Virus Indigo Hardware Synth vs. Software Synths
-
- KVRAF
- 1530 posts since 20 Feb, 2003
i agree ahja, but remember its primarily the knobs and wire and circuits and metal and manufacturing and shipping that you're paying for.
the big price tag is not because of the sound.
the big price tag is not because of the sound.
-
- KVRAF
- 1509 posts since 20 Feb, 2003
richardfletcher wrote:As for sound there isn't really any soft synth I can think of that matches the sonic capability of the virus.
Everyone seems to be forget that the Virus is available as a VST on Powercore. (And the card itself is selling for under $350 lately.) That will give you upto a 64 note polyphonic Virus B with 4 global reverb/delays per card, and all 16 channels (per card) can be routed through any VST effects. All this with no hit on your CPU, which can be left free for those FX. Try to run 64 notes on (random example) EG Z3ta and see how much CPU you've got left. And that's ignoring the subjective point that many would say the Virus can sound "better" than z3ta for many sounds.BONES wrote: The difference is that you can use as many software synths as you like to get it all done for a fraction of the cost of a VIRUS or any other hardware instrument. Once you add the convenience of a plugin host with audio recording facilities, etc, software wins by a mile.
I agree that the Virus can replace most of your software synths and do a better sounding job whilst it's at it. So, if you're looking to streamline your set up to get more done, it's a really great synth for that since it can cover many duties well and has filters no other VST I've heard can touch. And remember your audio can also be routed through the Virus|Powercore too.
If you've only ever heard one 'on stage' then that doesn't say a lot. Play with the filters and I suspect you'd maybe have a different opinion.frankly, I have no idea what all the fuss is about.
-
- KVRian
- 1161 posts since 17 Nov, 2002 from Middlesbrough,UK
I own a access virus C and it sounds superb , but i never use it now because cables are a pain in the ass . Its much easier for me to just click a mouse and a virtual instrument appears in my host ,Yep im going totally virtual now the virus in my situation was a waste of money(no i won't sell it as it looks nice in my home studio lol)
you want good bass ? Then buy Spectrasonics trilogy it has virus bass patches in it as well as bass off every other good synth on the market.
you want good bass ? Then buy Spectrasonics trilogy it has virus bass patches in it as well as bass off every other good synth on the market.
-
- KVRist
- 178 posts since 15 Mar, 2003 from Windsor, England
This could be worded better. Its 64 voices shared between 4 instances, each instance has 4 outputs. Also, to obtain all 64 voices you need the base licence and optional unlimited licence aswell to unlock the plugin to all dsps.PAK wrote:That will give you upto a 64 note polyphonic Virus B with 4 global reverb/delays per card, and all 16 channels (per card) can be routed through any VST effects.
The maximum poly you can have for any one instance/output/patch is 16 which is quite limiting (and a lot different from 64 which your post would lead people to believe) especially when you have complex unison pad/string patches playing triads or more (megapads anyone?)
Although the poco virus is pretty cool and sounds awesome (I used to own it before selling up and pre-ordering the TI) The 16 poly limit and 4 outputs per instance instead of just single instances (and some other niggles/issues) it leaves a lot to be desired.
eng
-
Joxer the Mighty Joxer the Mighty https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4414
- KVRist
- 282 posts since 1 Nov, 2002
True, but how much of the software you buy today will you be using 5 years from now? In the long run, I think something like a Voyager or a Virus gets you more for your money.BONES wrote: The difference is that you can use as many software synths as you like to get it all done for a fraction of the cost of a VIRUS or any other hardware instrument.
Go take a Virus for a test drive and let your ears decide. Personally, I think the Virus sounds great.
-
- KVRAF
- 1959 posts since 10 Aug, 2004 from Valencia, Spain.
well...physical things break...virtual ones don't. that's an advantage.True, but how much of the software you buy today will you be using 5 years from now?
-
Joxer the Mighty Joxer the Mighty https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4414
- KVRist
- 282 posts since 1 Nov, 2002
Ummm...and what do you call the computer you run softsynths on?origami wrote:well...physical things break...virtual ones don't. that's an advantage.True, but how much of the software you buy today will you be using 5 years from now?
