The "Zebra2 plays Virus" challenge

[Howard]

Very few, if any, of the presets made me think "Wow, this sounds almost like the Virus".

Z2 is new, and the current crop of presets don't show anything like its capabilities. Also: Which virus-typical sounds in you Virus are you comparing them with? If you would post a "this is the Virus" sound from your Virus, or tell me which preset you'd like me to clone, I'd be able to show that Z2 can capture that character rather well

Of course the Zebra could perhaps just about equal one single sound of the Virus and vice versa but what does that prove? Good programming skills maybe.

I wouldn't be able to clone Virus sounds on, oh...say, Nexsyn (for want of a better example). It's not just my or anyone's sound-making skills - it's Urs' programming skills that makes all the difference between do-able and not do-able.

[GavinB]

Also, I'd like to hear the Virus' Moog filter model. I could not yet identify a Virus example that's based on an actual model of a Moog cascade filter. Or maybe the resonance doesn't go high enough in the Virus version.

Urs

I agree with Urs on this point.

I think the popularity of the Virus stems from the fact that when it first came out, it stood out from the generic groove boxes and the more tame sound of the nords. It had its own sound with good presets and because of this it became popular.
However things have moved on alot since then in terms of processing power. In the case of modeling analog filters, the Virus in no way competes with the likes of minimonsta, minimoogv etc.

[shogger]

FWIW the same test with a certain *analogue* synthesizer came out to leave 15 out of 16 people unsure about which is which. I can dig out the links if it's absolutely needed. I don't see why this should be any different with any virtual analogue synthesizer.

Now I'm off topic, too (not OffTopic )

I have missed that but would like to hear it. Please Urs ...

Shogger

[DavenH]

Just wondering - why do people humourously pluralise virus to virii with TWO Is? Octupii? Alumniii? Behold: radius already has an i there, as does gastrocnemius, that's why they get two.

[Urs]

Just wondering - why do people humourously pluralise virus to virii with TWO Is? Octupii? Alumniii? Behold: radius already has an i there, as does gastrocnemius, that's why they get two.

It's because the form virii remains popular in some Internet communities

[Shy]

Urs: why do you think that when someone says Zebra "lacks depth, punch, warmth, whatever" compared to Virus, they're talking about "mystical" things? Is it hard to accept that this is just someone's personal opinion instead of saying they're spouting claims of mystical, magical characteristics? Do you expect people to only objectively describe what a synth lacks compared to another to their taste?
It's disappointing and tiring to see that even a developer of a fine software synth can't help but accuse people of spouting claims of witchcraft when they express their opinion.

[Urs]

FWIW the same test with a certain *analogue* synthesizer came out to leave 15 out of 16 people unsure about which is which. I can dig out the links if it's absolutely needed. I don't see why this should be any different with any virtual analogue synthesizer.

Now I'm off topic, too (not OffTopic )

I have missed that but would like to hear it. Please Urs ...

Ok. 4 patches in two flavours each. At least one "a" is a u-he synth and at least one "a" is a Moog synth. Post your solution and why you think which is which.

Hasn't had much resonance on kvr because it was already solved in another board. If you want it to work, don't use google.

[Urs]

It's disappointing and tiring to see that even a developer of a fine software synth can't help but accuse people of spouting claims of witchcraft when they express their opinion.

Well, I havn't actually done that, have I? (where's wabbit?)

The only thing that's tiring IMHO is the paradigm that digital hardware sounds better than computer software. Get over it. Software is so much easier & faster to develop, there are so many obstacles less, it overtook hardware big time, long ago.

[cYrus]

FWIW the same test with a certain *analogue* synthesizer came out to leave 15 out of 16 people unsure about which is which. I can dig out the links if it's absolutely needed. I don't see why this should be any different with any virtual analogue synthesizer.

Now I'm off topic, too (not OffTopic )

I have missed that but would like to hear it. Please Urs ...

Ok. 4 patches in two flavours each. At least one "a" is a u-he synth and at least one "a" is a Moog synth. Post your solution and why you think which is which.

Hasn't had much resonance on kvr because it was already solved in another board. If you want it to work, don't use google.

actually i don't care which synth is better. but just for my taste a prefered those samples:

3 b
6 a
8 a
10 b

the reason i choose those are that to me they sounded more alive (less static). this days i use really a lot of softsynths and i'm not so blended by the names of those products. but anyway the virus ti is one of the synths i use regularly. i don't think the standard VA stuff sounds too great. (a lot of aliasing) but imho the grain, formant and wavetable OSCs have a very nice sound which gives a lot broader possibilities than with the previous models.

but beside that most people miss in zebra something similiar to those detuned saw leads which the virus is famous for. one single quad saw osc with detune in zebra sounds still very thin and you need to know a bit more to do some similiar things. it's probably just the complexitiy of zebra where a lot of people have their problems with comparing the twos. (you just need to know a bit more of those sound designer tricks to get the instant virus sound)

[Shy]

Urs: I'm not talking about the development standpoint, I'm saying that if you say someone claims a synth is mystical, magical, whatever, because they prefer its sound and use subjective terms to describe it, you actually accuse them of saying senseless things based on superstition rather than actual opinion, and it reminds how people used to be accused of witchcraft or supporting witchcraft when they made even a slight hint of preference of one thing over what others preferred or believed in.

