy/dubby/inverted/warped LFO goodness. Maybe even modulate between them (akin to wavetabling).

Same with oscillator waveforms.

Access, are you listening? :)

[TweakHead]

I can see plenty of uses for that, Massive sort of became famous for allowing people to combine pre-designed curves mostly.

BTW, do you know where they got those waveforms from? I think every Virus user must have a few of them as their favourites - and it's one of the best things in the Virus, still today... Blofeld has envelopes that can loop, but who needs that when you have such versatile LFOs, right? What would also be a bliss would be the rate going into audio range (and have those available for more FM madness of course)...

Couple this suggestions with some other form of interaction with it, and you'd have the KILLER

[TweakHead]

You could make all sorts of curvy/bezier/blippy/steppy/scratchy/dubby/inverted/warped LFO goodness. Maybe even modulate between them (akin to wavetabling).

Same with oscillator waveforms.

Access, are you listening? :)

wavetable LFOs would be new eheh... I subscribe this 100%

[feedingear]

Would kill for drawable LFO forms in the TI.

And re: above - pretty smart cookie ye are!

[Timo]

What would also be a bliss would be the rate going into audio range (and have those available for more FM madness of course)...

Always wished for faster LFOs on the the Virus for modulation purposes. They also tend to alias a lot at the extremes.

Incidently I wondered how fast the LFOs actually were in my Indigo the other night, after reading that the Prophet 12 LFOs went up to 4KHz, and after doing a quick test the Indigo appeared to only manage a mere 93Hz (aka 0.093KHz) at the maximum rate of 127. That said, the Korg Radias can only match a similar amount (100Hz, aka 0.1KHz).

I wonder how Access could avoid compromising classic Virus sounds if they ever decided to update the LFOs to allow them to run at a faster rate in new Virus releases. I mean, if they simply updated their LFOs to be able to run faster, both the compatibility and character of previous patches would be broken making them sound very different. It's almost like a straitjacket for them.

The only way I thought about pulling it off intuitively was if they could allow you to use two sets of ranges via a sub menu, so the 'classic' rate-range is always enabled and in use (from 0.01Hz to 93Hz or whatever it is), but you can change to a new, higher rate-range via a switch option in the menu (0.01Hz to 4KHz). That said, you're still restricted to 128 discrete values (regardless of interpolation), so the gaps between each step would be coarse given the range is much larger. You could type in a discrete value via Virus Control, but it wouldn't be MIDI friendly (i.e. achievable using the 128 midi steps available).

Or maybe you could choose from several ranges, such as 0.01-93Hz for classic mode, 90-500Hz for mid-range mode, and 0.5-4KHz for high-speed mode. Bit of a bummer if you want to sweep from 0.01Hz to 4KHz in one fell swoop though.

I wonder how DaveSmith implemented such a large range for MIDI purposes. His knobs might be high resolution, but MIDI isn't.

I digress! (Again)

[TweakHead]

Curious, how did you perform this test, for the LFO's rate?

They could do it like they did for the oscillators: have the classic ones or the new broad range ones, with user definable waves in those eheh

[Timo]

Curious, how did you perform this test, for the LFO's rate?

You'll probably laugh...

I selected an LFO, chose square waveform for it, then set the LFO destination to ChannelVol in the ModMatrix with the amount set to +63 (so it cycles between silence and max volumes).

Then I cranked up my soundcard recording frequency to 192KHz @ 24bits (to avoid any beating of waveforms beyond Nyquist freq's, and to limit further aliasing) and played a high pitch note on the Virus so I can easily visually see the envelope of the LFO (when recorded). Then I raised the LFO rate to 127.

Recorded several seconds of it into Wavelab, then, er, manually counted the pulses that occured within 1 second (in otherwords an "x" number of Hz), lol. Turned out there were 93 pulses in 1 second, therefore the speed of the LFO was 93Hz.

They could do it like they did for the oscillators: have the classic ones or the new broad range ones, with user definable waves in those eheh

They'd be the perfect accompaniment. :) Might require some serious DSP for user definable waves at audible rates though.

