Using Virus as a workstation

[SamZah]

Hi guys

I've been making electronic music on and off for 10 years now. Most of that time its been done on a PC, while I've had various bits of hardware. When I was younger I enjoyed making music on the PC, now I don't. My fav times making music was when I had a Roland D2 groovebox and then later when I had the Korg Electribe EMX1.

I like to have just one bit of kit. I really enjoy working that way. Now the problem with the Korg is it is just not versatile enough. I like the sound of the virus a lot, and its one of the only synths around that has enough power to make a complete track (edm sort) without any bouncing or multi-tracking. All I would need is a sequencer of some kind.

Has anyone here attempted to use it this way? are there any limitations I should know about first? Do insert effects such as distortion or flanger/chorus effetc introduce noticeable delay into the sound path so that for example if you had a kick on one track and a bass with compressor or distortion on another they would be a few miliseconds out of sync with each other? This has happened on other hardware I've used in the past as a workstation.

Thanks!

[oscillator]

I got a Virus C, and my dream was like yours, to sequence the 16 channels with nothing else. I have tried with a Yamaha QY70, which is great, but the problem i had was with polyphony. Depending on what Virus you have and how many notes/track you need that could be a problem. You could consider a sampler instead of a sequencer, or maybe both.
I did not have the latency problem with effects.

[SamZah]

Thats really helpful, I'd like to use one of those Yamaha sequencers. I think the Virus TI which is what I am looking to get has a lot more polyphony than the C and the TI2 even more. I am planning on a TI2 actually if I can find one at a good price. The prices don't seem to be budging at all at the moment though.

[MBTC]

I found that with the polyphony and overall processing power of the Ti2, I would need about a dozen of them to replace what I do with the PC.

IMO trying to use the Virus as a workstation is trying to use it for something it was not designed to do, and with so many folks here struggling to get it to work properly for what it is designed to do, it seems like heading down the road of a frustrating hobby.

In terms of eliminating the computer from the music making equation, I can certainly relate to how a PC sometimes pulls at you psychologically in ways you do not want during the music creation process, but within the electronic music genre they are a fact of life and your PC the most important piece of kit you have. Many things can be accomplished without it, but maybe embarking on attempting that will renew your appreciation for it or get rid of the sense of burnout? You might also try getting a dedicated PC just for music so that it is always running your DAW, nothing else, with a well laid-out controller setup such that your music PC is not used for web surfing or other PC tasks and thus feels more like an instrument in itself.

The real difference between PCs and modern synths is largely the control surface and monitors, and the fact that PCs are infinitely more powerful.

[SamZah]

Originally Posted by MBTC

I found that with the polyphony and overall processing power of the Ti2, I would need about a dozen of them to replace what I do with the PC.

IMO trying to use the Virus as a workstation is trying to use it for something it was not designed to do, and with so many folks here struggling to get it to work properly for what it is designed to do, it seems like heading down the road of a frustrating hobby.

Really? Why is it 16 part then? I am sure many people have used even the earlier models this way before. I've used groove boxes as workstations and they are not nearly as featured.

I will explain that I am not looking to make anything complicated. For example, did you ever listen to the endorphins demo for the old virus'? If my memory serves me well it was made on one instance on a Virus. That all I am looking to do.

In fact just check out the internal demo on the Virus C on their website. It is clearly a powerful tool. Are you sure it is not designed to work this way? If I understand right also can't you seamlessly change patches on the TI now that each part has its own dedicated FX's?

Thanks

[MBTC]

How much polyphony is enough is a time-tested debate, and it really depends on what kind of music you make, the specifics of the track, etc. The old saying its not the synth or the sounds, its what you do with them holds as true as ever.

Regarding Endorphins and the Virus C demo.. I personally think these sound like great single synth demos, with non-processing intensive things like stabby arps combined with basslines that give a partly fullfilling sense, but I think they sound extremely thin compared to what I consider a "real" track I would want on my MP3 player... in fact the Virus C demo, with the exception of the hardstyle lead, sounds a little like 80's video game music to my ear. You said your needs aren't too ambitious, so maybe the sound you want does not require a lot of polyphony? I personally feel very limited by monophonic leads, I often play in chords and I sometimes find the warmth of those chords often depends on much osc power are fundamentally behind them. Reverb and other FX demands a lot of juice, and I'm not sure those old Virus demos use this at all (some of them used external loops which leaves much less for the Virus to do). Just remember those demos are meant to sell the synth, so they are meant to be shining examples and not necessarily typical of what you may create.

Anyway I don't want to discourage you. If you've used a single synth as your one stop shop for music and have been happy in the past, I suppose you're not in for any major disappointments here, again depending on what you want to do musically. My personal opinion is that # of voices and # of parts is almost irrelevant these days, and that music that comes from a single synth is always going to be very limited. I've heard from both folks who say a single Ti2 is powerful enough, and folks who say it's vastly underpowered. Unofficially my observations are that the latter group outnumbers the former by a factor of about 5 to 1.

