software VA synthesizers make me wish i had analog hardware.

[V0RT3X]

I used to be a software junkie and swear by software that it would be all I could ever ask for but the more i listen to a good hardware synth i think it just proves to me that there is something special about analog synthesis hardware. Sure the thread is pointless but it's just one of those moments for me when I realize that for some things hardware analog synthesizers are better. Also isn't KVR full of pointless threads? I think sometimes it's these kind of threads that stir the hive and get people talking.

I also prefer VCO based synthesizers over DCO based synthesizers fwiw

[cryophonik]

I use both. Problem solved.

[chk071]

Tbh, i rather think that threads like these add to the mythical "Hardware sounds better" thing, and the hype of the Viruses or Minimoogs of this world. While i'm sure you have a point when talking about analogue synths (even though those have been modelled quite well by software by now as far as always can be read), this isn't valid at all to VA hardware. Still i read "hardware" in the title, which should be "analogue hardware". Which makes me think that the focus is on "hardware" rather than the method used to do the sound synthesis.

[BBFG#]

Analog.
More often in the states, analogue is a literary term, analog is a mechanical term.

[chk071]

Alright, didn't know that. Sorry.

[Gamma-UT]

Analog.
More often in the states, analogue is a literary term, analog is a mechanical term.

Analogue is the British English spelling. That's all.

[V0RT3X]

Tbh, i rather think that threads like these add to the mythical "Hardware sounds better" thing, and the hype of the Viruses or Minimoogs of this world. While i'm sure you have a point when talking about analogue synths (even though those have been modelled quite well by software by now as far as always can be read), this isn't valid at all to VA hardware. Still i read "hardware" in the title, which should be "analogue hardware". Which makes me think that the focus is on "hardware" rather than the method used to do the sound synthesis.

Yes your right about it not being valid to VA hardware. I"ll fix the forum thread title.

As far as the Virus TI, Korg KingKorg, etc go I think software is still much better. I've been reading that lots of VA hardware synthesizers are plagued with aliasing and unrealistic audio-rate modelling in LFO speeds, No free running oscillators or proper saturation etc.. which is probably due to the underpowered computers that power them.

I think the only thing that appeals to me with something like the Virus is the fact it would take the strain off my computer. I've been watching the Virus Ti videos that Access has uploaded to teach people about the new features in OS3 to 5 and I have mostly been not that impressed. Sure it's nice but it's not worth $2500 to me. Now if it modelled VA on a level that Diva or Synthsquad do and you could have all that inside a Virus TI2 with Total integration, 16 instances via its split engine function then yes I would buy one without a doubt but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

[pdxindy]

I used to be a software junkie and swear by software that it would be all I could ever ask for but the more i listen to a good hardware synth i think it just proves to me that there is something special about analog synthesis hardware. Sure the thread is pointless but it's just one of those moments for me when I realize that for some things hardware analog synthesizers are better. Also isn't KVR full of pointless threads? I think sometimes it's these kind of threads that stir the hive and get people talking.

I also prefer VCO based synthesizers over DCO based synthesizers fwiw

There is no question that analogue still has something... the cases when that is so are shrinking...

If software keeps going in the way it is... towards a subscription model and monthly payments, that will annoy me enough that I would likely switch to all hardware.

[BBFG#]

Analog.
More often in the states, analogue is a literary term, analog is a mechanical term.

Analogue is the British English spelling. That's all.

In fact, most of Europe too. Simply explaining that many of us here use them to denote specifics. But yes, they are functionally interchangeable for the most part. 'Analogue' is consider archaic in dealing with electronics or mechanics though.

[chk071]

Tbh, i rather think that threads like these add to the mythical "Hardware sounds better" thing, and the hype of the Viruses or Minimoogs of this world. While i'm sure you have a point when talking about analogue synths (even though those have been modelled quite well by software by now as far as always can be read), this isn't valid at all to VA hardware. Still i read "hardware" in the title, which should be "analogue hardware". Which makes me think that the focus is on "hardware" rather than the method used to do the sound synthesis.

Yes your right about it not being valid to VA hardware. I"ll fix the forum thread title.

As far as the Virus TI, Korg KingKorg, etc go I think software is still much better. I've been reading that lots of VA hardware synthesizers are plagued with aliasing and unrealistic audio-rate modelling in LFO speeds, No free running oscillators or proper saturation etc.. which is probably due to the underpowered computers that power them.

I think the only thing that appeals to me with something like the Virus is the fact it would take the strain off my computer. I've been watching the Virus Ti videos that Access has uploaded to teach people about the new features in OS3 to 5 and I have mostly been not that impressed. Sure it's nice but it's not worth $2500 to me. Now if it modelled VA on a level that Diva or Synthsquad do and you could have all that inside a Virus TI2 with Total integration, 16 instances via its split engine function then yes I would buy one without a doubt but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

From the sound demos and vids i heard and watched so far, i think the Virus sounds absolutely gorgeous. But, as you said, it's pretty expensive, plus the limitations you have when not working with software. Sure like to play one one day though.

[do_androids_dream]

As far as the Virus TI, Korg KingKorg, etc go I think software is still much better.

My comments only relate to sound (not workflow, instant recall etc.)... but I still haven't heard any softsynths that top that beautiful thick and crunchy sound of a nord lead 1 or 2 or the modular for that matter. I know it can be done in software though as the Nord G2 demo sounds identical to the hardware...