[TweakHead]

Very clever. Was thinking something within the same lines, but thought there might be a shorter way to do it. Wouldn't think of raising the sample rate myself, but it's a very clever move.

About the fact the LFOS tend to alias at extreme settings, like you said, why do you think that happens? Something to do with aliasing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByfAuQPbv6k

look at this simple sound with the korg ms 20, sounds amazing even when the LFO's rate goes way fast... It's one of the things analogue does better indeed... And what usually happens, not only on the virus, but overall all things digital, is that it seems that you loose the high frequencies a bit, right? (I'm thinking like the sound on the video, a self oscillating filter, the analogue if we're speaking virus here, modulated by the lfo, say with a triangle wave, real fast, there's a point where you feel that it's struggling to cope with what you're doing, almost like a frontier). Would it be better if I raised the sample rate to record such a thing? Never tried it...

Also, the Blofeld for example has LFOs that go into the audio range, and it would be cool if someone here could do the test and see if there's some stepping noticeable enough to ear, by modulating the rate of it with a slow evolving envelope, for example... 'Cause it makes sense.

EDIT would have to be adjusted manually to notice the midi steps, so maybe record both and post here would be cool (come on blofeld owners out there!!)

About that, I always like to record my digital synths in audio whenever possible, I always feel like automation recorded gets some of the natural feel away, an effect within the same lines here...But for software, while I'm at it, that runs inside the daw, does it also translate everything to 127 positions? Or does it happen only when using midi?

Sorry for all the questions eheh

[namnibor]

Always wished for faster LFOs on the the Virus for modulation purposes. They also tend to alias a lot at the extremes.

Incidently I wondered how fast the LFOs actually were in my Indigo the other night, after reading that the Prophet 12 LFOs went up to 4KHz, and after doing a quick test the Indigo appeared to only manage a mere 93Hz (aka 0.093KHz) at the maximum rate of 127. That said, the Korg Radias can only match a similar amount (100Hz, aka 0.1KHz).

I wonder how Access could avoid compromising classic Virus sounds if they ever decided to update the LFOs to allow them to run at a faster rate in new Virus releases. I mean, if they simply updated their LFOs to be able to run faster, both the compatibility and character of previous patches would be broken making them sound very different. It's almost like a straitjacket for them.

The only way I thought about pulling it off intuitively was if they could allow you to use two sets of ranges via a sub menu, so the 'classic' rate-range is always enabled and in use (from 0.01Hz to 93Hz or whatever it is), but you can change to a new, higher rate-range via a switch option in the menu (0.01Hz to 4KHz). That said, you're still restricted to 128 discrete values (regardless of interpolation), so the gaps between each step would be coarse given the range is much larger. You could type in a discrete value via Virus Control, but it wouldn't be MIDI friendly (i.e. achievable using the 128 midi steps available).

Or maybe you could choose from several ranges, such as 0.01-93Hz for classic mode, 90-500Hz for mid-range mode, and 0.5-4KHz for high-speed mode. Bit of a bummer if you want to sweep from 0.01Hz to 4KHz in one fell swoop though.

I wonder how DaveSmith implemented such a large range for MIDI purposes. His knobs might be high resolution, but MIDI isn't.

I digress! (Again)