[beej]

So, interestingly enough I find myself in a music store today (picking up another commercial software synth that I'd been promising myself for quite some time) and while I was waiting for some free sales staff, I grabbed the headphones sitting on a Virus TI and spent maybe 30 mins playing on it, going through the presets, tweaking and so on.

It's a nice synth, no doubt, and there were a good few patches that sounded terrific (and made me think how I could do those on Z2 , and many that were nice albeit not particularly useful for me.

The value in the Virus in my opinion (based on a very small amount of real time on it) is threefold. Firstly, there is some very good patch programming in there. And interestingly enough, in the ROM C bank were most of Howard's patches, and I didn't necessarily think that what I heard there was that far different to what I've heard from him in Z2.

Secondly, the Virus has become a standard, for whatever reason (probably again because it's a decent engine but has had a lot of artist talent go into the sound design) and hence it's character has become what people are used to for those typical Virus patches.

And lastly, the synth *does* in my opinion have a nice character. There is something about the filter or the overall output of the instrument that is pleasing, and kind of "effortless" sounding - what it is I don't know, and I'd need real quality time with it to even begin to look at that. I do know I've tried to replicate a few Virus samples with Z2 and not been able to get close to the character of the filter, despite a few other people saying it should be possible.

There's also no doubt in my mind that Z2 does lots of things that the Virus can't do, and possibly a few the other way around (I'm not too intimately familiar with the Virus architecture).

But bottom line is, they are both quality synths, with different strengths and weaknesses, and a different *character*. I'm pretty sure that within the comfines of features that exist on both isntruments, you could get one to sound broadly like the other, but perhaps not the exact character.

I also liked the flashy lights on the TI. It would look nice in the dark...

So bottom line for me: the Virus is a nice machine, but in playing it I wasn't constantly struck by a wealth of sound possibilities I was currently lacking.

[Howard]

i don't think the standard VA stuff sounds too great (a lot of aliasing)...

So your not talking about Zebra2 there, then

most people miss in zebra something similiar to those detuned saw leads which the virus is famous for.

"Hoover"? Is that really THE Virus character-sound?

one single quad saw osc with detune in zebra sounds still very thin and you need to know a bit more to do some similiar things.

I find Z2 much faster than Virus (including TI), even for this. I tested myself just now by making a 16-osc Hoover from scratch (no pre-saved oscillator), including filter and mod-wheel controlled Cutoff in just under one minute. Tip: Save any temporary oscillator as "..." (the default name).

you just need to know a bit more of those sound designer tricks to get the instant virus sound)

Yes. Um...actually, no . You just need to know Zebra2 as well as you do the Virus. Most people don't know Zebra2 at all.

[bmrzycki]

bmrzycki, you able to produce a mp3 of that ? cause i cant get my head around how to set this up using cubase, perhaps its about bedtime over here

Michael,

Sure, here's a very simple example that audibly shows the difference. The melody repeats 4 times, each repetition has the note multiplier doubled. So the first pass is x1, then x2, x4, and finally x8. The Z2 preset I used is the default 1 osc preset that is loaded when Zebra opens. The only thing I changed was Global: Many.

I intentionaly chose a boring preset because I wanted to show the effect off and not a patch. the only effect I've added to the chain is REAPER's limiter.

Here's the file: http://www.zshare.net/download/28941034d0d808/

[Urs]

3 b
6 a
8 a
10 b

[pdxindy]

Urs: I'm not talking about the development standpoint, I'm saying that if you say someone claims a synth is mystical, magical, whatever, because they prefer its sound and use subjective terms to describe it, you actually accuse them of saying senseless things based on superstition rather than actual opinion, and it reminds how people used to be accused of witchcraft or supporting witchcraft when they made even a slight hint of preference of one thing over what others preferred or believed in.

so post an example of a virus preset sound, which preset and see if it can be matched. It is easy to make some all encompassing statement like XX synth lacks depth but that statement is so vague. What is depth to one person is not to another. The person who programmed the sound you think lacks depth might not like the sound you like. But if you post a specific example, and it is essentially matched, then this goes a good step to show that the sound quality difference is insignificant and it is left with preset design.

If so, then statements like software cannot match hardware lose the meaning.

And again, here is Howard, whose Virus presets are highly respected, saying he feels that Zebra2 can match them quite well. For me that is compelling based upon who is saying it. Since it is Howard saying it, the idea warrants examination and some a/b tests to see. Personally I don't care if Zebra can exactly match the Virus, but it is an interesting exercise in sound design