annoying fogginess - Page 3 - The Unofficial Access Virus & Virus TI Forum

303lovesit · #21 23.04.2004, 12:12 PM

Yeah good idea Start a new thread because the majority of the posts on here are mostly regarding issues and problems quite negative and wouldnt want to put anyone off from an amzing bit of kit!

suppose though if everone came on here everyday to write sumin good about it would be boring!! critical feedback is always good

Na i aint a northerner mate! Im from the luxurious english riviera unfortunately!

Quote:

I'd be regarded a southern pufter b'cos I speak queens english lmao.

NICE!!!

What sort of stuff/style you make DS?

Blank · #22 23.04.2004, 07:59 PM

I can kind of understand why ppl think that an analogue turntable sounds better...its the same reason ppl like distortion and detuned synth sounds...it fills out the tone spectrum so its harder to be off pitch...and im not saying im not one of them...i like the sound of analogue synths...but i do realize that its because the constant fluctuation of pitch and the added noise and distortion...heck thats what causes that gritty sound on filter sweeps on basses thats sound so awesome...its going to take ppl quite a long time to get use to what ppl call the "iciness" of VA's and digital music...

peace
Blank

ben crosland · #23 23.04.2004, 08:11 PM

Blank - you're forgetting that a CD is only 16bits @ 44.1Khz. A turntable can deliver a *far* greater frequency response and dynamic range than the CD is capable of, as there is far less loss of the original information. Granted, you have to look after the vinyl very well, and it will eventually lose clarity with age - not to mention the hassle of setting up and maintaining the turntable, stylus etc. A CD will sound fine on a budget player, and (allegedly) will sound the same every time you play it, but it really does not sound *anywhere near* as good as vinyl played on a decent system.

Bear in mind that a comparison between the two media is subject to some important variables though - if the source material was recorded on a digital system, especially 16bit @ 44.1, then the difference is more likely to be as you described.

DIGITAL SCREAMS · #24 23.04.2004, 08:17 PM

Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ

Ill drink to that

Records sound awesome.

DS

ben crosland · #25 23.04.2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIGITAL SCREAMS

Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ Ben is a DJ BEN is a DJ

Har, Har! - I wish!

Blank · #26 23.04.2004, 08:58 PM

ok well what is the frequency response of a record? isnt it based on your equipment u play it on? I so u have to take the standard in home equipment and relate that to a cds standard in home equipment...as for the 16bit @ 44hz...I have never heard the difference between 16 to 24 bit...I honestly believe that our ears unless trained do not hear the difference...on top of that just say for instance that a record has all this frequency response that a "cd" doesnt, u still get more noise included in the in that wide frequency response...all im saying is that warmth is not some magical thing, its distortion...Ive accepted...it doesnt mean its crap...I was just trying to show that our ears tend to like that distortion...which is why i believe VA's r shit on versus analogue synths...and on top of that if our ears can be fool by our brain and by outside elements (which they can) then i would believe that the fogginess that is heard on the VA is simply our brain not liking the sound we r creating...I truely love how ppl kling on to older things...it would be like me going on and saying dude records suck the phonograph is where its at...LOL...obviously the record is not better then modern technologies in a multitude of ways otherwise record companies would still be mass producing them like CD's...even if on data sheets state records have a better frequency response its not enough to matter(by the human ear) since CD's r the thing now...which will be replaced by mp3's and everything will be bought onlines many years to come...

peace
Blank

unio mystica · #27 26.04.2004, 05:47 AM

I?m sorry I haven?t had time to read your comments before. I?ve been quite busy.
Some of you gave me really good advices on the subject. I actually tried some of my patches without unison and I think it worked just like you said. Some patches sounded less muddier with no unison and a bit of chorus instead. But I still find unison to be very usefull for me. For some patches it really does what it?s supposed to. The brightness doesn?t suffer but the sound itself sounds very thick and spacy.
I also tried some of the foggy patches in a mix and I agree it is a taste problem rather than a hardware one. The mixes didn?t sound muddy although some patches did. It just sounded different. Not good for my taste but maybe for someone else.

Smag · #28 27.04.2004, 11:19 AM

DS is right, I also find you can make the VC clearer by deconstructing the patch a bit. Take the Unison down but then turn the patch volume up a little and add a bit extra mid - high eq...... (for pads).

Smag · #29 27.04.2004, 11:20 AM

DS is right, I also find you can make the VC clearer by deconstructing the patch a bit. Take the Unison down but then turn the patch volume up a little and add a bit extra mid - high eq...... (for pads).

Smag · #30 27.04.2004, 11:22 AM

DS is right, I also find you can make the VC clearer by deconstructing the patch a bit. Take the Unison down but then turn the patch volume up a little and add a bit extra mid to high eq (for pads). Sometimes a lot of the problem in constructing patches is too many effects, unison, pan e.t.c. are applied. Only use what you need.