But... that's exactly what it's meant to do! Just think about it:

You have, for example, an audio file on your DAW, and you place a fade out on it. Guess what, if it's linear, it takes more time for the volume to fade then with a negative value curve, right? Even though the length of the fade/curve is exactly the same. And for very short decay times, does it even make that much of a difference?

Yes? My point wasn't that it's broken. Rather it was that the decay is too long. Is there any way to make it shorter?

yes, there's a way to make it shorter, make a negative curve for the decay or just leave it alone, by making the curve linear you're the one making it longer... ;)

also... what kind of sound are you trying to make there? really curious...

should go without saying, you've made some very contradictory posts here...

about the excess of punch, take down punch intensity.

about making attack faster, turn attack knob to the left.

about making decay faster, turn it's knob to the left

adjusting the curve of either attack, decay or release: follow Timo's tip, don't complain if you make the opposite of what you want, sound wise, it's not the Virus's fault, just yours.

about knowing how to get the sounds you want: keep tweaking. read the indicated "how to program analogue synths" like indicated here...

Do you have Punch Intensity turned up? Punch is a feature that places a single-cycle pulsed 'click' at the front of the sound when you hit a key. By default (on an initialised patch) it's at 64. If you don't want it, turn it down to zero. I don't like it either when I'm programming sounds. I usually add it at the end, if at all.

If you're using my trick to attempt to linearise the curve, you shouldn't increase the FiltEnv > FltDecay amount any further than 30 or so, otherwise you'll bend the curve beyond linear and blow it completely outwards.

Remember, by modulating FiltDecay by FiltEnv, you're literally multiplying the curve by itself.

People are not misreading you, it seems you may be a bit defensive in accepting answers and suggestions others are giving. Learn to program your virus or any subtractive synth by using the downloadable book Access produced for just that aformentioned in previous post I made.
FYI--ALL the factory presets for all models are avail for download at Access' website under discontinued products. You have ALOT of options using modulational routing as well as envelopes to do what you need right in front of you.

Thanks, so which set do I download for virus B ROM presets? Everything before 2000s?

