Virus

First, I highly doubt that the V-Station VSTi uses the actual code. Just like Komplexer doesn't have the code of the microQ, only the features. And second, Virus B doesn't sound quite as good (to me) as a C or a Ti, so it probably uses older, more basic algorithms.

So compare it to the Sonnox plugins instead then. Here's one happy user of both PoCo and Native: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4326159-post66.html

Do note that the Powercore 6000 has 4 Motorola 56367 (same as the TI but it has only 2) and the the port is from 2009 dunno which quadcore he's referring to.

According to Motorola the TI actually has less DSP per voice than the B.

All in all there's absolutely nothing that suggests that a VST version of the Virus would be particularly CPU heavy by today's standards.

Again, Blofeld and Largo. Largo is not one of the lightest on the CPU VSTi synths, and the hardware is a miniature, super cheap thingy. It probably doesn't have a quarter of the DSP power of the Ti.

Not sure how it works, but the TI seems to have an instance per voice. You can hold a note, change patch, play another one while the first is still playing and all this without a glitch, even with different fx settings.

I don't recall any VST that let's me do that.

Roughly half actually.

Then the Virus code is extremely good, which means that a VSTi will (sadly) never be released. It's relatively easy to reverse engineer the code from assembly, and Access won't risk that.

Access should release the Virus TI version for UAD or screw it go Native already.The powercore version for the C was cool,but it's lacking the hypersaws etc.. This would be a no brainer n sell like hotcakes.

Can't understand why the hell it's not been done yet, the TI2 was a joke imo for the cost for the extra dsp.Bring it out Native or UAD period.. DO IT

If the amount of DSP something uses is a big concern and being used as a potential measure of audio quality, the Solaris is using SIX 400MHz SHARC chips to produce TEN voices of polyphony with effects. Does that mean we have a new winner in the DSP Peeing Contest, LOL?

I remember a DSP programmer once posting something on GS to the effect that if we knew how many corners had to be cut in those early-generation VA's to make them run on the processing chips they used at the time, we'd hesitate to even refer to what they do as "analog modeling." Sometimes I think it's more about where the programmers of those early VA's chose to cut the corners and the little kludges they worked out to try and goose the sound that gives them their idiosyncratic sonic character that some still like today.

Amen!

Just got curious and checked the specs:

Blofeld - 1x180MHz chip / 25 voice polyphony
Virus Ti - 2x275MHz chips / 20-90 voice polyphony

Which means a Virus plug-in would use three times more cycles on complex patches than Largo.

Where did you get that info from ? My sources tells me it's a 150 mHz 56367 (it only comes in 100 or 150 mHz flavour AFAIK).

http://virus.info/page/render/lang/en/p/57/do/Virus_TI_Made_ to_perform.html

You can see the chip number.

The 20-90 voices on the Virus TI are only there theoretically. With complex patches you could go down to 10-15 voices maybe better with a TI2).

The Blofeld's voices could go down when using all available features too but i never found having less than at least 10 voices available.


Ingo
Last edited by Ingonator on Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:19 am; edited 5 times in total

Hmm that's odd. The TI1 does indeed have 2 150 mHz 56367 (compared to Blofelds 1 180 mHz 56371) and the TI2 is roughly 25% faster. Something does not add up.