virus ti Vs sylenth1

[Summa]

You shouldn't mistaken the Converter specs. with the internaly used sampling rate and bit depth.

[LivePsy]

The sample rate and bit depth when using Virus Control are exactly the same spec as a VSTi. So there's no reason a TI sounds great but a VSTi sounds thin. Yet I would argue that even in VC mode nothing sounds as good as a TI. If you like that sound then you like that sound. The filter is unique but it could all be emulated as a VSTi. The interesting point for me is that in software anything is possible, but a hardware box seems to have outdone almost everything in pure software.

Does the TI sound better from the 24bit 192KHz analog outputs? Analog not necessarily a good thing because it was digital until the last step. I can't say I have a clear idea and purity of sound surely is not important compared to the character of the sound. The TI can have obvious aliasing but I really don't care - how many times have we seen posts from experts who check the aliasing first and then won't touch anything which doesn't pass that test? They're missing out on a lot of character...

B

[Summa]

I wouldn't be that hard on the TI, one can get some nice good sounding stuff out of the synth when using the grain tables
Anyway I didn't want to start a discussion about synths quality, even so I know quite some VSTis I'd like to have in hardware. It's rather that the differences between current pro audio DACs are that subtle, that even slight level differences can have a greater influence on the impression.

[Monobeat]

Well put Summa. I feel those words as being nicely chosen

[LivePsy]

Originally Posted by Summa

the differences between current pro audio DACs are that subtle, that even slight level differences can have a greater influence on the impression.

Are the DACs in hardware digital synths that good? I'd hazard a guess that the DAC itself is OK, but the post DAC analog stage to the output jack is weak - most sound and look from sampling to be a bit high passed. Low frequency waveforms don't have the right shape. And if you look inside the box, there's no audiophile grade shielding and cabling for the critical analog output path.

The question relevant to TI vs VSTi is whether the signal sent through USB to the DAW is lower quality to that sent to the 24bit/192KHz DACs on the TI. If the TI is 24/192 internally throughout, then its a shame to degrade the output by stuffing it into USB Audio.

B

[Summa]

Originally Posted by LivePsy

Are the DACs in hardware digital synths that good? I'd hazard a guess that the DAC itself is OK, but the post DAC analog stage to the output jack is weak - most sound and look from sampling to be a bit high passed. Low frequency waveforms don't have the right shape.

What synths are you refering to? Lowcuts are typical for Audio-DACs, it's typically not possible to send send DC-Signals trough them. When it comes to the level, if the SNR and bandwidth is fine, I don't mind if the output signal isn't that hot.

And if you look inside the box, there's no audiophile grade shielding and cabling for the critical analog output path.

Well, major problems would be audiable, noise and interference wise.

The question relevant to TI vs VSTi is whether the signal sent through USB to the DAW is lower quality to that sent to the 24bit/192KHz DACs on the TI. If the TI is 24/192 internally throughout, then its a shame to degrade the output by stuffing it into USB Audio.

It's surely not 192khz, otherwise this would be an option S/P-DIF wise. Wouldn't make much sense anyway, unless one is making music for bats, cats or dogs afaik only the filter calculation would benefit from a sampling rate above 48khz.

[LivePsy]

Originally Posted by Summa

What synths are you refering to? Lowcuts are typical for Audio-DACs, it's typically not possible to send send DC-Signals trough them. When it comes to the level, if the SNR and bandwidth is fine, I don't mind if the output signal isn't that hot.

I am referring to every digital synth I've owned, about 8 all up. Low cut to reject DC is one thing, but I think it affects the clearly audible low freqeuncies say around 60Hz or higher. Let's just keep it to the TI, it definitely does this. BTW when I suggested the analog stage was weak, I meant it in the sense that it is the weakest quality link, not that the output level was low.

Originally Posted by Summa

Well, major problems would be audiable, noise and interference wise.

You previously posted that subtle differences in pro audio DACs have audible effects: if synth manufacturers are not treating the post DAC analog stage like pro audio, then its no wonder. Its irrelevant to me (its making its own sounds not reproducing anything) but I thought it was reinforcing your point of view.

Originally Posted by Summa

It's surely not 192khz, otherwise this would be an option S/P-DIF wise. Wouldn't make much sense anyway, unless one is making music for bats, cats or dogs afaik only the filter calculation would benefit from a sampling rate above 48khz.

Higher than 48KHz would also help in calculating the waveforms - sharp edges and lower aliasing.

I thought we were pretty much in agreement, so I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to disagree with me here.

B

[Summa]

To me a discussion is not about reaching agreements but to share informations, I'll see to answer the rest later this day.

[Summa]

Originally Posted by LivePsy

I am referring to every digital synth I've owned, about 8 all up. Low cut to reject DC is one thing, but I think it affects the clearly audible low freqeuncies say around 60Hz or higher.

This might be intentionally to make sure the user has less problems fitting the synth into the mix and probably has nothing to do with DAC or the corresponding amp.

Let's just keep it to the TI, it definitely does this.

I'm a bit afraid to discussion all the weaknesses of the Virus here, they'll probably throw me out of this forum I'd guess this is a engine generated effect, you tested the S/P-DIF and USB Output for comparison?

BTW when I suggested the analog stage was weak, I meant it in the sense that it is the weakest quality link, not that the output level was low.

Please keep in mind that english isn't my native language, when it comes to technical terms I may pick the wrong expressions. I'm very sorry if this cause missunderstandings or hurts your feelings.

You previously posted that subtle differences in pro audio DACs have audible effects:

Nope, I posted that the differences between the DACs are that subtile, that slight level differences would have an higher impact on the character of the output.

if synth manufacturers are not treating the post DAC analog stage like pro audio, then its no wonder. Its irrelevant to me (its making its own sounds not reproducing anything) but I thought it was reinforcing your point of view.

Well, if its a shielding and cabling problem you'd probably hear hum or clock emissions, but this wouldn't have that much influence on the character of the synth.

Higher than 48KHz would also help in calculating the waveforms - sharp edges and lower aliasing.

I think to remember that the bandlimiting filter needs about 5 or 6khz where it tends to dampen the higher harmonics, so with 48khz (48-5=42/2 (f/2 nyquist) = 21Khz) Oscillator and bandwith wise you'd be on the save side. When it comes to nonlinear stuff like FM or waveshaping (like filter saturation), I've been told that higher sampling rates or oversampling can be extremely helpfull to shift the artefacts above the audiable range. Still, 192khz would be pretty much an overkill, but I'm no synth developer myself, it's just a few explanaitions I got when talking/mailing to developers I worked with.

You can find some very informational papers regarding that topic here:

http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~stilt...s/Welcome.html



...Summa