VSTis as good as hardware? Similar to Access Virus Quality?

[Howard]

http://www.box.net/shared/anv4fhoned.
With all respect: but this isn't in the Virus (TI) league. This lacks depth, breadth, punch. Well, lots of things.

It lacks length, height and wallop and all those other groovy attributes because it's a clone of just one sound in one of my Virus preset banks. If you are a Virus owner (b or later), you can compare directly.

[D-Fusion]

Could you post a mp3 of the preset so us non Zebra's can here it in action?

OK, done (had to learn a bit about box.net first).
http://www.box.net/shared/anv4fhoned

With all respect: but this isn't in the Virus (TI) league. This lacks depth, breadth, punch. Well, lots of things.

Here is mine Contribution
http://www.box.net/shared/t7sl2b7vkx

[Howard]

Here is mine Contribution
http://www.box.net/shared/t7sl2b7vkx

Hey DF...is that a Z2 clone of a sound already in the TI, a Z2 "inpired by TI" or a TI sound?

BTW: I sold my TI desktop because of Z2!

[D-Fusion]

Here is mine Contribution
http://www.box.net/shared/t7sl2b7vkx

Hey DF...is that a Z2 clone of a sound already in the TI, a Z2 "inpired by TI" or a TI sound?

It is Whitenoise ZeroVector
I hear alot of positive Z2 talk, so i think i have to get it soon

Did you like it Howard?

[D-Fusion]

The preset is something cloned into ZV from a preset i made on My Nord Lead 2X, so it is more based on the Rawness of NL and the Virus.

I sold my NL 2X 1 week after i had created 2 and a half Bank in ZV

[OffTopic]

Here is mine Contribution
http://www.box.net/shared/t7sl2b7vkx

Hey DF...is that a Z2 clone of a sound already in the TI, a Z2 "inpired by TI" or a TI sound?

It is Whitenoise ZeroVector
I hear alot of positive Z2 talk, so i think i have to get it soon

Did you like it Howard?

Obviously all of this has nothing to do with a Virus TI. Which, by the way, can be heard. I am tired of those ongoing claims >I can recreate the Virus on my XYZ-VST<. And whenever it is more than obvious that there is a significant gap soundwise, then the notorious answer is: > It is just the Virus effects that make the difference, it is the filter, it is the...whatever<

I haven't played, seen, heard a single VST yet, that comes 80% close to the Virus TI sound. And those remainig 20% is where the action is.

[D-Fusion]

Fair enough Offtopic, but instead of all the talk i would like you to post some examples of what it is that makes the Virus TI so excellent compared to some vst's

[OffTopic]

Fair enough Offtopic, but instead of all the talk i would like you to post some examples of what it is that makes the Virus TI so excellent compared to some vst's

I don't know.

The thing just is a class of its own soundwise. I own and use approx 25 VSTs, among those are all the usual contenders for Virus substitution. I am afraid to say that all these VSTs just aren't in the same league, regardless of which top sound designer contributes/tries.

[Urs]

Fair enough Offtopic, but instead of all the talk i would like you to post some examples of what it is that makes the Virus TI so excellent compared to some vst's

I don't know.

Yeah, c'mon... post an mp3 of a Virus sound that can't be done in other software... I'm sure someone will take the challenge...

And then we post them somewhere else without saying which is which.

The thing just is a class of its own soundwise. I own and use approx 25 VSTs, among those are all the usual contenders for Virus substitution. I am afraid to say that all these VSTs just aren't in the same league, regardless of which top sound designer contributes/tries.

I can only speak for my Virus A, but...

I've started writing synths because of the things my Virus lacks. It can't be smooth. It can't be organic. And it will never back off even when you tell it to. Instead it will always play the main role in your mix with its overly emphasized sizzle in the heights.

My goal was to create synths that just fit in the mix. Something that my Virus simply always refuses to do.