Cool stuff, Timo!
The DSI Prophet 12's midi specs are not posted anywhere I can find and perhaps oscillator knows this from DSI Forum, however DSI website does not have really ANY tech specs posted other than general product info and a few videos we mostly have all seen.
Speaking of LFO's and Dave Smith---the Evolver Series only have a handful of midi transmit/rec'v parameters, with overwhelming majority being totally sysex and wanted to post this fact as I look at the DSI mono evolver keyboard's paper manual in front of me, (you can download the Evolver Keyboard Manual--applies to whole series aside from obviously a different manual for PolyEvolver because it has the added "combo-mode", yet the specs for LFO's and such remain same in entire evolver series http://davesmithinstruments.com/downloads/evolver_keyboard/doc/Evo_Key_Manual_1.3.pdf
Hope this link works for the up to date manual I am looking at. (my studio is inbetween a state of decontruction/construction as came up with better ergonomic set-up or would oblidge the "come on Blofeld Owners for related test with lfo's)
On page 49 and 50 of evolver keyboard manual, parameter 40 thru 47 relate to the LFO's. Dave Smith elsewhere in manual states sysex was used rather than standard midi for majority of parameter because he NEEDED higher range than 0-127 in order to AVOID any stepping in parameter changes real-time. On page 49 you see parameter 40 for LFO, he used Range of 0-150 for UNsynced lfo freq and 151-160 for sync'd up to 16 cycles PER STEP. LFO Amount on both lfo 1 and 2 a range of 0-200, with amounts over 100 repeats with Key Sync On.

Those examples alone wanted to share for now because since the DSI Prophet 12 is a hybrid of best of Evolver, Tempest, Pro 08, and new developments, am actually wondering if indeed it will be ALL midi-able 100% send/rec'v. By the way, the Evolver parameters of course remain the same regardless if having original encoder version or the newer PE version for keyboard models and parameter values are same with the Desktop Evolver as well.
It must be in Anu Kirk's "Definitive Guide to The Evolver" where I read about why sysex was used for extended values needed as to ensure pretty much everything is able to be modulated with/by anything, without having zipper noises whilst changing parameters.
Thought you might find this interesting!
Great "synth-Sleuthing" Timo, on the Virus' LFO's and shall we assume your findings are same thoughout the Virus A,B,C range, since relatively same engine, except for the Ti Series?
Will try to get my equipment and set-up done thru weekend and may be up to Wed of coming week as have a KILLER root canal gone bad and cannot get into Dentist until Feb 5...it's seriously imposed on my creativity as it's pain to close to the BRAIN!! EEEK!

[TweakHead]

Cool stuff, Timo!

Dave Smith elsewhere in manual states sysex was used rather than standard midi for majority of parameter because he NEEDED higher range than 0-127 in order to AVOID any stepping in parameter changes real-time.

Interesting. I think the Virus probably works within the same lines, here. That's one of the reasons I don't like to rely on midi automation much, and always go for live recording of tweaking instead, whenever possible. Also, there's MIDI with better resolution then the good old 8 bit with just 127 steps, there's the evolution of that with 14 bit range - and I think most modern MIDI controllers have that.

So I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be a problem to have such a huge range on the LFO :twisted:

EDIT - it would mean 16384 steps with 14bit MIDI.

And I think (not sure though) that something like Automap (the protocol for software control, of course) is capable of even more steps then that (can't test right now), I'm saying that because I have changed the number of points many times, to get the knobs responding with the speed I need - quite handy, while not changing the resolution, you can actually do that and it smooths it out nicely, this is definitely the thing I like best about this controllers...

[TweakHead]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_34BptS7w

found this on the recommended for you list on youtube.

[namnibor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_34BptS7w

found this on the recommended for you list on youtube.

Dave Smith IS THE MAN!~! He actually has the same humble persona as I had seen in many Robert Moog interviews and colloquiems...he absolutely has a PASSION for what he does and it shows! I am still quite amazed every time I turn-on the MEK; it BEGS you to turn knobs and create the still yet uncreated! My cat seems to be quite fascinated by the massive LED light show of the sequencer in-action!
Thanks for sharing that! That Prophet 600 Dave mentioned as the FIRST midi-capable synth from his then-company Sequential Circuits, was my first polyphonic synth after learning synthesis on MS20 and wish I had kept that thing!

[TweakHead]

Yeah, in a way you're lucky you got to learn with such great stuff... I learned mostly with stuff like Rob Papen's Albino eheh.

You're lucky you're going to get the Korg back

[namnibor]

Yeah, in a way you're lucky you got to learn with such great stuff... I learned mostly with stuff like Rob Papen's Albino eheh.