What it seems would benefit you best is under Downloads/Discontinued Products, "Manuals And Tutorials", "Tutorial On How To Program The Virus In English", [The analogue synth programming tutorial by Howard Scarr is a must for every Virus user. This archive includes the tutorial sounds.] Also on same page of download aformentioned, pdf download of "Diagram of Virus Signal Flow".
These two things will get your fingers on knobs along with Howard Scarr's tutorial, of whom is a formost sound designer in which he contributes to both Access and Waldorf's presets and the tutorial will give you a hands-on approach like none other as if you are only after "instant satisfaction" with immediacy only via presets, as wanting original factory soundsets or other's, you are not going to learn neccessity of basics of subtractive synthesis; starting as Tweakhead appropriately suggested in starting to work with ONE osc, using signal flow chart and twisting knobs through VCA and an envelope, then basic filter frequency and resonance, then learn how the LFO's further manipulate using modulation modifiers; doing all by starting with an init basic pulse or sine wave.
Matter-in-fact, if you have a paper usuer manual or do not, download it because the Virus B and C manuals actually take your from the beginning reading through, giving exercises hands-on and explaining through doing and hearing and of course memory--the best way to learn that although this is subtractive synthesis, when you are adding modulation routing and modifiers such as TIMO gave you, a person has to realize that what one does to one area of signal more times than not affects other areas that then will also have to be adjusted down or up to prevent unwanted artifacts in sound. This is not something one "picks-up" in an evening session or two; rather, like ANY instrument, there's basic need to know dynamics of reading language of music, but at same time whether a clarinet or piano, how to control that instrument through dynamics--in our case, learning how to route electrical signal of waveforms via osc's and and basic synthesis tools, then add more learning once mastering one thing e.g. modulation routing tools and how they affect the filter for instance. Tweakhead also stated most rightly that since we own some of the most sophisticated synths, starting with ONE TYPE of filter to master, before even tackling parallel/serial/looping/bipolar/comb, et al. The effects chain should really be least of worries as they are an extra "garnishment" that whilst learning programming could hamper training of ear in using the tools in front of you. It's not an immediate but rather progressive learning because these same tools are utilized in other synths and a sound designer or keyboardist must be able to say for instance in my case, be able to use same knowledge on my Waldorf Q, or DSI MonoEvolver Keyboard--all of which have totally different interfaces and lay out BUT indeed utilize ALL the same basics you will benefit from Howard Scarr's aformentioned download and most importantly, the User Manual. Nice thing about downloading pdf user manuals is you can use the search feature within that to more quickly find every instance that say "filter modulation" or "aftertouch as modulation source".
However, if you do not care about all these things and just want to use presets, YET wish to edit said presets without doing the work to learn it and post questions about things that the manufacturer has made readily available to you on various forums dedicated to the brands/types of synths you own or homerecording.com or gearslutz.com, or SoundONSound.com, you will realize we on infekted are quite accommodating, whereas some other sites will perhaps seem to come across crass when they often will answer such questions by "RTFM", meaning Read-The-F***ing-Manual. I rather direct a person to the tools readily available for their journey in wonderful world of sound design and making the sounds your own. Hope this has helped in a non-demeaning nor crass way. In my humble opinion, believe you could benefit from these things soley by posts here. It's a bit like someone wanting to play a synthesizer but does not know about music theory whatsoever and only interesting in letting arpeggiators and sequencers do all the music production for them and buying a Virus just because they read a certain music group uses it and they want to sound "just like them, but in their own style"...they are missing the point of all the practice we ALL have had and continue to do AND are STILL learning new things because that's how incredibly feature-rich the Virus for instance is.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using presets! However, if you are wanting to ideally know how to alter said preset I suggest taking one preset and you will notice on Virus C or B as you change program presets the led's will change reflecting what is active and not in each and by deconstruction of a preset you can also learn how and what made it sound the way it does, why the mod wheel does what it may do to alter it, and even how aftertouch further evolves that sound by what else lights up in course of pressing harder while holding key(s). These "tools" apply no matter what style of music you are wishing to compose and contrary to average music listener's assumtions, ambient electronic and even IDM style or drones even can be really more complicated in modulational routings as opposed to typical trance-stylized music. Good reading and folowing exercises contained within is ahead of you and never forget to HAVE FUN in process. Repetition is also very good in learning process while learning in series of blocks and progressively getting more complicated--but get yourself so that by listening to other's music, you can hear how a sound changes and morphs and being able to say, AHA, THAT was a short attack with an envelope decay but with a long release while an LFO is bringing-in another type of filter , etc etc....Korg is re-releasing in March the mini-MS20 monosynth that's 86% size of original from like 1977, with same all analog, two osc, two filters, two env generators, with all the patchable bays for $599. and that's what I learned on in 1982 and even something like a monotron $59.usd, you can learn so much of basic subtractive synthesis. Starting out on an Access Virus in this knowledge is really akin to someone as a freshman in college wanting to jump right off into Quantum Mechanics of Phsics yet with absolutely NO know-how in mathmatical skills, let alone Calculus or Trig. Again, good luck on your journey as synthesis is so fun whether intended as a hobbiest or with ambition to produce music commercially, or even sound design for people to download.
Robert (with tired typing fingers)

Thanks. Actually I am pretty experienced with synths and the virus is not my first synth by any means, Kutzweil synths are much more complicated than at least what I have seen so far IMHO. The only thing in Virus I haven't had experience with is the granular synthesis stuff. I will take a look on the tutorials though, maybe there is something useful there. The MS-20 reissue looks cool indeed.

As for the presets, I am just interested if the famous Darude lead sound is from the virus B mostly. Maybe someone already knows the answer to this here?

As far as massive modulation possibilities, having both the virus KB and KC, I'd say they along with my Waldorf Q and Microwave XT--are collectively the most complicated in a good way as far as plethora of options for sound design and I will freely admit that the Waldorf Q definitely out-powers in every way both my Virii...but with it's filters and distinct sound that sets the Q completely apart, it compliments the Virii quite nicely. Kawai K5000 is an additive synth and although never owned it, it makes deep programming a DX7 seem like a cakewalk.
Good to know you have some synth experience. Do know though subtractive synthesis programming is similar from synth to synth but when you massive modulation capabilities such as any Virus or as mentioned Waldorf Q, it makes in neccessary to indeed study the MANUAL download from Access VERY useful. The tutorial series on Access are for the Ti series as far as I know called, Programming Bootcamp...but this may carry over to some extent to prior incarnations of virus, so not to quote me there. Even though you have synth experience, I know people that have had ALOT of pro experience that have benfited GREATLY from Howard Scarr's Programming Subtractive Synths...download it and go through it and by all means read the f***ing manual! We have more filter options than all other hardware synths aside from Waldorf Q and the newer Blofeld, which I absolutely love as well and compliments the Virus sound. Listened to an ambient music post you have on Soundcloud that sounds cool in playing filters and very much like some of the stuff i experiment with currently the other day...good stuff by the way!
Robert

sorry, THAT was OSCILLATOR's Soundcloud I listened to and accalades need to go there instead, sorry!

