Talk:Access Virus
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Comments edit
I don't understand the remark that the A,B,C models "lacked analog outputs". They have nothing *but* analog outputs. The B, for example, has 6 (mono, assignable) analog outputs. They had no *digital* outputs, but then neither did almost anything else in that period.
- additionally I know a very few synths that have more! It also has an stereo input, the TI has an SPDIF interface.
As far as multi-timbrality is concerned, the Virus B is certainly capable of 16-part multitimbral operation, depending on how resources are assigned. Remarks to the contrary are not NPOV. I might add that the Virus A,B,C were *enormously* popular and highly-respected synths which were heard *frequently* in important music of that period.
- the Multi and Sequencer modes are very usable, the TI also removes the limitation of one single reverb/delay effect by adding reverb and delay for all 16 parts.
I might also add that, up until the TI difficulties, Access had an enviable reputation with its users, largely for frequent software updates that followed for years after purchase ... I'll certify that because I spent years on the user mailing list. Twang 09:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Then you are welcome to correct the supposed mistakes, as long as you can cite sources. --BorgQueen 12:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Add another notable user? edit
I'm asking in talk, because anytime I've tried to add anything directly to Wikipedia, it never stays. Anyway. A distant friend and notable artist I idolize is TJR. Who has in a few interviews talked about his love for his Virus TI module.
hi there - i see no one ever replied to you here. so-called “notability” can be fairly difficult to qualify, but in general, if an artist has a wiki page, they would be considered sufficiently “notable” to list in a section such as this. i don’t see why any editor would have encyclopedic cause to remove it, given that they fulfill the above criteria & are (as per the interview you’ve linked), a self-professed user of this synthesizer. Ghostsax (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)