You're lucky you're going to get the Korg back

However, realize that for QUITE a while, my keyboard playing was limited while active duty officer in military, to a real wooden acoustic piano simply because of where different places stationed. Of course, that real piano is my roots so-to-speak, so that was my recreational "release" spending many hours in the piano room when not lifting weights and swimming.
There's been ALOT of new methods of modulation and various matrices that admitedly am still learning as I go as far as "playing catch-up". Told myself WHEN surviving and ultimately medically retired military disability pension--that I would build-up a synth-based studio for many therapeutic benefits;keeping mind active, and literally physical and mental therapy to fight PTSD....and now it's a reality and have everything kind of taken apart now, with a final plan of effectively connecting everything, using midi extensively--however, I will be recording primarily audio only.
So as you mentioned once, it's "full-circle" because I may have a bit more hardware experience, but it certainly also means i have alot to learn from the likes of you on many levels. Good forums facilitate this without all the ego and crap that you definitely find on some of the other so-called "pro forums".
Dave Smith said something interesting in that clip about how it's not usually an interface's problem with midi--it's moreso the way in which a given manufacturer IMPLIMENTS midi protocol and makes use of available bandwidth---do I hear a cat-call towards Access and Virus Control? LOL!

[Spreader]

Always wished for faster LFOs on the the Virus for modulation purposes. They also tend to alias a lot at the extremes.

Incidently I wondered how fast the LFOs actually were in my Indigo the other night, after reading that the Prophet 12 LFOs went up to 4KHz, and after doing a quick test the Indigo appeared to only manage a mere 93Hz (aka 0.093KHz) at the maximum rate of 127. That said, the Korg Radias can only match a similar amount (100Hz, aka 0.1KHz).

I wonder how Access could avoid compromising classic Virus sounds if they ever decided to update the LFOs to allow them to run at a faster rate in new Virus releases. I mean, if they simply updated their LFOs to be able to run faster, both the compatibility and character of previous patches would be broken making them sound very different. It's almost like a straitjacket for them.

The only way I thought about pulling it off intuitively was if they could allow you to use two sets of ranges via a sub menu, so the 'classic' rate-range is always enabled and in use (from 0.01Hz to 93Hz or whatever it is), but you can change to a new, higher rate-range via a switch option in the menu (0.01Hz to 4KHz). That said, you're still restricted to 128 discrete values (regardless of interpolation), so the gaps between each step would be coarse given the range is much larger. You could type in a discrete value via Virus Control, but it wouldn't be MIDI friendly (i.e. achievable using the 128 midi steps available).

Or maybe you could choose from several ranges, such as 0.01-93Hz for classic mode, 90-500Hz for mid-range mode, and 0.5-4KHz for high-speed mode. Bit of a bummer if you want to sweep from 0.01Hz to 4KHz in one fell swoop though.

I wonder how DaveSmith implemented such a large range for MIDI purposes. His knobs might be high resolution, but MIDI isn't.

I digress! (Again)

Good to see discussion is still flowing here.

Timo is that 93 in herz or samples? What I mean is do count one LFO movement as cycle or two? Frequency should be only half of the LFO movements.

Either way I find the LFO works well for the faster stuff at the value of 122, do you know if there is a way to raise the speed less than one step? Kinda tempo dependend.

Access could just allow one of the oscillators to act as an LFO, that way there would be no issues with compatibility. And it could modulate as fast as you wanted. This is of course already possible if you want to modulate phase.

I must try your trick of using the LFO as a source for the filter decay, at that rate it should still be good for pluck sounds. It would be interesting to compare the virus to some other synths. If someone knows a really accurate audio analyzer/FFT for the job, that would be great. And one last thing, is there a way to delay the start of the filter decay by couple ms, like in some analog synths?

[MBTC]

Changing the subject a little from the way the C vs. the Snow sounds, can someone tell me how total polyphony compares between the two? I've seen spec sheets that say the C upgraded the B's total polyphony from 24 to 32, then when you look for similar specs on the Snow, consensus seems to be "20-50 depending on patch".