Thanks Robert! :D

You are welcome and sorry I had not gooten around to re-reply and give kudos where warranted! Yes, that reminded me of some of the experiments I had of playing open filter types in kind of way I have seen people use a T-Reonator, but of course with Virus or my newly acquired Waldorf Q! Nice! I am yet to set-up a SoundCloud account but once am ready have bookmarked your account and will make a comment once joined. Being I am ex-military, and privacy issues are pretty high for me on the list, Facebook is something that I never warmed-up to idea of as critical thinking tells me sharing that much or leaving one's self open could easily be used in a scarey way by other's in an information/identity theft way--otherwise a comment would have been left by that means!
Robert

Attempted to linearise the curve moreso tonight.

Learned a few things.

The first experiment, initialised a patch, and set the Decay knob to zero, Sustain Level to maximum, and used the (Sustain)Time knob to simulate decay, instead of the Decay knob itself. Believe it or not, the slope of the Sustain(Time) is also a logarithmic curve, and is not a linear slope (although it appears a teensy bit more linear than the actual proper Decay curve)!

So I thought to myself, if the Decay curve isn't linear, the SustainTime curve isn't linear, what IS linear?...

... A falling sawtooth waveform.

Re-initialised a patch again. Then turned Decay to zero, SustainLevel also to zero.

Then chose an LFO, selected a sawtooth LFO waveform for it, put the LFO into EnvMode (one shot), made sure the LFO is in poly mode (so a new LFO is used per voice, as needed), and set the LFO Assign destination as AmpSustain with the amount set to maximum (+63).

The LFO 'Rate' effectively controls the length of the decay hereon.

Worked well, until I played several notes in quick succession, the LFO glitches up and doesn't retrigger new notes correctly, even though the LFO is in Poly mode, and even with TrigPhase set to 1 (to make sure the LFO is firing from the start [the top] of the sawtooth).

Did a bit more testing and I found it only farks up when you hold down one note and then play another note elsewhere.

So, it appears I've found my first bug on the Virus (Indigo)!

However! Using the ModMatrix to assign LFO > AmpSustain, instead of selecting AmpSustain from within the LFO section itself, works properly, as it should do, with no LFO poly issues or glitches.



It's still not a perfectly linear slope, but you lose the rapid fall off at the beginning and the half-life of the waveform is more towards where you want it to be, along with a more consistent linear fade-out at the very end.

And it's yet another different curve to add to your synthesis toolbox (compared to modulating FiltSustain by FltEnv, or AmpSustain by AmpEnv, earlier in the thread).

BTW, for the above screengrab from Wavelab, I modulated the Amp envelope - not the Filter envelope - as it's easier to get a visual representation of an envelope when merely recording signal levels as opposed to a filter sweep (furthermore, audio frequencies themselves aren't linear).

Hat's off!

The ultimate would be if you could draw your own LFO vector waveforms (from within Virus Control, when in the studio) and add them to a user LFO-waveform preset library to choose from whenever you wish.

How great would that be.

You could make all sorts of curvy/bezier/blippy/steppy/scratchy/dubby/inverted/warped LFO goodness. Maybe even modulate between them (akin to wavetabling).

Same with oscillator waveforms.

Access, are you listening? :)

I can see plenty of uses for that, Massive sort of became famous for allowing people to combine pre-designed curves mostly.

BTW, do you know where they got those waveforms from? I think every Virus user must have a few of them as their favourites - and it's one of the best things in the Virus, still today... Blofeld has envelopes that can loop, but who needs that when you have such versatile LFOs, right? What would also be a bliss would be the rate going into audio range (and have those available for more FM madness of course)...

Couple this suggestions with some other form of interaction with it, and you'd have the KILLER

wavetable LFOs would be new eheh... I subscribe this 100%

Would kill for drawable LFO forms in the TI.