[BBFG#]

Most hardware is not appealing to me on their own. It has to do more with their trigger controls as in modeling or articulated phrase abilities. Those hardware instruments have a way of transcending to being an actual instrument as opposed to simply being a rompler keyboard/workstation. And with those, it matters little that time has surpassed them in workstation capabilities, as long as they continue to be a stellar instrument in their own right that can communicate effectively enough with any current computer.
I loved my Memorymoog, but when it came to using it with a DAW, its limits made it easier to sell and never look back. Even my first DX, which was a good start on transcending synths into real instruments was only a start and could not keep up with the rapidly changing landscape at the time.
A couple of synths shine enough for me to go the distance with them now. The rest, I can wait for their virtual counterpart to be written.

[do_androids_dream]

Tbh, i rather think that threads like these add to the mythical "Hardware sounds better" thing...

I don't think it's 'mythical' - it's taste based on subjective opinion which means something different for everyone. I think the problem comes with the generalisation of 'software' and 'hardware'. It just so happens that all my favourite synths are hardware and when I 'compare' them - both in isolation and 'in the mix' - the hardware always comes up trumps for me. There might not be much in it though. For instance, I wrote a track using polyiblit the other day - it's a good synth and I was happy with it. I had some spare time so I decided to replace all the midi parts with my korg volca keys. Even though I was pretty happy with the first version, the korg volca sounded much more pleasing to my ears - but that's just to my ears - someone else might have preferred the polyiblit version.

[V0RT3X]

From the sound demos and vids i heard and watched so far, i think the Virus sounds absolutely gorgeous. But, as you said, it's pretty expensive, plus the limitations you have when not working with software. Sure like to play one one day though.

I got to sit down at a music store and mess about with a Virus TI2 keyboard. It had fairly decent studio headphones plugged directly into the output and i started to fiddle about with it. My initial impressions were that i could get a majority of the sounds in it from existing VA synthesizers. I'm no n00b when it comes to pushing synthesizers and running them through the hoops. I love pushing things to it's limits and modulating the f**k out of things.. and I did that but was still left kind of unimpressed.

I suppose though that there are the actual musicians out there that just want something to work and do not want to take advantage of learning a bunch of new synthesizers in a computer to get similar functions out of a virus ti but not me. I imagine there are guys who just wanna fire up a synth keyboard and get an instant supersaw sound or something and not compare to what exists in software land, but not me.

The digital synthesis was pretty neat but it also sounded kind of cheap until you drenched it in effects. I could get way better quality algorithms in software..

One of the nicest things I think about the virus is that you only have to learn one GUI to get a lot of functions but soundwise I was not really that impressed when it came down to VA style sounds. No a virus will never replace a proper analog synthesizer and i think for raw bread and butter VA sounds you can do so much better with products like DCAM synthsquad, Diva etc. I hear virus owners who claim they keep it around for the "virus sound" which I do think it does have, but I'm not sure i want to pay a premium for a "sound" but instead more for quality in general.

Even in the latest OS updates their new effects like the tape delay sound like shit when you compare them to what we get in plugins. I would much rather see quality over quantity.

If i was rich sure maybe I would go ahead and buy a Virus Ti2. I could see it coming in handy if i needed some "filler" sounds in the background but i would not rely on it for my main focused sounds in a mix. I would pick much higher quality VA synthesizers with proper oversampling for that.

As a musical instrument yes the Virus is nice and very useful. However when it boils down to the quality in it's actual synthesis, i think that the engine is starting to show it's age. Why would i say this? Well I've heard and messed about with a TON of some of the best and well known software synthesizers and I am not really a stranger when it comes down to understanding the various synthesizer functions and style. Yes when you actually listen you can detect quality differences quite easily in many of them and i actually found the virus engine needs internal oversampling and a higher quality output. Hopefully whenever they roll out the next gen viruses that they will update the internal engine to run at a higher sampling rate similar to what the AIRA line runs at, but this means they will have to spend more money.

I would love it if Access released more information on it's synthesis engine and the DSP that is actually used to power the system.

For instance are the oscillators free running? Is any part of the VA done via component modelling? Do the filters use modern algorithms like the ZDF tech?

I think the Virus line built up a following back in the days when most digital synthesizers and software sucked and polyphonic analogs were too expensive to own. So this would indeed create a following and it would be used for years because at the time it was cutting edge tech. Now I don't think they have anything super special to offer anyone.

As for the cost, well I think maybe most of the cost is due to them being a small company. I don't see the price you pay as something to pay for in terms of quality of sound and i will stick to that argument in this day and age when we have tons of VA plugins that sound better.

Actually I am tempted to rent a Virus Ti2 Desktop and do some shootouts in the oscillators and filters and compare them to some modern plugins.

In the end i honestly feel this way about the Virus.

The virus is a workhorse but when it boils down to it I think you can find much better software if you don't mind mixing and matching and learning a new synth.

I understand some of you would rather be out jamming and doing your music instead of worrying about the technical nitpickings but I really do want quality in the end.

Oh and the argument about why bother with analog hardware because it will end being digital in the end anyways is a stupid one, but i wont get into it. Not worth my time trying to explain to people who say stuff like that.

[fluffy_little_something]

To me hardware is better because there is something to touch and everything is simply bigger than on those for the most part ridiculously small VST windows with their tiny labels. Hardware radiates solidity and power, unlike a PC and software with bugs.
But regarding the sound, I guess I am not wild enough to use extreme sounds with infinite resonance peaks and filter overdrive, it would not fit to my music anyway. And for "normal" sounds a good VST is good enough for me. I can't even say that I prefer expensive plugins over cheap ones.

I would not mind having a Prophet 12, though, just for fun Not sure I would use it in my music, though, not least because I would only have one instance. And when I plug the Prophet 12 into my mediocre computer, the sound that actually arrives in my DAW would likely be no better than as if I used a plugin