-
- KVRAF
- 1509 posts since 20 Feb, 2003
There's nothing to stop you splitting that across the different instances using the same patch. 4x16 is not as nice as 64 all-in-one I agree. But then you gain the additional 4 stereo VST outputs per instance (16 per card). The 16 notes is not that limiting when most sounds seem to gain increasingly less beyond 3 voice unison. I'd take the increased VST routing options (16 stereo outs with 4x16 polyphony) over the convenience of 64 notes polyphony in one instance with just 2 stereo outs available for VST routing.english wrote:The maximum poly you can have for any one instance/output/patch is 16 which is quite limiting (and a lot different from 64 which your post would lead people to believe) especially when you have complex unison pad/string patches playing triads or more (megapads anyone?)
It's ironic you mention instances as if the TI is better there. The TI is actually much more limited in that regard. On the Powercore you get 4 stereo outs per DSP instance, and up to 16 per card. On the TI you've just traded it for 2 stereo outs available inside the VST host, and those will be routed over USB 1 (higher CPU and increased latency Vs PCI, and potentially big headaches for many people.. we'll need to wait and see on that one.) Hmm, 2 stereo channels Vs 16 per card. Tough choice So the Virus|Powercore is the much more integrated thereAlthough the poco virus is pretty cool and sounds awesome (I used to own it before selling up and pre-ordering the TI) The 16 poly limit and 4 outputs per instance instead of just single instances (and some other niggles/issues) it leaves a lot to be desired.
The Powercore delivers true "per channel" routing over VST. The TI is limited to just 2 for its whole output. And don't forget the Powercore can run much more than "just" the Virus plugin.
As for other issues, I've since figured out the issues with the Powercores timing now, and it's quite easy to work past it. It's nice to have something in perfect sync all the time without having to think about time shifting midi notes and worrying about arps drifting.
-
- KVRist
- 178 posts since 15 Mar, 2003 from Windsor, England
I couldnt think of anything worse then splitting the same sound across multiple instances. You say increased vst routing options, I say more configuration, time and hassle. Also the 'convenience' of a 64 poly on the virus poco leaves no room for the other powercore plugins you mention
Its been confirmed the TI will now ship with 3 stereo outs over usb and the possibility of increasing this later down the line with some form of update. I cant really see me wanting to use more than 3 sounds from the same synth tbh, and if I did im happy with bouncing audio.
Im sure access will work out any latency and timing issues before it ships. They are a solid company and have always fixed any problems with thier previous hardware very quickly and effciently. Also the cpu usage has been quoted in the <3% mark for the vst front end over usb on a half decent computer.
All this coupled with the awesome new features of the TI that you have no hope of ever seeing on the virus poco makes it my choice, maybe not for everyone tho
eng
Its been confirmed the TI will now ship with 3 stereo outs over usb and the possibility of increasing this later down the line with some form of update. I cant really see me wanting to use more than 3 sounds from the same synth tbh, and if I did im happy with bouncing audio.
Im sure access will work out any latency and timing issues before it ships. They are a solid company and have always fixed any problems with thier previous hardware very quickly and effciently. Also the cpu usage has been quoted in the <3% mark for the vst front end over usb on a half decent computer.
All this coupled with the awesome new features of the TI that you have no hope of ever seeing on the virus poco makes it my choice, maybe not for everyone tho
eng
Last edited by english on Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Joxer the Mighty Joxer the Mighty https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4414
- KVRist
- 282 posts since 1 Nov, 2002
My choice too, I have one on pre-order.english wrote:
All this coupled with the awesome new features of the TI that you have no hope of ever seeing on the virus poco makes it my choice, maybe not for everyone tho
eng
According to the Access website: "You even can process individual virus parts with additional VST/AU plug-ins." If this works the way I'm envisioning it, it would make 3 stereo outs more than enough, for me anyway.
-
- KVRAF
- 2158 posts since 14 Feb, 2003
I'd vote for fabfilter one, and asynth, and Korg Legacy MS-20 filters over the Virus. Just my personal opinion though, just as yours is, above.PAK wrote:<snip>
it can cover many duties well and has filters no other VST I've heard can touch.
<snip>
Play with the filters and I suspect you'd maybe have a different opinion.