 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Synths & synthesis
Subject: Virus Low End Good?
Original Message Date: 26-Jul-02 @ 10:12 AM - Virus Low End Good?
Drop
Posts: 1128
Link?: No link
File?: No file
I have a virus b but nothing to compare it to, hence my question.
I've been reading various stuff on the web about the Virus. People really praise the filters and talk about how good the Virus is for pads and leads.
However, they reckon that the bass making capabilities aren't that great. Apparently the bass patches lack a "certain warmth and low end" cos the Osc are only OK.
To be honest, as I've said, I've nothing to compare it to in depth. However, I can't seem to get that real thick housey bass sound with it. Probably just me though.
I've looked at a Pulse and SH101 and they sound cool. Am I over analysing again? :-)
I've been reading various stuff on the web about the Virus. People really praise the filters and talk about how good the Virus is for pads and leads.
However, they reckon that the bass making capabilities aren't that great. Apparently the bass patches lack a "certain warmth and low end" cos the Osc are only OK.
To be honest, as I've said, I've nothing to compare it to in depth. However, I can't seem to get that real thick housey bass sound with it. Probably just me though.
I've looked at a Pulse and SH101 and they sound cool. Am I over analysing again? :-)
Message 51/55 14-Aug-02 @ 09:07 AM - RE: Virus Low End Good?
Just realize you have a great synth. I hear people bitchin all day long at this site about how the virus, or the nova, or the waldorf wont do this or that. The fact is: your virus has 3 osc, and a sub osc. Now let me stress the sub osc. This is your friend. Start with a bass patch that exists already and use the analog feature. Then use 1 saw wave, 1 sine wave, and one pulse wave. Make the sine wave -1 in octive. Then un syncronize the oscillators a bit for a fatter sound. Also each osc has a mixer so you can mix each ones contribution to the sound. Most folks then run it through a low pass filter, but I like the bandpass and notch filters too. Hey you can even stack your filters and use a lowpass on the lower frequencies and another on the mids. Be creative and never stop experimenting. Ive heard basses from the Virus A so deep that my teeth rattled and my stomach felt queezy.
You must learn to program!
Good luck
J
You must learn to program!
Good luck
J
Message 52/55 14-Aug-02 @ 04:14 PM - RE: Virus Low End Good?
Swano: 24 Bits Range = 8-96.000 Mhz.
that means you get realy low freq..and yes
thats why i broken my speakers...you can use a pitch program to se what freq your Virus is doing..Like Cool Edit.. or hardware stuff.
i know you cant hear more than -20 to 22k Mhz.
so the thing is to put the synth in the limit area..(at low freq you can se your speaker membran virbrating alot..i broke mind..)
that means you get realy low freq..and yes
thats why i broken my speakers...you can use a pitch program to se what freq your Virus is doing..Like Cool Edit.. or hardware stuff.
i know you cant hear more than -20 to 22k Mhz.
so the thing is to put the synth in the limit area..(at low freq you can se your speaker membran virbrating alot..i broke mind..)
Message 53/55 14-Aug-02 @ 04:44 PM - RE: Virus Low End Good?
uh... try googling for "sample rate" and "bit depth".
the # of bits used to represent X doesn't directly affect the range of the values of X -- just the NUMBER of unique values X can have.
8-96.000 Mhz is meaningless -- that's governed by sampling frequency (nyquist or whatever) and NOT by bitdepth. you could have 1bit 8-96Mhz sound. (btw... 96 _M_hz?! maybe 96k)
imagine 3 points connected by two lines: 1-2-3 (the points are labelled as numbers)
let's say each of the lines is 1m long -- the whole "snake" is 2m long. so, if we measure from 1 to 2, it's 1m, and from 2 to 3, it's 1m -- the whole thing has a range of 0 (at point 1) to 2m (at point 3).
now let's say each line is 1000000m long -- wow! suddenly our range is HUGE! the whole thing is 2000000m long!!!... but... we didn't add any points/lines! how is this possible?!
easy -- we decreased the resolution. before, our "granularity" was 1m; now it's 1000000m. but the RANGE of possible values increased a LOT.
try this in CoolEdit -- take a 24bit sample and bitreduce it to 8 bits. notice 2 things:
1)the peaks and valleys are just as high -- the vertical range of the sample shouldn't have changed much. thus the range of amplitudes described by the bits is unchanged.
