|
|||
tehlord wrote: osiris wrote: I think Armin uses ES2
That needs a dongle too
/ruuuuuuuns |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 15 Aug 2011 Member: #262776 | ||
|
|||
Kriminal wrote: DevonB wrote: As for "quality", I tend to look at synths as they have "a quality", more than "the quality" (think "she has blonde hair" as "a quality" vs. "she's a pretty blonde" as "the quality".) The former is more based on facts and the later more based on opinion. Adding both to the discussion becomes far more interesting than just the later. the formner is not based on facts, its opinion. 'she has blonde hair' is 'a fact', saying its 'a quality' is an opinion. Being blonde is as much of a quality as being a brunette, redhead, or bald. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quality?s=t Quote: qual·i·ty [kwol-i-tee]
1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol. Devon ---- Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses. Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic! |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 23 Feb 2003 Member: #6063 Location: Earth, USA | ||
|
|||
4damind wrote: izonin wrote: But if we talk purely about sound, the Virus is still way ahead of it's VSTi clones. Soundtoys' Filterfreak is the only filter that matches the quality of TI's ones. With polyphony in mind, even if Access released a Virus plug-in, you wouldn't be able to run it even on a fast machine.
I think this is not true. Access is not the only company able to design filter algorithms. There are a lot developers with the same or better knowledge. U-he, Fabfilter, FXPansion, Tone2 are only some companies with excellent filters. TI has 2 Motorola DSP I guess, this is not the same processing power like a actual Intel CPU. I expect that a Virus plug-in would not use more CPU than NI Massive or U-He Diva with highest oversampling rate. It's not the processing power it's more the realtime behavior and how processing power will be shared between different processes (and interrupted). With a Virus you will not have the problem that other processes will interrupt operations. You have no boot time, no problems with latency or bad developed plugins crashing the host. But also Access is not free of problems. Their operating systems for the Virus had a lot of bugs with every release. I remember it needs some releases to have a proper timing with OS6.5 for the Virus C and the Virus TI was full of problems and bugs when released. Access is not better than others, they are not developing better or more stable software than others or have more knowledge than others. DSP chips are more about cost savings than pure performance - they're less complex and more specialized so they can run with a simpler general purpose CPU for control (typically a 16-bit microprocessor), a smaller operating system using less memory (measured in kilobytes rather than megabytes or gigabytes), and they produce much less heat than Intel or AMD chips (nobody wants a noisy fan in their synth). In terms of pure processing power they're nowhere near even a several years old general purpose CPU from AMD or Intel, though they're optimized for exactly the types of instructions you need for real-time audio processing. Most DSP chips are around 500 MIPS (million instructions per second) or less. Even the CPU in your iPhone is several times more powerful than that (I'm guessing around 3 to 4,000 MIPS in the latest model). Intel CPUs do 80,000 MIPS or more. It's all in the algorithms. Those used in the Virus are 1) Very efficient 2) Very high quality 3) Proprietary, with the source code only known to Access developers #1 is why the Virus can have up to 100 voices with just two simple DSP chips (the same type used in surround sound receivers, cheap stereo systems with digital effects etc.). A port to native x86 code could never be that efficient, but with lots of Assembly/SSE code it could be done with a few percent CPU usage (Zebra, Sylenth1, Dune etc. are all ~1-2% CPU for simple chords on a modern CPU. #2 is why it sounds so good. #3 is why no clone will ever sound exactly the same regardless of how much processing power is available. I'm thankful that different developers have developed their own algorithms. If all plugins had filters and oscillators that sounded exactly like the Virus, it would be a very boring world. ---- Hardware: Akai MPK61, MFB-Synth II, Roland JX-8P, Virus TI Snow, KORG MS2000R, Roland SH-01 Favorite software: Sylenth1, Synth1, Messiah, ME80, OPX-Pro II, Zebra 2, Diva, Reason, Studio One V2 Pro |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 12 Sep 2007 Member: #159775 Location: Sweden | ||
|
|||
The TI2 Polar makes a great balcony synth for these hot summer nights. Add a huge fan, some drinks, an iThing and you're set for some good fun.
