|
the Virus after TI
|
View this Thread in Original format
| bilbomagic |
i have only one shot at this, meaning i can only get one synth. so im wondering if anyone is anticipating the next Access Virus, maybe towards the end of the year, or the start of the next?
another thing is the superiority or more organic sound of C over TI, is it worth downgrading?
Thanks in advance :) |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by bilbomagic
another thing is the superiority or more organic sound of C over TI, is it worth downgrading? |
wat |
|
|
| michaelconway |
I had the virus classic and upgraded to the TI and It just gave me more to what I had before. with the plugin made it even better
I would recommend a TI |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
wat |
My thoughts exactly.
Acces just released the Snow and a major update for the Virus, so I doubt that we'll see the next generation Virus by the end of the year. |
|
|
| bilbomagic |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
wat |
well don't ask me, i don't own either one. i only go by what i read and it appears that despite all the fancy features of TI, virus C might actually sound better to trained ears, and preferred by some over TI. i would have purchased a virus C by now, i just can't find a new one. don't really care for fancy features :) |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by bilbomagic
despite all the fancy features of TI, virus C might actually sound better to trained ears, and preferred by some over TI. |
lol.
i don't know who told you this, but whoever it was is pretty bloody retarded. a digital hardware synth is just a small CPU, capable of running dsp code. it's essentially just like a vst running on it's own little computer. a virus ti is a virus c with alot of extra features (wavetables etc.). ignoring these new features, most of the dsp code would be identical between the two synths.
the reason people may prefer a virus c over a virus ti is because some people have experienced stability problems. a virus ti is a far more powerful synth than a virus c. |
|
|
| LfmC |
| quote: | Originally posted by bilbomagic
well don't ask me, i don't own either one. i only go by what i read and it appears that despite all the fancy features of TI, virus C might actually sound better to trained ears, and preferred by some over TI. i would have purchased a virus C by now, i just can't find a new one. don't really care for fancy features :) |
Like echosystm said, it's just BS. The Ti has more DSP power, more synthesis types, multitimbral effects and can do everything the C can and much more. It's simply better.... if you can afford it. But ofc there will always be those who can't upgrade and one way to make themselves feel better is to say their virus C sounds "better" to their ears. You won't hear a Ti owner say: "I wish I had a virus C" :D
The software package was a weak point for the Ti when it came out so many less techie users had some problems setting it up. Today 99% of the bugs are ironed out and the Ti and it's one of the most powerful synths on the market. |
|
|
| flutlicht junky |
What about with the Nords? I've read quite a bit on how the diff versions sound alot different. Thinking of the Nord 2 and Nord 2X - I believe there might be some DSP or DAC differences. But then again it's only what Ive read.
And what about the diff Waldorf synths - Micro Q lite, Micro Q, Q, Q+? Is that just due to processing power? |
|
|
| palm |
| nord 2x has 24bit dac, imo it sounds rawer than nord 3. |
|
|
| Ry Thomas |
| quote: | Originally posted by flutlicht junky
What about with the Nords? I've read quite a bit on how the diff versions sound alot different. Thinking of the Nord 2 and Nord 2X - I believe there might be some DSP or DAC differences. But then again it's only what Ive read.
And what about the diff Waldorf synths - Micro Q lite, Micro Q, Q, Q+? Is that just due to processing power? |
The Nord 2 and 2X are the same sound engine, the main difference is the 2X stores more internal presets without the need of memory cards. I have a NL2 and think it is really nice, much different sound to NL3 |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ry Thomas
I have a NL2 and think it is really nice, much different sound to NL3 |
Yeah, I recently replaced my 2X with another synth, but I agree that the 2/2X sounds much different (and much better IMO) than the NL3.
But, getting back to the original question, I don't think that there is an audible difference in sound quality between the Virus C and TI when you are comparing the analog outputs on both models. However, the OP may be referring to comparisons of the TI's USB outputs to the analog outputs of a Virus C, in which case many people have said that there can be a difference in sound, but I run my Polar pretty much exclusively in TI mode and have never compared the sound of the analog outs for myself. But, of course, a lot of non-equivalent factors come into play (e.g., DAC quality, monitoring levels) when you start comparing the USB outputs to the analog outputs, and that can affect the results of the comparison. |
|
|
| alanzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by flutlicht junky
What about with the Nords? I've read quite a bit on how the diff versions sound alot different. |
I've definitely noticed this between the NL1 and NL3. The Nord Lead is just another VA that makes its sound with computable logic. So they must have altered the base sound engine a bit between the NL1 and NL3.
They are still capable of creating VERY similar timbres. I have an NL3, and I DON'T wish I also had an NL1/NL2/NL2x... or even that POS Wave that just game out. |
|
|
|
|