And re: above - pretty smart cookie ye are!

Always wished for faster LFOs on the the Virus for modulation purposes. They also tend to alias a lot at the extremes.

Incidently I wondered how fast the LFOs actually were in my Indigo the other night, after reading that the Prophet 12 LFOs went up to 4KHz, and after doing a quick test the Indigo appeared to only manage a mere 93Hz (aka 0.093KHz) at the maximum rate of 127. That said, the Korg Radias can only match a similar amount (100Hz, aka 0.1KHz).

I wonder how Access could avoid compromising classic Virus sounds if they ever decided to update the LFOs to allow them to run at a faster rate in new Virus releases. I mean, if they simply updated their LFOs to be able to run faster, both the compatibility and character of previous patches would be broken making them sound very different. It's almost like a straitjacket for them.

The only way I thought about pulling it off intuitively was if they could allow you to use two sets of ranges via a sub menu, so the 'classic' rate-range is always enabled and in use (from 0.01Hz to 93Hz or whatever it is), but you can change to a new, higher rate-range via a switch option in the menu (0.01Hz to 4KHz). That said, you're still restricted to 128 discrete values (regardless of interpolation), so the gaps between each step would be coarse given the range is much larger. You could type in a discrete value via Virus Control, but it wouldn't be MIDI friendly (i.e. achievable using the 128 midi steps available).

Or maybe you could choose from several ranges, such as 0.01-93Hz for classic mode, 90-500Hz for mid-range mode, and 0.5-4KHz for high-speed mode. Bit of a bummer if you want to sweep from 0.01Hz to 4KHz in one fell swoop though.

I wonder how DaveSmith implemented such a large range for MIDI purposes. His knobs might be high resolution, but MIDI isn't.

I digress! (Again)

Curious, how did you perform this test, for the LFO's rate?

They could do it like they did for the oscillators: have the classic ones or the new broad range ones, with user definable waves in those eheh

You'll probably laugh...

I selected an LFO, chose square waveform for it, then set the LFO destination to ChannelVol in the ModMatrix with the amount set to +63 (so it cycles between silence and max volumes).

Then I cranked up my soundcard recording frequency to 192KHz @ 24bits (to avoid any beating of waveforms beyond Nyquist freq's, and to limit further aliasing) and played a high pitch note on the Virus so I can easily visually see the envelope of the LFO (when recorded). Then I raised the LFO rate to 127.

Recorded several seconds of it into Wavelab, then, er, manually counted the pulses that occured within 1 second (in otherwords an "x" number of Hz), lol. Turned out there were 93 pulses in 1 second, therefore the speed of the LFO was 93Hz.

They'd be the perfect accompaniment. :) Might require some serious DSP for user definable waves at audible rates though.

Very clever. Was thinking something within the same lines, but thought there might be a shorter way to do it. Wouldn't think of raising the sample rate myself, but it's a very clever move.

About the fact the LFOS tend to alias at extreme settings, like you said, why do you think that happens? Something to do with aliasing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByfAuQPbv6k

look at this simple sound with the korg ms 20, sounds amazing even when the LFO's rate goes way fast... It's one of the things analogue does better indeed... And what usually happens, not only on the virus, but overall all things digital, is that it seems that you loose the high frequencies a bit, right? (I'm thinking like the sound on the video, a self oscillating filter, the analogue if we're speaking virus here, modulated by the lfo, say with a triangle wave, real fast, there's a point where you feel that it's struggling to cope with what you're doing, almost like a frontier). Would it be better if I raised the sample rate to record such a thing? Never tried it...

Also, the Blofeld for example has LFOs that go into the audio range, and it would be cool if someone here could do the test and see if there's some stepping noticeable enough to ear, by modulating the rate of it with a slow evolving envelope, for example... 'Cause it makes sense.

EDIT would have to be adjusted manually to notice the midi steps, so maybe record both and post here would be cool (come on blofeld owners out there!!)

About that, I always like to record my digital synths in audio whenever possible, I always feel like automation recorded gets some of the natural feel away, an effect within the same lines here...But for software, while I'm at it, that runs inside the daw, does it also translate everything to 127 positions? Or does it happen only when using midi?