For producing sw is probably easier to deal with, but if you are a balcony guy, go for the virus. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 17 Jul 2003 Member: #8092 | ||
|
|||
JimmiG wrote: A port to native x86 code could never be that efficient
I kinda disagree, check Lexicon reverbs released for PC. They take sooo small amount of power, yet sounding great and having lexicon flavor p.s. now was thinking...if our cellphones CPUs are so powerful, why virus is still on old DSP chip :X |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 03 Feb 2010 Member: #225169 | ||
|
|||
cryophonik wrote: Ugh, don't you people get sick of rehashing the same old boring Virus-vs-softsynths thread every freaking week? The arguments never change, so why not just make it a sticky and be done with it?
I'd hazard a guess that it's because these threads are usually started by people who are already using softsynths, and want to know if buying a Virus will turn them into Armin. It's the Virus that these questions are always about. When was the last time you saw the same question about a Blofeld/Lead/Motif/Prophet? |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 22 Sep 2008 Member: #189894 Location: Windsor. UK | ||
|
|||
Everytime of the week this kind of question appear. It's amusing how it's always the same people debating. ---- GAS |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 01 May 2010 Member: #230948 | ||
|
|||
mikedw wrote: Is it something to bet on a Virus synth?
Yes it's something. I'll bet 50 bucks on the virus. ![]() |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Member: #162477 Location: a inharmonious society | ||
|
|||
tehlord wrote: I'd hazard a guess that it's because these threads are usually started by people who are already using softsynths, and want to know if buying a Virus will turn them into Armin.
Funny thing is that it seems that Armin doesn't use very much the Virus. His main keyboard is a Nord Lead. In his studio session videos he mentioned more the Fabfilter synth and stuff. The trance guys which are for many a bit the "big boys" Infected Mushroom using more Nord Modular, Surge. Amit Duvdevani doesn't remember about the name/version of this "thing" in the rackspace (Virus TI) in a actual studio video... It seems the Virus has today not this usage people expect. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 17 Aug 2004 Member: #37375 Location: Berlin, Germany | ||
|
|||
JimmiG wrote: Most DSP chips are around 500 MIPS (million instructions per second) or less. 500 MIPS is very fast for a DSP chip.. The original Virus B (16 part, 24 voices) runs on a 150MHZ dsp that can produce a peak of 270 MIPS. JimmiG wrote: Even the CPU in your iPhone is several times more powerful than that (I'm guessing around 3 to 4,000 MIPS in the latest model).
Which is crippled down by bad software, yes. Most of the crunching on mobile phones is anyway related to graphics, which is run on a separate dsp-chip.. also known as a gpu. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 05 May 2007 Member: #149841 Location: Finland | ||
|
|||
tehlord wrote: I'd hazard a guess that it's because these threads are usually started by people who are already using softsynths, and want to know if buying a Virus will turn them into Armin. Not Armin, but Orjan Nilsen! That guy knows how to use the Virus and his tracks are pure heaven. Armin mostly uses Twin2 and V-Station for his latest stuff. ---- Musique Eurotronique |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Member: #218304 | ||
|
|||
DevonB wrote: Kriminal wrote: DevonB wrote: As for "quality", I tend to look at synths as they have "a quality", more than "the quality" (think "she has blonde hair" as "a quality" vs. "she's a pretty blonde" as "the quality".) The former is more based on facts and the later more based on opinion. Adding both to the discussion becomes far more interesting than just the later. the formner is not based on facts, its opinion. 'she has blonde hair' is 'a fact', saying its 'a quality' is an opinion. Being blonde is as much of a quality as being a brunette, redhead, or bald. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quality?s=t Quote: qual·i·ty [kwol-i-tee]
