Access Virus & Virus TI community since 2002 Virus TI Infekted

Go Back   The Unofficial Access Virus & Virus TI Forum - since 2002 > General discussion > General discussion about music

General discussion about music An area for general music releated threads.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 27.01.2014, 05:28 PM
TweakHead TweakHead is offline
Veteran
Veteran
 
Join Date: 16.07.2011
Posts: 573
Default

Oh, and new Moog seems nice! the only one in there that I'd like to have.

Did you know that the Sub Moogs are able to phase retrig their waves? making it as rock solid as samplers for Bass, for example? same thing with the Minitaur btw.

plus, Moog filter is Moog filter, and the distortion (multi-drive) on that thing sounds awsome.

but overall, agree with you guys... happy about my current setup, still have much to explore... and would also like to see something new from Access!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 27.01.2014, 09:32 PM
MBTC MBTC is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 16.04.2010
Posts: 1,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakHead View Post
interesting posts here!

owning the Maschine, you guys need to realize you have a drum machine already...

I mean, would you be ok with just the software? or do you value the velocity sensitive pads? and the interface itself?

I think the physical interface is much more valuable then the sounds themselves. I mean, why on Earth would I need Maschine just for the library sounds? (they're damn good, but so are milions of sample packs out there?), or the software?
Well I think Berni's original point, at least the one I intended to agree with, was that $1500 for a drum machine is stupid-expensive up against something like Maschine which is only a few hundred dollars, offers excellent DAW software, excellent integration with other DAWs, an amazing library (not just a bunch of samples but well-organized kits as well), a free synth pack-in, (Massive) and more recently dedicated drum synths for creating your own sounds and real time manipulation, and that's over and above the great piece of hardware it is as a percussive controller or sampler. It they want to sell a bleeps and burps machine for a couple, or maybe three hundred bucks then it starts to seem a little more competitive with what's out there today.

The physical interface is important as you said (see my prior comment about just the importance of something as simple as a stand which allows for more flexible angles to position the hardware), but for me the beauty of Maschine is how much time they've spent on the integration portion of it. They *GET* software, whereas many hardware companies don't.

The way I use Maschine right now is I have a second smaller monitor sitting to the right of my primary 27" monitor. I run the Maschine in standalone and keep the window on that monitor (as it is close to the actual hardware), it sort of feels like an instrument in itself with a dedicated display (and I don't mean the tiny little screens, I mean the 1280x1024 monitor running the standalone app). Then I run Cubase on my primary monitor. That way they are in two separate processes (as opposed to running the plugin inside the DAW). I can edit the Maschine project for drums, and just drag the clips from Maschine into Cubase... it's an instamatic drum loop factory

I don't even know if that's how I will continue to use it, because it comes with some drawbacks (like if I change the tempo in Cubase I need to then do same in Maschine and redrag the audio clip over, whereas if I just ran the Maschine plug-in I would not need to do that.)

But after you have that kind of integration in your workflow, going back to a piece of hardware that doesn't even attempt to integrate with the DAW (or does it badly), and then paying 2 or 3 times more for it is not really a tempting offer, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 27.01.2014, 10:52 PM
Timo's Avatar
Timo Timo is offline
Administrator
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 13.07.2003
Location: Kaoss Central, England
Posts: 2,561
Default

Waldorf:

[2-Pole] info.

More on the AIRA.



Looks like there'll be at the very least two boxes.

One or two for drums (TR08/09), and possibly another one or two for synth (TB03?/SH01?).

http://www.roland.com/aira

Public showing in Feb.

Hope it's not another MCx0x knockoff.
__________________
PS > And another thing! Will the Ti|3 have user customisable/importable wavetables? A ribbon-controller or XY-Pad might be nice, too, please! Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 27.01.2014, 11:39 PM
namnibor's Avatar
namnibor namnibor is offline
Pro
Pro
 
Join Date: 13.10.2012
Location: Where nobody sleeps
Posts: 437
Default

Yes, the Waldorf 2-Pole is what stained my brain and a great value and very utilitarian. Here's the specs from waldorf-music.de:


Specifications

Specifications
•Fully analog signal path: Preamp -> Filter -> Overdrive
•Award winning Waldorf analog multimode filter technology
•Filter can be modulated by LFO, envelope follower or external signal
•Preamp with overdrive capability for direct connection of instruments like bass or guitar
•Post-filter overdrive with adjustable gain
•LFO with different ranges, rate up to several kHz
•Envelope follower with trigger section and different modes
•True Bypass
•Cascadable to stereo (for two 2-pole units)

Controls
•Input Gain with level LED
•Rectify pot for mixing-in the rectified input signal
•Filter Cutoff pot
•Filter Resonance pot
•Bipolar Filter Env Mod pot
•Filter Type switch
•Overdrive pot
•Activation switch
•Output Level pot
•LFO Range switch with 3 positions
•LFO Rate pot with LED
•LFO Mod Depth pot
•Trigger Button with LED
•Trigger Threshold pot
•Trigger Hold pot
•Envelope Follower Source switch with 3 positions
•Envelope Follower Attack pot
•Envelope Follower Decay pot

