Perhaps having ALL effects and modulations off/removed from both sounds and using rather an init simple sine wave, for example, would then be comparing sound without that given Virus version's embellishment of effects, which would kind of be a fly in ointment of a true comparison. Just a thought.

I say this because soundets would be obviously different from say a Snow, Virus B, and Virus C. A test of same waveform "naked" would make more sense as a whole different can of worms of same "patch" with same effects and modulations could be done as well.

Here is a comparsion with the video I posted eariler. For now I won't say which is which or anything more than this. Can you guess which is which? There is a pretty big difference.

http://www9.zippyshare.com/v/68074414/file.html
http://www.mediafire.com/?nt5be03k83obox8
Virus.wav - 1.5 Mb

Set the decay time roughly to what you want.

Then in the modulation matrix, use FiltEnv as a modulation source, and FltDecay as the destination. Nudge the destination amount upwards slightly (~15-30) to make it it less logarithmic and more linear (as shown in yellow, it's still a curve, though, with a slight ease-in and -out). Increasing positive number for destination amount even further will make the decay last a longer time before falling off quickly (shown in red).



Negative values (blue) will decrease the curve even faster.

The recorded levels are different. The latter half sounds cleaner, more separated. Sounds like the oscillator that is running an octave higher is given greater prevalence (osc balance) in the latter than the previous one, or there is a oscillator sync/phasing difference, or EQ, etc.. More programming issues rather than a D/A difference. Did you load a TI patch into the C (or vice versa)? Very important. Or did you start each patch from scratch?

I absolutely, categorically, do not think you can compare Virus patches in such a loose fashion.

We're not talking simple static samples here, but patches that have free running oscillators, polyphonic free running LFOs, free-running polyphonic unison, natural phasing, and a whole host of other programmed 'instabilities' put in place (via mod matrix or otherwise) to make the sounds less ordered and more organic or thicker, along with any differences in stereo, free-running delay lines and time-variant modulated chorus/phaser effects in full stereo, PureTuning, and recording issues such as tuning, transposition, levels, time-bases, and any midi modulated (velocity, etc.) parameters, etc.

Try recording the same midi riff ten times using just the same synth. I can guarantee you it will sound very different every single time due to the above.

Even LFOs running in poly mode is enough to dramatically change things every time due to phasing, let alone anything else.

To really compare, it'd have to be done in a methodic strict fashion, starting from scratch, entirely stripped of the ambiguous free running stuff, and ensuring that both synths used only common features between them, and strict recording policies were used.

YOU SAID what I would have liked to have, but much more eloquently, TIMO! Like I said in earlier posts, ANY true comparison needs to be BARE BONES without embellishments. Again, I am saying compare a basic since wave side by side with no mod routings, etc, etc. Comparing Virus C to Ti this way using the visuals of an oscillascope with these bare bone tones rather than soley human ear will even be better. But I did not initially comment after listing to both clips because I did not think it was proper way to make ANy kind of emperical comparison.
Thankjs TIMO for saving my brain from having to stress beyond the perhaps simplistic initial reply I made, but all the same, my initial reply WAS germaine.
Robert

Hey!

I loaded that patch to my snow. Is there something I should be aware of?

And yeah the patch is free running, but I think that the spectral differences are pretty clear. However it would be great if one of you would try that out on C. It's possible that the brighter tone comes from more aliasing. Or perhaps a pre-amp. Or maybe the settings are indeed different. Not sure if I should be aware of some initial different settings on the snow...

Interestingly, the C example produces a lot more artifacts in the low end. Something weird going with stereo as well (shifting from left to right). But I agree that it sounds better, (it's the 2nd) and I couldn't get the snow sound like that. I used the USB outs. BTW the C clip is MP3, so that may explain something too.

But yeah, maybe simpe saw wave would be a more scientific test. The samples are pretty close to RMS matched, but brighter sounds sound louder.

After reading the above, there are so many things I wouldn't know where to begin, other than saying what you did is not a controlled test. Absolutely countless things could cause the differences in the clip. We as mere listeners have no insight over how the test was prepared and conducted.

You cannot merely take a random patch from off the shelf, load it into both Viri', and then record them however you wish.

I have a Virus Indigo (B series). Unfortunately I don't have a TI to compare the two under controlled conditions. :|

I didn't mean that example to be some kind of end-it-all test.

I simply recorded the part on snow and compared it to the original recording. I have no idea how the original was even recorder so yeah...

I would like to know if there are some settings on the snow that I should check for best compatibility though.

I correct my misspelling of "SINE WAVE", the most fundamental of all tones and could in-fact be viewed as it is in wavetable synthesis, as the sine wave without ANY extra filtering, modulational or otherwise routings and of course bare of any effects from both instruments, not to mention the audio quality that for instance MP3 is sort of a "downgrade" in audio quality.
For a true scientific test with emperical results, it would require if even such a "fair and equal" test atmosphere could be produced; both instruments would have the EXACT same amplification, speakers, and the real "FLY IN OINTMENT" is the fact The Virus SNOW requires a computer environment as its role also of an interface, of which the Virus C does not require. THEN that presents the impossibilities really of such a comparison because even the Digital/Analog/Digital Converters would be different.
I suggest we all just enjoy our individual incarnations of these wonderful instruments Access produced for ours and those we may entertain WITHOUT prejudice because ultimately, the evolution of the Virus is just that, based upon it's predecessor's engine and improved in different ways but, in the end, BOTH are Virus synthesizers and each version still to this day surpasses most of which is out there and has been produced. The only exception in my opinion would be another German manufacturer, the former incarnation of Waldorf, the Q engine and the newer incarnation of Waldorf, The Blofeld.
I think proposed tests such as this really do nothing more than place a divide amongst us, whether intended or not and again, we should simply ENJOY owning the most advanced instrument that's ONLY limitation is one's own creativity and imaginations!
Let's live without petty indifference of what Viri is "better or best", rather, continue to push the limits not yet discovered with EACH incarnation of indeed the SAME engine, with simply another name.
We can ALL agree that the German's RULE the synthesis technology many times over and that the old rule of the "Big Three in Asia", is relatively past tense!
Fervently,
Robert