1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol. Devon only picking the definition to suit you, nicely done, whereas the 'quality' you actually meant was very diff qual·i·ty (kwl-t) n. pl. qual·i·ties 1. a. An inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property. b. A personal trait, especially a character trait: "The most vital quality a soldier can possess is self-confidence" (George S. Patton). 2. Essential character; nature: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd" (Shakespeare). 3. a. Superiority of kind: an intellect of unquestioned quality. b. Degree or grade of excellence: yard goods of low quality. 4. a. High social position. b. Those in a high social position. 5. Music Timbre, as determined by harmonics: a voice with a distinctive metallic quality. 6. Linguistics The character of a vowel sound determined by the size and shape of the oral cavity and the amount of resonance with which the sound is produced. 7. Logic The positive or negative character of a proposition. adj. Having a high degree of excellence: the importance of quality health care. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 01 Oct 2001 Member: #1189 Location: England | ||
|
|||
izonin wrote: tehlord wrote: I'd hazard a guess that it's because these threads are usually started by people who are already using softsynths, and want to know if buying a Virus will turn them into Armin. Not Armin, but Orjan Nilsen! That guy knows how to use the Virus and his tracks are pure heaven. Armin was just a name I plucked out of the aether, it's just an illustration that a lot of people will think they need a Virus as it's the only way to sound like producer X And just for the record, Nilsen stated that Sylenth1 was pretty much a replacement for the Virus for 'that' sound. I came to the same conclusion 2 years ago when I sold my Ti. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 22 Sep 2008 Member: #189894 Location: Windsor. UK | ||
|
|||
tehlord wrote: Armin was just a name I plucked out of the aether, it's just an illustration that a lot of people will think they need a Virus as it's the only way to sound like producer X And just for the record, Nilsen stated that Sylenth1 was pretty much a replacement for the Virus for 'that' sound. I came to the same conclusion 2 years ago when I sold my Ti. Yeah, I saw that video too. Only I hated the sound he made with Sylenth1. Not that it's a bad VSTi, just the Virus has some magic in its code. ---- Musique Eurotronique |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Member: #218304 | ||
|
|||
JimmiG wrote: DSP chips are more about cost savings than pure performance - they're less complex and more specialized so they can run with a simpler general purpose CPU for control (typically a 16-bit microprocessor), a smaller operating system using less memory (measured in kilobytes rather than megabytes or gigabytes), and they produce much less heat than Intel or AMD chips (nobody wants a noisy fan in their synth). In terms of pure processing power they're nowhere near even a several years old general purpose CPU from AMD or Intel, though they're optimized for exactly the types of instructions you need for real-time audio processing. Most DSP chips are around 500 MIPS (million instructions per second) or less. Even the CPU in your iPhone is several times more powerful than that (I'm guessing around 3 to 4,000 MIPS in the latest model). Intel CPUs do 80,000 MIPS or more. It's all in the algorithms. Those used in the Virus are 1) Very efficient 2) Very high quality 3) Proprietary, with the source code only known to Access developers #1 is why the Virus can have up to 100 voices with just two simple DSP chips (the same type used in surround sound receivers, cheap stereo systems with digital effects etc.). A port to native x86 code could never be that efficient, but with lots of Assembly/SSE code it could be done with a few percent CPU usage (Zebra, Sylenth1, Dune etc. are all ~1-2% CPU for simple chords on a modern CPU. #2 is why it sounds so good. #3 is why no clone will ever sound exactly the same regardless of how much processing power is available. I'm thankful that different developers have developed their own algorithms. If all plugins had filters and oscillators that sounded exactly like the Virus, it would be a very boring world. Blofeld and Largo use the same code. Some Largo patches can be very CPU intensive, and I don't think that the DSP chip in Blofeld is quite as powerful as the one in Virus Ti. So, it's easy to imagine that a Virus VSTi would require a very fast CPU. ---- Musique Eurotronique |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Member: #218304 |
| KVR Forum Index » Instruments | All times are GMT - 8 Hours |
|
Printable version |
Disclaimer: All communications made available as part of this forum and any opinions, advice, statements, views or other information expressed in this forum are solely provided by, and the responsibility of, the person posting such communication and not of kvraudio.com (unless kvraudio.com is specifically identified as the author of the communication).
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group