Sorry for all the questions eheh

Cool stuff, Timo!
The DSI Prophet 12's midi specs are not posted anywhere I can find and perhaps oscillator knows this from DSI Forum, however DSI website does not have really ANY tech specs posted other than general product info and a few videos we mostly have all seen.
Speaking of LFO's and Dave Smith---the Evolver Series only have a handful of midi transmit/rec'v parameters, with overwhelming majority being totally sysex and wanted to post this fact as I look at the DSI mono evolver keyboard's paper manual in front of me, (you can download the Evolver Keyboard Manual--applies to whole series aside from obviously a different manual for PolyEvolver because it has the added "combo-mode", yet the specs for LFO's and such remain same in entire evolver series http://davesmithinstruments.com/down...Manual_1.3.pdf
Hope this link works for the up to date manual I am looking at. (my studio is inbetween a state of decontruction/construction as came up with better ergonomic set-up or would oblidge the "come on Blofeld Owners for related test with lfo's)
On page 49 and 50 of evolver keyboard manual, parameter 40 thru 47 relate to the LFO's. Dave Smith elsewhere in manual states sysex was used rather than standard midi for majority of parameter because he NEEDED higher range than 0-127 in order to AVOID any stepping in parameter changes real-time. On page 49 you see parameter 40 for LFO, he used Range of 0-150 for UNsynced lfo freq and 151-160 for sync'd up to 16 cycles PER STEP. LFO Amount on both lfo 1 and 2 a range of 0-200, with amounts over 100 repeats with Key Sync On.

Those examples alone wanted to share for now because since the DSI Prophet 12 is a hybrid of best of Evolver, Tempest, Pro 08, and new developments, am actually wondering if indeed it will be ALL midi-able 100% send/rec'v. By the way, the Evolver parameters of course remain the same regardless if having original encoder version or the newer PE version for keyboard models and parameter values are same with the Desktop Evolver as well.
It must be in Anu Kirk's "Definitive Guide to The Evolver" where I read about why sysex was used for extended values needed as to ensure pretty much everything is able to be modulated with/by anything, without having zipper noises whilst changing parameters.
Thought you might find this interesting!
Great "synth-Sleuthing" Timo, on the Virus' LFO's and shall we assume your findings are same thoughout the Virus A,B,C range, since relatively same engine, except for the Ti Series?
Will try to get my equipment and set-up done thru weekend and may be up to Wed of coming week as have a KILLER root canal gone bad and cannot get into Dentist until Feb 5...it's seriously imposed on my creativity as it's pain to close to the BRAIN!! EEEK!

Interesting. I think the Virus probably works within the same lines, here. That's one of the reasons I don't like to rely on midi automation much, and always go for live recording of tweaking instead, whenever possible. Also, there's MIDI with better resolution then the good old 8 bit with just 127 steps, there's the evolution of that with 14 bit range - and I think most modern MIDI controllers have that.

So I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be a problem to have such a huge range on the LFO :twisted:

EDIT - it would mean 16384 steps with 14bit MIDI.

And I think (not sure though) that something like Automap (the protocol for software control, of course) is capable of even more steps then that (can't test right now), I'm saying that because I have changed the number of points many times, to get the knobs responding with the speed I need - quite handy, while not changing the resolution, you can actually do that and it smooths it out nicely, this is definitely the thing I like best about this controllers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_34BptS7w

found this on the recommended for you list on youtube.

Dave Smith IS THE MAN!~! He actually has the same humble persona as I had seen in many Robert Moog interviews and colloquiems...he absolutely has a PASSION for what he does and it shows! I am still quite amazed every time I turn-on the MEK; it BEGS you to turn knobs and create the still yet uncreated! My cat seems to be quite fascinated by the massive LED light show of the sequencer in-action!
Thanks for sharing that! That Prophet 600 Dave mentioned as the FIRST midi-capable synth from his then-company Sequential Circuits, was my first polyphonic synth after learning synthesis on MS20 and wish I had kept that thing!

Yeah, in a way you're lucky you got to learn with such great stuff... I learned mostly with stuff like Rob Papen's Albino eheh.

