Will Current Software Support TI's Dual DSPs?

[Derek]

The TI thing sounds very tempting. The idea of having a powerful synth with dual DSPs that can also be used to drive my software apps is very appealing. In order to use dual CPUs your software has to be specially written to support it. So is the same true for dual DSPs, or will all the various soft-synths and the like automatically work with the TI?s dual DSPs? Creamware makes a card with multiple DSPs, however only their special VST apps can be used with the card. Could this be a source of the holdup? The TI will not be very integrated if off the shelf software cannot take advantage of it's power.

What standards will be supported? ASIO should be, what about ASIO 2.0? Will Giga?s GSIF be supported? It would be nice to have the power of the TI driving Gigastudio.

The potential power of the dual DSPs is a very important part of why the TI is so appealing.

[ben crosland]

Originally Posted by Derek

The TI thing sounds very tempting. The idea of having a powerful synth with dual DSPs that can also be used to drive my software apps is very appealing. .

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here - the dual DSP's are used solely to create the sound of the Virus. Any additional synths and plugins that you use in your sequencer host will still be processed by your computer's CPU.

[MADSTATION]

Like Ben said, I think you missed the point.

With all the added features, the 2 dsp chips in the TI will be busy enough to render the synth engine(and hopefully handle everything related to the TI interface..I hope this is not left up for my cpu!!)

[EnjoyRC]

You're probably thinking of something like:

http://www.museresearch.com/receptor_overview.php

[EnjoyRC]

Originally Posted by MADSTATION

(and hopefully handle everything related to the TI interface..I hope this is not left up for my cpu!!)

The graphical interface will create minimal CPU load (nearly non detactable) on your computer. GUIs can't be offloaded to the Virus. But it won't really be an issue.

This has been experienced for quite some time by PowerCore users.

[Tomer=Trance]

all the graphics are run on your graphic excelerator card.
32 mb of memory is more then enough to run everything.

[MADSTATION]

I've still noticed better performances in Cubase when all vst windows are minimized. I'm asking because my midi interface/soundcard/cubase combo is only 100% precise when my cpu load is under 20%.
When it's under 20% I can run my hardware synths(fr777, juno2, jp8080 and the virus when i had one) in realtime, with some fx without any glitch.
But when there is more load that this on the cpu, trouble starts!

btw...that MUSE Receptor sounds cool, I'll read more about it.
Anyone here using it?

[Derek]

Access might want to change the wording on their website then

From a sequencer point of view the VIRUS TI is a combined dual dsp core soundengine, audio- and midi interface. In other words, the most advanced laptop studio available at present.

This kind of wording makes the Virus TI sound much more powerful than it really is. Granted VST control is nice to have but it's a long way from what was alluded to. All it will really do is get sound in and give a better interface for editing sounds; useful, but not ground-breaking. Most modern synths can act as midi controllers, so big whoop!

The V-Synth XT manuals just went up on Roland?s website. I had a V-Synth but returned it because mine was defective and I could get another locally. I planned on getting the TI next and later a V-Synth XT... But now I'm thinking the XT might be my next purchase. It would help if Access made some type of manual available also. However the V-Synth as a sound creation tool is very powerful due to its open architecture.

Come to think of it as a laptop studio my RME Digiface is WAAAAYYYY more advanced. It can handle 52 channels of digital IO and has an onboard DSP with real time monitoring... And it works flawlessly. The TI sounds like nothing more than a VST hardware synth. I'm not sure why that should make it so more advanced than anything else.

[hackborn]

Originally Posted by Derek

Access might want to change the wording on their website then

This kind of wording makes the Virus TI sound much more powerful than it really is. Granted VST control is nice to have but it's a long way from what was alluded to. All it will really do is get sound in and give a better interface for editing sounds; useful, but not ground-breaking. Most modern synths can act as midi controllers, so big whoop!

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but now what you're saying implies the virus is just an audio/midi interface instead of an entire synthesizer. Access' wording seems pretty precise, they don't claim to host VSTs, but of course it's got its own monstrously powerful sound engine.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by hackborn

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but now what you're saying implies the virus is just an audio/midi interface instead of an entire synthesizer. Access' wording seems pretty precise, they don't claim to host VSTs, but of course it's got its own monstrously powerful sound engine.

Clearly my misunderstanding, however I REALLY LOVED the TI when I thought it was capable of VST hosting also. Now it just seems kinda average and I start to see why so many are choosing to hang onto the C. Not that it doesn?t still have a great sound engine. But when I initially compared the V-Synth and TI I weight the pros and cons of both. The V is open architecture and as it ships is basically three synths in one. And its pitch shifting talents are very strong. The TI has the great engine, VST, audio inputs (which I don?t need) and I thought VST hosting. It?s the last part that tipped the scale in favor of the TI for me. However, now that same scale seems a lot lighter on the TI side in my mind.

I may still get a TI, but now I know I?m gonna have to hear it first. And it had better be REALLY impressive to get my $$$ after I buy the V-Synth XT? That little synth is highly underestimated.