a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
User avatar
Bitexion
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 4230
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:43 pm
Gear: Alesis Andromeda A6
Roland D-50
Creamware Minimax
Yamaha DX7s
Analogue Systems modular
Ensoniq SQ-80
Waldorf Blofeld
Location: Drammen, Norway

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by Bitexion » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:29 pm

It's the rubber coating on the knobs that define its sound.

User avatar
meatballfulton
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5760
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:29 pm
Gear: Live 9, Logic Pro X

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by meatballfulton » Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:26 pm

The coding is where the sound of any digital synth comes from. Some just sound better than others because of the skill of the developers. The fact that the Virus drops in polyphony rapidly as you turn on the more complex features should be a hint :?
I listened to Hatfield and the North at Rainbow. They were very wonderful and they made my heart a prisoner.

User avatar
ninja6485
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:13 pm
Gear: Virus Ti, Jx-8p, Juno 60, Radias, Maschine, 101,303,606,707,727,808,909, odyssey, mirage, akai s5K/s2K/s1k, drumtraks, E6400ult, M1R, rx5, fizmo,d50
Band: Lyra, The Sun Worshipers
Location: Exton/ westchester

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by ninja6485 » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:18 pm

:lol: No s**t, really? That's like saying "what makes a minimoog sound like a minimoog? The circuits!"
This looks like a psychotropic reaction. No wonder it's so popular...

User avatar
tekkentool
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3218
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:51 am
Real name: Steve
Gear: Lasers (ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ ωส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้)
Band: none currently
Location: Sydney, australia.(I moved)

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by tekkentool » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:43 pm

ninja6485 wrote::lol: No s**t, really? That's like saying "what makes a minimoog sound like a minimoog? The circuits!"
why ask that question then? Who was it even directed to, for what purpose?

User avatar
ninja6485
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2765
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:13 pm
Gear: Virus Ti, Jx-8p, Juno 60, Radias, Maschine, 101,303,606,707,727,808,909, odyssey, mirage, akai s5K/s2K/s1k, drumtraks, E6400ult, M1R, rx5, fizmo,d50
Band: Lyra, The Sun Worshipers
Location: Exton/ westchester

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by ninja6485 » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:29 am

Ok, I'll elaborate a bit. The code is not a “part” of the virus the way the d/a converter is. It shares a different relationship to the virus as a whole then a part does to its whole. But be that as it may, obviously the code plays a huge roll in the sound because it's the structure and information that acts as the origin of sounds produced; however, it does not produce the sounds by itself. It would not produce them sitting on a harddrive somewhere. There is a physical machine in between the code and the vibrations that hit your ears. It's folly to sit and look at individual components of the machine, or parts of the code; or the whole of the physical machine itself, or the whole of the code itself, to try to pick out which part is THE part that makes it sound different than massive, saying that the rest doesn't matter/ does nothing/ doesn't contribute. There's no reason to not give credit to the whole of the device for sounding the way it does, and I can't imagine why you would want to unless perhaps you were trying to further some agenda. The whole thing sounds different than massive.
This looks like a psychotropic reaction. No wonder it's so popular...

User avatar
tekkentool
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3218
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:51 am
Real name: Steve
Gear: Lasers (ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ ωส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้)
Band: none currently
Location: Sydney, australia.(I moved)

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by tekkentool » Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:56 am

That's great but I don't recall anybody saying that massive sounded anything like a virus.

User avatar
Bitexion
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 4230
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:43 pm
Gear: Alesis Andromeda A6
Roland D-50
Creamware Minimax
Yamaha DX7s
Analogue Systems modular
Ensoniq SQ-80
Waldorf Blofeld
Location: Drammen, Norway

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by Bitexion » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:45 pm

Neither VA coders or VST coders use the same basic oscillator and filter models in every synth, ever. They make their own nuances based on electronics characteristics in real synths that they try to emulate. If every VST/VA synth had a perfect sawtooth and a simple lowpass filter they'd all sound exactly the same.

I remember there was alot of bitching about free VSTs using Synthedit, and they all sounded the same. But then folks started diving deep into synthedit and constructing their own modules based on hundreds of individual connections to differntiate between other synthedit synths..

User avatar
tekkentool
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3218
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:51 am
Real name: Steve
Gear: Lasers (ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ ωส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้)
Band: none currently
Location: Sydney, australia.(I moved)

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by tekkentool » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:37 pm

OP-X II is synthedit and I don't think I've seen anybody actually complain about the sound on that one.

User avatar
Solderman
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 1799
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:43 pm

Re: a big difference in the virus ti and virus ti2 plugins?

Post by Solderman » Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:56 pm

Right. The developers of OP-X are using their own modules for the filter and oscillator sections, plus they are using a fixed voice architecture with variable tolerances per voice that drift over time.

I think there are at least 3 things tonally that set a Virus voice apart from more modern VA softsynths:
  1. The filter design - Not only because it's dual-filter in serial or parallel but some likeable character/complexity about the filter modules themselves, plus the ability to saturate the audio between filters in serial mode. I don't know if they are modeled after real circuits, but if so, likely involves non-linear math and/or physical modeling.
  2. Envelopes "Punch" value - I've yet to hear a vst softsynth that supported envelopes with a tweakable amount of "snap" or "punch". This may just be a non-linear tweak for attack and decay, but I find the extra dynamics, even as a subtle increase, to be useful tonally.
  3. Analog Boost - This acts as sort of a specialized EQ that rounds off the tone. I'm not totally sure if it's only one band or several linked bands, but it is parametric and goes a long way to getting a more pleasant tone. Not sure if this function is per voice or per patch.
Another conjecture, but one I think I am hearing, is that there seems to be a randomized starting-phase and micro-detuning for a triggered voice's oscillators. Crucial for preventing phase-outs, once you enable stacked voices, or the "twin/unison" mode for polyphonic, but also for a pleasing subtle difference between each played voice.

I could sit and speculate all day about jitter correction or a dozen other technical hurdles one faces in the digital domain, but it seems there is always enough complexity to force the software engineers to make numerous decisions that ultimately form the overall character, and the more tweakable and robust the design, while at the same time unified and streamlined(like hardware) the process is, the better chance to create something that sounds good, although that typically comes at the expense of more CPU usage for VST softsynths.

It's true the magic is in the math but also in how it is limited by the process paradigm. These two together create a behavior that results in an identifiable character. My guess is the developers of more recent VST softsynths are either more limited in what they can do versus dedicated DSP hardware or they are all following a similar architecture that I just don't care for.
I am no longer in pursuit of vintage synths. The generally absurd inflation from demand versus practical use and maintenance costs is no longer viable. The internet has suffocated and vanquished yet another wonderful hobby. Too bad.
--Solderman no more.

Post Reply