A new virus for everyone!
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:31 pm
Holy shit a virus that is truly accessible! Hopefully this will be around the $700 range.
http://access-music.de/snow/
http://access-music.de/snow/
Ableton Forum
A new virus for everyone!
Page 1 of 7
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:38 pm
damn, I wish the desktop evolver had that interface (visible in the dark)
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:38 pm
I'm going to have sex with one of these at NAMM next week.
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:39 pm
post pics
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:40 pm
Make sure to spoon with it afterwards.nebulae wrote:I'm going to have sex with one of these at NAMM next week.
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:42 pm
UNBELIEVABLE - they made a new synth and the built in USB 1.1 specs of 12mbps speeds?!?!!? how fucking stupid are they?!?!??!?!!?
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:43 pm
so 10-50 voices means that this is basically a single-core version of a full TI, which is dual core.
shame...they should have made it USB2.
but still, this is better than a C and has the TI engine, so some redeaming qualities.
shame...they should have made it USB2.
but still, this is better than a C and has the TI engine, so some redeaming qualities.
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:45 pm
can someone with a virus TI confirm that this unit is a faithful copy, specificationwise
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:51 pm
just be sure to sell it to me once you tire of itnebulae wrote:I'm going to have sex with one of these at NAMM next week.
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:51 pm
2.0 has been around long enough that they could have implemented it for cheap. I find this to be pretty lazy considering I just found this on the wiki.nebulae wrote:UNBELIEVABLE - they made a new synth and the built in USB 1.1 specs of 12mbps speeds?!?!!? how fucking stupid are they?!?!??!?!!?
"USB 3.0
USB 3.0 (Future version): On September 18, 2007, Pat Gelsinger demonstrated USB 3.0 at the fall Intel Developer Forum. USB 3.0 is targeted at ten times the current bandwidth, roughly 4.8 Gbit/s, utilizing a parallel optical cable. The USB 3.0 specification is planned to be released in the first half of 2008, commercial products are expected to arrive in 2009 or 2010."
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:56 pm
You like my sloppy seconds, don'tcha!lerky wrote:just be sure to sell it to me once you tire of itnebulae wrote:I'm going to have sex with one of these at NAMM next week.
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:58 pm
Yeah, I couldn't fucking believe it when a brand new $2000 synth has USB1.1 (which caused a lot of their totally integrated issues in the first place, with audio dropouts and what not) but to have a synth come out in 2008, designed for laptop musicians, and have it be 1.1 is just a crying shame.willdahbe wrote:2.0 has been around long enough that they could have implemented it for cheap. I find this to be pretty lazy considering I just found this on the wiki.nebulae wrote:UNBELIEVABLE - they made a new synth and the built in USB 1.1 specs of 12mbps speeds?!?!!? how fucking stupid are they?!?!??!?!!?
"USB 3.0
USB 3.0 (Future version): On September 18, 2007, Pat Gelsinger demonstrated USB 3.0 at the fall Intel Developer Forum. USB 3.0 is targeted at ten times the current bandwidth, roughly 4.8 Gbit/s, utilizing a parallel optical cable. The USB 3.0 specification is planned to be released in the first half of 2008, commercial products are expected to arrive in 2009 or 2010."
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:38 pm
Usb 1.1, wanky. :/
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:18 pm
Not many knobs. Kind of defeats the purpose of a hardware synth.
I'd prefer lots of knobs and some keys, or might as well go minimal all the way, do it right, and use the VST version. Powercore is smaller and has the capability to run additional plugins without costing any native CPU.
Looks like they're trying compete w/the Waldorf Blofeld?
I'd prefer lots of knobs and some keys, or might as well go minimal all the way, do it right, and use the VST version. Powercore is smaller and has the capability to run additional plugins without costing any native CPU.
Looks like they're trying compete w/the Waldorf Blofeld?
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:25 pm
USB 1.1 was probably used so that the same circuit design form the TI could be used. That, and it would make the TI look "slow" in comparison to foolish users. The goal was probably to keep it as close to the TI hardware-wise.
I use the term "foolish" because if you do the math, USB 1.1 can fully provide the amount of bandwidth needed by the virus. The timing and other sync problems most people bitch about are usually caused by shady USB interfaces, or slow USB interrupt speeds; neither of which would be instantly solved by moving to USB 2.0. The only big advantage of a 2.0 virus would be the ability to stream each part to a separate channel in the host, but even then, firewire would be more ideal for that.
Anyways, would have been cool if access had used 2.0, but I'm looking forward to it anyways. Will be interesting to see some more concrete specs at NAMM....
I use the term "foolish" because if you do the math, USB 1.1 can fully provide the amount of bandwidth needed by the virus. The timing and other sync problems most people bitch about are usually caused by shady USB interfaces, or slow USB interrupt speeds; neither of which would be instantly solved by moving to USB 2.0. The only big advantage of a 2.0 virus would be the ability to stream each part to a separate channel in the host, but even then, firewire would be more ideal for that.
Anyways, would have been cool if access had used 2.0, but I'm looking forward to it anyways. Will be interesting to see some more concrete specs at NAMM....