[SamZah]

Yeah, you are right. It depends on what you need. I should have said that typically when I make a track on the PC, the synth parts usually only amount to about 6 or 7. My effects usually comprise delay, sometimes reverb but thats not even that important. I really do like simple sound. Most of the time just one osc, a filter and delay effect and I'm quite happy with a part and move on to the next. I don't know if I would like to expand on that and if I did what kind of position I would find myself in with the TI2. Its a lot of money but I just don't want to use a PC for anymore.

[MBTC]

In that case, you might be thrilled with it. On the Virus (and I suspect most modern synths), the notion of parts / voices / polyphony is kind of a misnomer at least in terms of paper specs of a synth. On the Virus Ti you'll see a little meter that tells you the "complexity" of the sound (i.e. how processor hungry it is), so things like polyphony will vary based on which sound you chose. I've told this story before, but when I had a Ti2, I remember loading a factory patch called D50 bells or something similar, that did infact sound like a Roland D50, but I think I was able to get at most 5 simultaneous notes out of it, and to the best of my knowledge that was taking the juice off the entire board. All of this surprised me because I never thought of "bells", or FM synthesis in particular as being processor heavy.

That said though, if one part for you is usually 1 osc and 1 filter and no effects, theres a good chance you'll be happy with the results, and that a lot of what I've said wouldn't apply to your case, however part of the real selling points of the modern Virus are the DAW integration, USB, etc.. so if you just want the raw Virus sound you might want to just pick up an older model used. I don't think any of them have sequencers built in? I always thought that was a primary requirement for a standalone workstation.

[SamZah]

Originally Posted by MBTC

In that case, you might be thrilled with it. On the Virus (and I suspect most modern synths), the notion of parts / voices / polyphony is kind of a misnomer at least in terms of paper specs of a synth. On the Virus Ti you'll see a little meter that tells you the "complexity" of the sound (i.e. how processor hungry it is), so things like polyphony will vary based on which sound you chose. I've told this story before, but when I had a Ti2, I remember loading a factory patch called D50 bells or something similar, that did infact sound like a Roland D50, but I think I was able to get at most 5 simultaneous notes out of it, and to the best of my knowledge that was taking the juice off the entire board. All of this surprised me because I never thought of "bells", or FM synthesis in particular as being processor heavy.

That said though, if one part for you is usually 1 osc and 1 filter and no effects, theres a good chance you'll be happy with the results, and that a lot of what I've said wouldn't apply to your case, however part of the real selling points of the modern Virus are the DAW integration, USB, etc.. so if you just want the raw Virus sound you might want to just pick up an older model used. I don't think any of them have sequencers built in? I always thought that was a primary requirement for a standalone workstation.

Thats actually very surprising about the bells using up all the power. I knew how the polyphony was worked out but still I thought it had much more power than that. Actually I had considered using a sampler-sequencer to drive the Virus, which would mean that if I wanted to use any particularly hungry sounds I could sample them.

Part of the reason I wanted a TI was the dedicated effects per channel.

If that's the way it is though with the polyphony I wonder how successful I will be in the end. Maybe I should look into those older Novation synths, though the K-station I tried I thought sounded okay, but not as good as the Virus.

Its not like I can just endlessly try different gear which is why I am asking around about this. I wonder if my dream of a super-hardware groove box is just that!

I figure, 4 or 5 parts monophonic percussion probably just involving 1 osc each. 3 or 4 monophonic single or 2 osc lines, delay, reverb, some compression and a few pads. I think it sounds like it may choke once the pads are added.

But my reasoning is if I have to do any bouncing down I may as well get an Analog synth, which although does less, does that letter better (for me). I either like raw analog sounds or if I use something like the virus I like more processed or complex sounds.

[MBTC]

Its things like pads as you said (anything with long release), reverb, in my case thick saw/supersaw type sounds that are the hogs. Then again the other variable is how many of those notes were pressed that need the release portion open simultaneously, yada yada. I too do not like bouncing down because at that point I can no longer manipulate the params that would inspire me to use a synth to begin with in real time.

IMO the onboard FX of the Virus help make each sound great, but they do use processing power so if you add them to the Virus, they are going to affect overall processing power just like they would if they were a plugin in a PC. To me the value of putting the FX on the synth is to keep them "as one" with the patch, so that when you load up the sound you get a consistent result without worrying whats on the mixer track. Maybe if you're going for a pure hardware environment you could go for an older Virus plus hardware FX rack, and keep your processing on the Virus. One nice thing I find about softsynths is that with good ones, you can often do things like lower the aliasing quality of signals to get better CPU usage (not sure how much flexibility most VA hardware gives you for that?).