I found that creating oscillators that don't alias as much as that of my Virus helps a lot. This makes stuff sound more like analogue hardware than like, uhm, digital hardware. Or better, it sounds like proper software. Clean, continuous, mellow. Something not found in any dedicated hardware box that runs software, no matter which price (can't say for sure for the Oasys tho, I heard good things about it)

Also, the promise that my Virus' knobs make it easier to use... hell... yeah, you can tweak a bit... but easy to use? Far from it. Most parameters are still buried in deep menu structures.

Your Virus may vary.

Urs

P.S.: Sorry if I fell for trolling, but I'm just as fed up with these accusations of the hardware fans - just as they are eager to keep alive what... simply can't be... digital hardware dies, less rip off, users win

[Shy]

Fair enough Offtopic, but instead of all the talk i would like you to post some examples of what it is that makes the Virus TI so excellent compared to some vst's

I don't know.

Yeah, c'mon... post an mp3 of a Virus sound that can't be done in other software... I'm sure someone will take the challenge...

And then we post them somewhere else without saying which is which.

You and I know that the point is not that the Virus is remarkably unique and nothing can sound basically like it. It's that many things can sound like it, but none sound similar with the same character. It's a character that makes a synth, and not just its flexibility.

If your purpose in making Zebra really was building a more flexible synth, at least you could make its filters, oscilators and envelopes able to create a synthesized bass drum sound that isn't much worse than a Virus's.

[shogger]

Yeah, c'mon... post an mp3 of a Virus sound that can't be done in other software... I'm sure someone will take the challenge...

And then we post them somewhere else without saying which is which.

You and I know that the point is not that the Virus is remarkably unique and nothing can sound basically like it. It's that many things can sound like it, but none sound similar with the same character. It's a character that makes a synth, and not just its flexibility.

Isn't that strange? Wasn't exactly THAT Urs' point?

Shogger

[Shy]

I don't think so..

[shogger]

Why then would he bother to post it somewhere else and ask which is which if he would think that the Virus character is uncopied yet (and/or uncopyable)?
Don't get me wrong: I would like to hear that working correctly. Yes, there are certain characteristics that make a desirable Virus sound for me. If Zebra can do that (if somebody would show off) it would bring me even closer to that cool synth. Gotta check those transfered Virus presets ...

Shogger

[DevonB]

I've started writing synths because of the things my Virus lacks. It can't be smooth. It can't be organic. And it will never back off even when you tell it to. Instead it will always play the main role in your mix with its overly emphasized sizzle in the heights.

My Virus C is smooth, and can also rip you a new one. The Howard Scarr presets really show its more mellow side. Maybe it's just the Virus A?

Devon

[Urs]

My personal view is, much hype for expensive toys comes from those who shelled out the money. They bought a softsynth and now they must justify the extra cost of the dongle. In times where great universal control boxes have become cheap, the aspect of the hardware knobs become, uhm, mute. So, the last resort to justify the money spent are sound and stability. Latter hasn't been that good recently, so let's say, it's just the sound.

The mindblowing fact that software which is not bound to a dedicated hardware can be used in multiple instances and (even on multiple machines, minimizing the expenses for more voices) is carefully neglected in the flow of arguments. More examples can be found, I'm sure (Preset Browsing anyone?!?)

Simply everything speaks against hardware boxes. Only the highly subjective area of sound remains as a possible plus.

I'm sure that pretty much all well done blind a/b listening tests will show that there is no such thing as a perceivable difference between any decent hardware box and any decent software. Naturally, this is if the tested sounds can be created on both boxes, i.e. the hardware box can compete with the software in terms of features and vice versa.

That's why I'd suggest: Bring on the blind tests!

#---

Ultimately the bashing of software will find an end. With few exceptions, analogue hardware can be perfectly reproduced. With no exception, decent software sounds no better nor worse than decent hardware (havn't heard Oasys and Solaris tho).

Just think:

What if the Virus was freed from its dongle? What if company XY bought Access and turned the source code of the Virus into a plugin? Let's say, a download of 3MB.

How much would you want to spend for that? $1000?

How much is the dongle worth and what will be left for the "sound"?

Think about it... the analogy is: Software is considered to sound worse because it's cheaper. Once this paradigm is overcome, hardware dies. Just like tape.

Cheers,

Urs