You're lucky you're going to get the Korg back

However, realize that for QUITE a while, my keyboard playing was limited while active duty officer in military, to a real wooden acoustic piano simply because of where different places stationed. Of course, that real piano is my roots so-to-speak, so that was my recreational "release" spending many hours in the piano room when not lifting weights and swimming.
There's been ALOT of new methods of modulation and various matrices that admitedly am still learning as I go as far as "playing catch-up". Told myself WHEN surviving and ultimately medically retired military disability pension--that I would build-up a synth-based studio for many therapeutic benefits;keeping mind active, and literally physical and mental therapy to fight PTSD....and now it's a reality and have everything kind of taken apart now, with a final plan of effectively connecting everything, using midi extensively--however, I will be recording primarily audio only.
So as you mentioned once, it's "full-circle" because I may have a bit more hardware experience, but it certainly also means i have alot to learn from the likes of you on many levels. Good forums facilitate this without all the ego and crap that you definitely find on some of the other so-called "pro forums".
Dave Smith said something interesting in that clip about how it's not usually an interface's problem with midi--it's moreso the way in which a given manufacturer IMPLIMENTS midi protocol and makes use of available bandwidth---do I hear a cat-call towards Access and Virus Control? LOL!

Good to see discussion is still flowing here.

Timo is that 93 in herz or samples? What I mean is do count one LFO movement as cycle or two? Frequency should be only half of the LFO movements.

Either way I find the LFO works well for the faster stuff at the value of 122, do you know if there is a way to raise the speed less than one step? Kinda tempo dependend.

Access could just allow one of the oscillators to act as an LFO, that way there would be no issues with compatibility. And it could modulate as fast as you wanted. This is of course already possible if you want to modulate phase.

I must try your trick of using the LFO as a source for the filter decay, at that rate it should still be good for pluck sounds. It would be interesting to compare the virus to some other synths. If someone knows a really accurate audio analyzer/FFT for the job, that would be great. And one last thing, is there a way to delay the start of the filter decay by couple ms, like in some analog synths?

Changing the subject a little from the way the C vs. the Snow sounds, can someone tell me how total polyphony compares between the two? I've seen spec sheets that say the C upgraded the B's total polyphony from 24 to 32, then when you look for similar specs on the Snow, consensus seems to be "20-50 depending on patch".

I know the snow has more features, and some of those features could potentially use more DSP resources, but what I am looking for is an understanding of how the raw processing power between the two compares, for example for a patch on the C will you get the same, more, or (yikes) less playable notes if you load same on the Snow?

Thanks for any input.

I know this is not empirical evidence, but buddy of mine had a snow and because she could *only* get Virus Control to work on Cubase in her testing and she determined she hated Cubase, and dynamic voice allocation of Snow made her only wish she had the desktop TI2, she now is back to using Virus KC and sold the Snow. Like her, I am YET to run into any major polyphony issues with the Virus C, and have built some intense patches. But, will also say that I have not tried using a built-up Multi just from the KC itself as it seems to make more sense and be easier to do that through Reaper DAW or any DAW.
She is a very technical person and she could not justify expense of the Ti or Ti2 when Virus Control still is unresolved, unless you use Cubase and use absolutely NOTHING else connected anywhere via USB. She determined that the Virus suffers from "bandwidth starvation", regardless of what people at Access state.
Thought to share this with you as you seemed to have a lot of trouble with Virus Control from reading a lot of past threads (amongst others having issues with VC). So with the Snow it looks like you *may* still have VC issues, plus the polyphony limitation inherent in a "budget Ti called Snow".

I'm now using Cubase on Windows, so that may help in terms of Virus Control (actually a lot of VSTs work better on Cubase since it is basically the reference platform for VST compatibility), but having working software integration might not be mandatory for me if I lower my price point and therefore my standards a bit (for example I can overlook a lot if I'm dealing in the price range of a used C or maybe a Snow).

I once owned a Ti2 desktop, and was not happy with the polyphony or overall processing power of a single patch at the given price point so I returned it. However, the 64bit drivers for Virus had just been released at the time, I was not using Cubase, and it's possible that I would be happy with one now.

Rhetoric aside though what I really need to know is how the raw DSP power of the Snow compares to the C. From the experience your friend had, it sounds like the Snow has less voices than the C? Or maybe you're saying it uses a type of dynamic note stealing that was not a feature of the C? Either way I'd be very interested in getting to the root of this.

I think the "Snow vs C?" question is one that a lot of people want to know and keeps coming up, but comparing the official Access specs on paper, at least with regard to polyphony and/or overall DSP processing power, seems to invoke more questions that it answers.