Connections
•Audio In
•Audio Out
•Cutoff CV In
•Envelope Follower CV In
•Trigger In
•Power DC 12V

__________________
"Language is a VIRUS from outer space" --Wm. S. Burroughs
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 28.01.2014, 05:20 PM
TweakHead TweakHead is offline
Veteran
Veteran
 
Join Date: 16.07.2011
Posts: 573
Default

@MBTC

yes, all that you (and Berni) are saying makes perfect sense. But that's entirely dependant on your priorities and your approach to music making - very similar to mine even!

just don't think that just because you enjoy working mainly with software and integrated hardware you can claim to be more evolved then people relying mainly on hardware, because that's just two sides of the same coin, and you can get good results both ways. the way I see it, namnibor is right when he says that there's different strokes for different folks. to simply disregard hardware based setups as old-fashioned stuff is a bit short sighted. one of the key aspects of this analogue revival thing is that many producers who have grown with software emulations of the old classics have developed a serious interest in the analogue sound, because of it's undeniable characteristics as opposed to digital forms of synthesis, even virtual analogue. midi still is up to the task, provided you have a decent audio interface to begin with, if you have a word clock - like you find on RME interfaces - sync issues are next to none, and with enough I/O your old fashioned gear is totally integrated into your setup and the sound quality of those things are undeniable.

While I like such things as Massive for the possibilities and interface, I think an old-fashioned Waldorf Q still eats it for breakfast when it comes to sound and programming possibilities, let alone the SH 101 (if they do decide to come up with it again) sounds better then any software synth I know off, even being a limited mono instrument like it always was.

There's still plenty of emulations of the TR machines out there, both in hardware and software. Not to mention the TB 303, of course. Why do you think that happens? That's legacy. Some genres have been born out of the possibilities and sound characteristics of such machines. XOXBOX still sells A LOT, TR clones do to. some people rely on this very stuff for live acts, have you ever listened to a TR 808 or 909 connected directly to a mixer on a PA system? that's why analogue isn't out of fashion, there's simply no argument here. that think rocks on it's own, no need for added compression or something, it cuts through and is easy to change patterns on the fly, that's why many VERY successful acts still use it up to this day...

So are we really disregarding a machine we don't even know the specs of yet, just because it's probably analogue voice based? If they do come up with a 101 I, for one, am surely getting one. Big deal if I get 5ms of latency, all it takes is turning on delay compensation on the DAW and it's done!

Check out this old-fashioned dudes who desperately need to evolve XD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baMs9P50J-w
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07.02.2014, 06:31 PM
Timo's Avatar
Timo Timo is offline
Administrator
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 13.07.2003
Location: Kaoss Central, England
Posts: 2,561
Default

Aira = 4 boxes. TR-8 (808, possibly 909 too), TB-3 (303), VT-3 (Vocal Transformer) and System-1 (SH101?) keyboard.

Virtual analogue.



They showed a pic of all four boxes, but it was heavily in shadow, so I enhanced it as much as I could (although the colours became distorted somewhat):



http://www.roland.com/aira/
__________________
PS > And another thing! Will the Ti|3 have user customisable/importable wavetables? A ribbon-controller or XY-Pad might be nice, too, please! Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07.02.2014, 07:31 PM
namnibor's Avatar
namnibor namnibor is offline
Pro
Pro
 
Join Date: 13.10.2012
Location: Where nobody sleeps
Posts: 437
Default

Yes, I found it interesting that they are doing their best to 'dance around the semantics' and to be determined NOT to use 'virtual analog' in describing what they have done and to be releasing.
Seems to be VA, just by yet another term given by Roland.
Makes one wonder then, what then, were all the 'MC-xxx' machines in Roland's minds in which they at ad nausea, after Roland seemed to wash their hands of 'Analog'?
Was there a special anagram for that as well? LOL

perhaps I am missing something??! Why does this not excite me?
There's something to be said of the term, "beating a dead horse".

Please correct me if I am entirely missing something 'new'.

Seems to be more of Roland's wish to 'cash-in' on the 'Analog Spring'.

Cannot wait to see how Yamaha may perhaps in same vein of thought, redefines their 'XG/General Midi' term to perhaps try to do same (I am being sardonic because would be really surprised if a recreated/new CS-Series real analog came about), as Yamaha is so huge they no longer even need to innovate as Korg has chosen again to do.

Just my opinion. We all have them.
__________________
"Language is a VIRUS from outer space" --Wm. S. Burroughs
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07.02.2014, 07:54 PM
Timo's Avatar
Timo Timo is offline
Administrator
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 13.07.2003
Location: Kaoss Central, England
Posts: 2,561
Default

The MCx0x lines of grooveboxes were ROMplers made in the 90's, so a different beast entirely.

