KVR Audio

rob_lee · Post by **rob_lee** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:05 am

Im sure it will sound just as good mate

Anyway i'll get to work on a soundbank for it as soon as iv'e had a play about with it..
Should take about 3-4 months to complete..

I'll post mp3 demo's as i go.

rob

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:41 am

I just looked at this synth today, and listened to the demo mp3's.
What impressed me was the system requirements being so low, as I'm on an old system.
If anyone knows what the memory usage is like using Largo, let me know please. I might go for this one, if it's not a memory monster.

rob_lee · Post by **rob_lee** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:50 am

MCnoone wrote:I just looked at this synth today, and listened to the demo mp3's.
What impressed me was the system requirements being so low, as I'm on an old system.
If anyone knows what the memory usage is like using Largo, let me know please. I might go for this one, if it's not a memory monster.

hi mate i'll let you know when iv'e installed sometime tuesday

rob

Feng · Post by **Feng** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:29 am

MCnoone wrote:I just looked at this synth today, and listened to the demo mp3's.
What impressed me was the system requirements being so low, as I'm on an old system.
If anyone knows what the memory usage is like using Largo, let me know please. I might go for this one, if it's not a memory monster.

I have Largo, and it's really damned good! I can easily guess it will be one of my favorite soft synths. Anyway it is definitely not light on the CPU. I don't know about memory. I don't think it uses much of it, it doesn't use long samples. Maybe CPU will be reduced with future updates, but nowadays, it's the most CPU consuming synth I have together with Omnisphere. Zebra, Blue, Tera all need less CPU than a single layer of Largo.

ATS · Post by **ATS** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:32 am

Feng wrote:
MCnoone wrote:I just looked at this synth today, and listened to the demo mp3's.
What impressed me was the system requirements being so low, as I'm on an old system.
If anyone knows what the memory usage is like using Largo, let me know please. I might go for this one, if it's not a memory monster.
I have Largo, and it's really damned good! I can easily guess it will be one of my favorite soft synths. Anyway it is definitely not light on the CPU. I don't know about memory. I don't think it uses much of it, it doesn't use long samples. Maybe CPU will be reduced with future updates, but nowadays, it's the most CPU consuming synth I have together with Omnisphere. Zebra, Blue, Tera all need less CPU than a single layer of Largo.

There is no way it can be as bad as omni. can it? I have or have had all of those (except largo) and omni by far used the most cpu.

rob_lee · Post by **rob_lee** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:35 am

Feng wrote:
MCnoone wrote:I just looked at this synth today, and listened to the demo mp3's.
What impressed me was the system requirements being so low, as I'm on an old system.
If anyone knows what the memory usage is like using Largo, let me know please. I might go for this one, if it's not a memory monster.
I have Largo, and it's really damned good! I can easily guess it will be one of my favorite soft synths. Anyway it is definitely not light on the CPU. I don't know about memory. I don't think it uses much of it, it doesn't use long samples. Maybe CPU will be reduced with future updates, but nowadays, it's the most CPU consuming synth I have together with Omnisphere. Zebra, Blue, Tera all need less CPU than a single layer of Largo.

oh well i'll see what it's like on my system then.

cheers for the info

rob

BFunKu · Post by **BFunKu** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:51 am

I hope they don't plan on selling a lot of these with absolutely NO Demo version? Because it ain't going to happen and Largo is going to be a flop for sure. Waldorf must be Retarded or beyond Shady? If you can't try it you'd be an idiot to buy it. That's how I figure anyway. And who and the Hell would buy Largo just on the Demo MP3s anyways? Half the shit was probably made with Biosphere? F**k Largo Anyway! Terratec Komplexor is probably still way Better and it loads microQ Sysex data. Does Largo load any Waldorf hardware Synth Sysex data? I didn't think so. This is for you Waldorf. Kiss a Bus full of Asses!

Feng · Post by **Feng** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:58 am

BFunKu wrote:Komplexor is probably still way Better.

This is definitely not true. In my opinion Largo has a quality that komplexer can only dream of!

BFunKu · Post by **BFunKu** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:03 am

Feng wrote:
BFunKu wrote:Komplexor is probably still way Better.
This is definitely not true. In my opinion Largo has a quality that komplexer can only dream of!

Well maybe if I could try it for myself I would be able to tell if your right or not. Since I can't demo it I really can't tell you. Can I now?.