2)the wave looks more "jagged" -- it visibly steps from one sample point to the next. this is cause we now only have 256 possible amplitude values (height).
now try reducing it to 1bit -- you get rectangular waves. but guess what -- the range of frequencies is UNCHANGED. only the _granularity_/resolution changes.
aaaaaanyway -- bitdepth is WAY different from sampling rate. if i have an 8bit number, i can represent 256 unique values with it. but that doesn't tell me the RANGE of values -- i could represent {0,1,2,..,255} or {0,100,200,...25500} or {0,0.1,0.2,..,25.5}... it's arbitrary.
raigan
the # of bits used to represent X doesn't directly affect the range of the values of X -- just the NUMBER of unique values X can have.
8-96.000 Mhz is meaningless -- that's governed by sampling frequency (nyquist or whatever) and NOT by bitdepth. you could have 1bit 8-96Mhz sound. (btw... 96 _M_hz?! maybe 96k)
imagine 3 points connected by two lines: 1-2-3 (the points are labelled as numbers)
let's say each of the lines is 1m long -- the whole "snake" is 2m long. so, if we measure from 1 to 2, it's 1m, and from 2 to 3, it's 1m -- the whole thing has a range of 0 (at point 1) to 2m (at point 3).
now let's say each line is 1000000m long -- wow! suddenly our range is HUGE! the whole thing is 2000000m long!!!... but... we didn't add any points/lines! how is this possible?!
easy -- we decreased the resolution. before, our "granularity" was 1m; now it's 1000000m. but the RANGE of possible values increased a LOT.
try this in CoolEdit -- take a 24bit sample and bitreduce it to 8 bits. notice 2 things:
1)the peaks and valleys are just as high -- the vertical range of the sample shouldn't have changed much. thus the range of amplitudes described by the bits is unchanged.
2)the wave looks more "jagged" -- it visibly steps from one sample point to the next. this is cause we now only have 256 possible amplitude values (height).
now try reducing it to 1bit -- you get rectangular waves. but guess what -- the range of frequencies is UNCHANGED. only the _granularity_/resolution changes.
aaaaaanyway -- bitdepth is WAY different from sampling rate. if i have an 8bit number, i can represent 256 unique values with it. but that doesn't tell me the RANGE of values -- i could represent {0,1,2,..,255} or {0,100,200,...25500} or {0,0.1,0.2,..,25.5}... it's arbitrary.
raigan
Message 54/55 14-Aug-02 @ 10:17 PM - RE: Virus Low End Good?
Swan is right. Bit depth is related to dynamic range, while sampling frequency is related to the frequency range a converter is able to reproduce.
-Craig
-Craig
Message 55/55 15-Aug-02 @ 10:01 AM - RE: Virus Low End Good?
Drop
Posts: 1128
Link?: No link
File?: No file
So let me get this right DJJessex. This is what your saying right?
Osc 1 is a sawtooth and osc 2 is a sine cause you can pitch down osc 2 by up to 4 octaves.
Then do you mean make osc 3 a pulse wave cos I think you can only select square or triangle for the sub right?
What's the difference between osc 3 and the sub osc. Does the one permantley operate an octave below 1 and 2?
Then you say to unsync osc 1 and 2. I thought this was bad cos then your waveforms will be out of phase, right?
Then you talk about the osc mixer section. This determines how much of the waveform is routed to the filter section right?
Do you activate twin voices in unison and when you talk about analogue mode are you talking about punch?
Thanks.
Osc 1 is a sawtooth and osc 2 is a sine cause you can pitch down osc 2 by up to 4 octaves.
Then do you mean make osc 3 a pulse wave cos I think you can only select square or triangle for the sub right?
What's the difference between osc 3 and the sub osc. Does the one permantley operate an octave below 1 and 2?
Then you say to unsync osc 1 and 2. I thought this was bad cos then your waveforms will be out of phase, right?
Then you talk about the osc mixer section. This determines how much of the waveform is routed to the filter section right?
Do you activate twin voices in unison and when you talk about analogue mode are you talking about punch?
Thanks.
Pages: 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6
There are 55 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