I'm not adverse to VA. Unlike the varying properties of analogue electronic components, digital is extremely stable and dependable, and virtual analogue these days has the potential to sound very good. But it can sound equally crap if corners are cut in production (to cash in by limiting hardware DSP, or making a faff of the modelling).

However, the 303 et al have been digitally modelled so many times by other companies, why should Roland fare any better in this regard? It's all very well scientists putting their white coats on, analysing different aspects of the boxes in clinical environments and attempting to model them using DSP, but it's the producers using the boxes in ways the scientists didn't test for which will make or break them.

The algorithms are hanging in the balance.

Of course, they could be a lot of fun.
__________________
PS > And another thing! Will the Ti|3 have user customisable/importable wavetables? A ribbon-controller or XY-Pad might be nice, too, please! Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07.02.2014, 08:26 PM
namnibor's Avatar
namnibor namnibor is offline
Pro
Pro
 
Join Date: 13.10.2012
Location: Where nobody sleeps
Posts: 437
Default

Yes, you are so, so correct. It was in fact, musicians USING the original Roland analog instruments in non-foreseen ways, and those boxes were extremely cheap instruments at the time, (the analogs) much as the original Korg MS-20 was extremely cheap and like the Roland gear, it was really not until a bit later their non-foreseen application made them as popular as they are to where A LOT of knock-offs of those originals, still in analog, sell well even today.
I am all for VA, as the Virus as well as my Waldorf Q have finally made me want to seriously finally thin out my herd of different synths acquired in my quest to find what works for me. Virtual analog, when done extremely right, in a mix, even a hardcore analog purist is going to have a far cry differentiating.
Somehow, it almost seems like Roland is doing a "recycle/repeat and rinse" in guise of consumerism and marketing, but will rightly admit I could very well be dead wrong...the horse has been a dead and beaten horse at this point, many times over and would hope for innovation in it's stead.

Yes, I understand and thanks for pointing out those MC-xxx were ROMplers...so would this new anagram by Roland be a "Virtual Rompler/Analog"...yes, being a bit flip, as is my wont.
Then again, we are really fortunate to be owners of various incarnations of the Virus Engine that still has no problem selling as well as winning awards...there's a very good reason for that.
__________________
"Language is a VIRUS from outer space" --Wm. S. Burroughs
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09.02.2014, 10:39 PM
TweakHead TweakHead is offline
Veteran
Veteran
 
Join Date: 16.07.2011
Posts: 573
Default

agree with what's said above, all of it.

still think Roland could probably cash in by making exact replicas of their old products, based on their own legacy. they could and perhaps should have done it back in the 90's when this little toys that were, indeed, prodution flops and commercial failures back in the day for Roland, were being sought after because more and more people were starting to make electronic music with all these new genres that were emerging: like detroit's techno, the dance scene in europe (mostly trance and house) and the rave scene all around, and goa trance of course...

Back then there's people already saying they were missing the oportunity to sell big and give these products a bigger and wider life spawn and reach. They totally missed it, and their line of products has been boring as hell ever since, to be honest. Nothing exciting has come out of those labs in a long long time. So why would this be any different?

There's a thing that immediately got my attention that I didn't see mentioned both here and other foruns. As simple as this: one of the advantages of a Virus versus some mono analogue of this new analogue spring is in its depth! It's expensive to build a poly analogue, expensive to build a multi-mode filter, let alone a pair of them, it's certainly not feasable to include a 16 slot mod matrix inside such analogue machines, unless costumers are paying the big buck for them, right? We all know this: digital offers more options, can sound just as good or nearly as good, but also has a lot of tricks of it's own and depth to compensate for the lack of randomness and agressive component distortion and that kind of thing...

But look at those pictures again: Roland isn't trying to come up with a VA that would presumably compete with the Virus, Nord Lead, Ultranova, so forth and so on, no... They're coming up with a keyboard whose interface resembles the SH 101 (or Bass station 2 or similar machines), but it's digital. That means: let's all hope this new VIRTUAL ANALOGUE technology of theirs is really all that much - if any of you even consider they could possibly do a better job at it then Access or U-he on that department - but with stripped down specs, like if it were analogue. And what about Gaia? Isn't that sort like their new SH-101? Also a very simple VA that sounds nothing like Roland's older SH synths, but manages to fail on offering more options then your cheap "analogue spring" mono synth does. Easy enough: Roland RIP!

EDIT:

I'm willing to bet that due to this future failure from Roland, XOXBOX will keep on selling big along with TB303 software emulations. Let's see if this Synth1 will leave up to a direct comparison against Lush 101 or Tal Noise's 101. And Acidlab can keep selling their miami 808 and rest assured this was all but a rumor and Roland isn't going to come up with real analogue machines anymore, so they can keep doing their thing... I mean, how lame is it that if I want the classic Roland sound I can easily get it in Euro Rack when the original company is doing workstations and lame stuff that nobody wants?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Skin Designed by: Talk vBulletin
Copyright ©2002-2022, Infekted.org