I know the snow has more features, and some of those features could potentially use more DSP resources, but what I am looking for is an understanding of how the raw processing power between the two compares, for example for a patch on the C will you get the same, more, or (yikes) less playable notes if you load same on the Snow?

Thanks for any input.

[namnibor]

Changing the subject a little from the way the C vs. the Snow sounds, can someone tell me how total polyphony compares between the two? I've seen spec sheets that say the C upgraded the B's total polyphony from 24 to 32, then when you look for similar specs on the Snow, consensus seems to be "20-50 depending on patch".

I know the snow has more features, and some of those features could potentially use more DSP resources, but what I am looking for is an understanding of how the raw processing power between the two compares, for example for a patch on the C will you get the same, more, or (yikes) less playable notes if you load same on the Snow?

Thanks for any input.

I know this is not empirical evidence, but buddy of mine had a snow and because she could *only* get Virus Control to work on Cubase in her testing and she determined she hated Cubase, and dynamic voice allocation of Snow made her only wish she had the desktop TI2, she now is back to using Virus KC and sold the Snow. Like her, I am YET to run into any major polyphony issues with the Virus C, and have built some intense patches. But, will also say that I have not tried using a built-up Multi just from the KC itself as it seems to make more sense and be easier to do that through Reaper DAW or any DAW.
She is a very technical person and she could not justify expense of the Ti or Ti2 when Virus Control still is unresolved, unless you use Cubase and use absolutely NOTHING else connected anywhere via USB. She determined that the Virus suffers from "bandwidth starvation", regardless of what people at Access state.
Thought to share this with you as you seemed to have a lot of trouble with Virus Control from reading a lot of past threads (amongst others having issues with VC). So with the Snow it looks like you *may* still have VC issues, plus the polyphony limitation inherent in a "budget Ti called Snow".

[MBTC]

I know this is not empirical evidence, but buddy of mine had a snow and because she could *only* get Virus Control to work on Cubase in her testing and she determined she hated Cubase, and dynamic voice allocation of Snow made her only wish she had the desktop TI2, she now is back to using Virus KC and sold the Snow. Like her, I am YET to run into any major polyphony issues with the Virus C, and have built some intense patches. But, will also say that I have not tried using a built-up Multi just from the KC itself as it seems to make more sense and be easier to do that through Reaper DAW or any DAW.
She is a very technical person and she could not justify expense of the Ti or Ti2 when Virus Control still is unresolved, unless you use Cubase and use absolutely NOTHING else connected anywhere via USB. She determined that the Virus suffers from "bandwidth starvation", regardless of what people at Access state.
Thought to share this with you as you seemed to have a lot of trouble with Virus Control from reading a lot of past threads (amongst others having issues with VC). So with the Snow it looks like you *may* still have VC issues, plus the polyphony limitation inherent in a "budget Ti called Snow".

I'm now using Cubase on Windows, so that may help in terms of Virus Control (actually a lot of VSTs work better on Cubase since it is basically the reference platform for VST compatibility), but having working software integration might not be mandatory for me if I lower my price point and therefore my standards a bit (for example I can overlook a lot if I'm dealing in the price range of a used C or maybe a Snow).

I once owned a Ti2 desktop, and was not happy with the polyphony or overall processing power of a single patch at the given price point so I returned it. However, the 64bit drivers for Virus had just been released at the time, I was not using Cubase, and it's possible that I would be happy with one now.

Rhetoric aside though what I really need to know is how the raw DSP power of the Snow compares to the C. From the experience your friend had, it sounds like the Snow has less voices than the C? Or maybe you're saying it uses a type of dynamic note stealing that was not a feature of the C? Either way I'd be very interested in getting to the root of this.

I think the "Snow vs C?" question is one that a lot of people want to know and keeps coming up, but comparing the official Access specs on paper, at least with regard to polyphony and/or overall DSP processing power, seems to invoke more questions that it answers.