How does it compare to the Hartmann Neuron VSTi?

Feng · Post by **Feng** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:11 am

Feng wrote:
MCnoone wrote:I just looked at this synth today, and listened to the demo mp3's.
What impressed me was the system requirements being so low, as I'm on an old system.
If anyone knows what the memory usage is like using Largo, let me know please. I might go for this one, if it's not a memory monster.
I have Largo, and it's really damned good! I can easily guess it will be one of my favorite soft synths. Anyway it is definitely not light on the CPU. I don't know about memory. I don't think it uses much of it, it doesn't use long samples. Maybe CPU will be reduced with future updates, but nowadays, it's the most CPU consuming synth I have together with Omnisphere. Zebra, Blue, Tera all need less CPU than a single layer of Largo.

Just to be precise, I've taken two quite intensive patches for both Omnisphere and Largo:
Omnisphere "Simphony of Pulsing Harmonia" with five notes played simultaneously takes about 20% on my system
Largo "Family Jewels" with the same chord played reaches 18%.
Obviously most of the patches take up to 10% on both synths. Obviously reducing the unison and polyphony make CPU usage lighter.
In any case I strongly underline that I expect Largo to decrease CPU usage with future updates as it happens with all soft synths

My system:

Intel Core(TM) I7 920 CPU @2.67 GHz
3 GB RAM

I hope it helps

Feng · Post by **Feng** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:14 am

BFunKu wrote:
Feng wrote:
BFunKu wrote:Komplexor is probably still way Better.
This is definitely not true. In my opinion Largo has a quality that komplexer can only dream of!
Well maybe if I could try it for myself I would be able to tell if your right or not. Since I can't demo it I really can't tell you. Can I now?. How does it compare to the Hartmann Neuron VSTi?

I had the Neuron for a period, and they are really different beasts. Neuron is relying on complex neural networks analysis of waveforms and samples. Largo is basically a wavetable/subtractive synth.
Then I have to say that even Neuron was not easy on CPU, and I remember horrible glitches and clicks when playing it or moving the joystick of the nuke.
In any case I agree with you that having no demo to try the synths on your own it's a nonsense. What's more Largo has elicenser, so they could provide easily limited time/usage licenses without even touching the code to make the demo.

pablex · Post by **pablex** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:28 am

FENG please, PLEASE an example of a supersaw from the Largo, I beg you!

Feng · Post by **Feng** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:30 am

pablex wrote:FENG please, PLEASE an example of a supersaw from the Largo, I beg you!

mp3? CPU?

Cyforce · Post by **Cyforce** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:43 am

rob_lee wrote:
masstronaut wrote:
Cyforce wrote:hw sounds ever better than sw-clone.

daradei wrote:a software synth even it's waldorf is no match for a Q/microQ, since it's hardware, having DSP-s in it, and the circuits that make it special.
You guys are kidding right? Yeah? Good.
loool

also you'll find that it is actually software inside the hardware..no difference at all..

they were kidding lol

rob

The difference in the sounds is based on the dsp-calculation. in the mainparts the largo-code will be the same as blofeld. but the code who worx over dsp works in some parts other like the sw....

if you would take the code of the dsp synth and would put it 1 to 1 on the pc, you will need a quad-core with 4x3 Ghz to get 4 voices out of the synth!

va-hw -> sw is really a difference in the code and also in the sound... believe it or not - your thing

daradei · Post by **daradei** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:51 am

Megakazbek wrote:
daradei wrote:Under special circuits I meant the special and unique character and architecture of a synth.
Well, in digital domain, the architecture of a synth is defined by its programming, i.e. immaterial thing independent of any kind of hardware.

daradei wrote:Probably I'm a bit noob hardware-wise but I don't believe Virus, Nord Lead or Roland V-Synth could be reproduced as VSTi-s.
It is not a question of belief. Any algorithm can be reproduced on any compatible hardware with exact same result, it's just how digital stuff works. In particular, any digital synth can be exactly reproduced as VSTi, should its developer choose to do so.

daradei wrote:Why did they release Virus POWERCORE, not simply a VST in the past? to keep it expensive?
The simplest answer - they don't care to bother with all the VST stuff. It's not like they can wave a magic wand and make VST version instantly appear out of nowhere; doing a VST requires a lot of work and they are already busy with hardware and don't care about anything else as they're already making lots of money.

thank you for clearing it up!

Largo is here!