samplers vs computer sampling

Basicly using a soft sampler is simple...using a HW sampler is more complicated. BUT. I think i cant live ithout my 6400U's filters...

funniest shit of my life lol

what happens when u sample stuff into an Akai very loud...what id love to have in my s5000 is the 10/20khz option when sampling (s3200xl/s3000xl have it)....it nicely changes some sharp treble into something much more pleasing to the ear!

sooo true...i've done this in the yamaha and it's amazing.

the yamaha has a lot of options for "downgrading" samples..and the gains are very pleasing.

the built in compressors and enhancers on the yamaha's fx sections are actually really amazing aswell...i was shocked.

j

0=0

going to get me an e6400.

theres a cheap z4 going, but after reading the first page....

For me the computer ones win hands down. Before the computer based sampler I was using an S2000 and that thing was long!


I still VERY occasionally use a MPC200 but it's more for the sound and I tend to use it more like a signal processor rather than a sampler/sequencer.


But whatever works for YOU at the end of the day. You can make digital dirty if you want to.

going to get me an e6400.

classic or ultra?

what id love to have in my s5000 is the 10/20khz option when sampling (s3200xl/s3000xl have it)....it nicely changes some sharp treble into something much more pleasing to the ear!

ive been doing some of this last night with some bass sounds and i noticed it also reduces the sample rate to 22,050hz when you use the 10k option... possiblly another reason it gives it that more dirty/gritty feel

[subvert]

going to get me an e6400.

theres a cheap z4 going, but after reading the first page....

Bobby, Im selling my E4XT ultra

Its HEAVY.

A massive part of me says dont sell it, as it genuinely is a proper classic piece of kit.
But the other part of me is trying to be sensible and not sentimental.....doesnt really have much use in mastering

Ben i thought you sold your Emu on ebay a while back

dnb sounds sterile today, which imo, is definitly a result of using the pc for every track. you dont get the errors or "character" that you get when using hardware. imo at least. i really enjoy the clean stuff but sometimes its annoying as hell

I find it kind of ironic that now people have started going on aout how old jungle sounds good because it was made with lovely old samplers that had loads of character and grit.

Whereas back in the day the junglists where the ones getting on and expressing themselves with the only stuff they could afford while everyone with taste and money was trying to track down the old analogue synths - because the reason all the old detroit techno stuff sounded so go was because it was made with lovely old analogue bassline machines that had loads of character and grit.

Whereas back in the day the detroit techno guys were the ones getting on and expressing themselves with the only stuff they could afford...

[subvert]

Ben i thought you sold your Emu on ebay a while back

Sold then they didnt pay, so I never sent it, and didnt get round to relisting it....

[denaris]

dnb sounds sterile today, which imo, is definitly a result of using the pc for every track. you dont get the errors or "character" that you get when using hardware. imo at least. i really enjoy the clean stuff but sometimes its annoying as hell

I find it kind of ironic that now people have started going on aout how old jungle sounds good because it was made with lovely old samplers that had loads of character and grit.

Whereas back in the day the junglists where the ones getting on and expressing themselves with the only stuff they could afford while everyone with taste and money was trying to track down the old analogue synths - because the reason all the old detroit techno stuff sounded so go was because it was made with lovely old analogue bassline machines that had loads of character and grit.

Whereas back in the day the detroit techno guys were the ones getting on and expressing themselves with the only stuff they could afford...

That's the way it goes. Like when everyone went software then slowly the manufacturers realised that hardware was coming back, then the incorporation of soft / hard started happening.

I remember in the old Amiga days dying to get a nice clean sample out of my Technosound Turbo and Aura samplers. Now I've got all that at my disposal I want to get an Amiga setup permenant again to sample proper 8 bit.

Gah, we'll never be happy.

Gah, we'll never be happy.

The happy people are the ones with something to express and the skills to express it, because they put a lot more 'aliveness' into their music than a slightly unstable analogue oscillator can, and a lot more 'ruffness' than a cheap ADAC on a sampler.

I'm nowhere near that, but I try to work with what I've got and remember that classic producers sound that good because they were that good, not just because their kit was magic in a way that mine isn't. Doesn't help much, but I try to remember it.

I mean, if people are saying that music made on software sounds clinical compared to stuff made on a hardware sampler, try listening to some early grime stuff. It sounds off the fucking hook in terms of rawness. What sounds clinical is stuff by people who've read more DOA production tutorials than they've had original ideas...

Whereas back in the day the detroit techno guys were the ones getting on and expressing themselves with the only stuff they could afford...

BFC/Psyche stuff was done in a 4 track in his room without a lot of equipment. I think about that when i start lusting for new gear, as well as:

The 303 was $395 list @ release.
The 909 was developed as a cheaper drum machines.
The Juno-106 aimed specifically at the home rather than professional users.
Madlib uses a Dr. Sample.

I still VERY occasionally use a MPC200 but it's more for the sound and I tend to use it more like a signal processor rather than a sampler/sequencer.

I like to take very short sounds, assign the fader to a programs function , write the program's note at all possible parts in the sequence, play the sequence, slide the fader around while the sequence plays until I get the right pitch/filter amount, reduce the range assigned to fader to something more useful, and re-write to sequence while moving the fader.

it can be useful for basslines or changing an otherwise monotinous sound. great fun to dick around with too.

what software does everybody use?

[denaris]

try listening to some early grime stuff. It sounds off the fucking hook in terms of rawness. What sounds clinical is stuff by people who've read more DOA production tutorials than they've had original ideas...

That all sounded fucking awful to me but I see your sentiments exactly. Early days of music, under produced stuff has charm. Has a feeling. A feeling that is missing in polished over produced stuff.

See: Jungle. Tracks nowadays don't have that charm. That mentality of chucking in samples that may not sound quite right but leaving them there. It's a raw sound. A sound of people who had ideas but not the technical knowledge.

That mentality of chucking in samples that may not sound quite right but leaving them

yeh exactly

and not to mention the lack of sample time you had with a lot of the old samplers

meaning there was more emphasis on doing the most you could with one or a few samples

Yeah totally agree. Having 3 or breaks running in a tune with some not quite in time slightly off can sound so right

Whereas back in the day the detroit techno guys were the ones getting on and expressing themselves with the only stuff they could afford...

BFC/Psyche stuff was done in a 4 track in his room without a lot of equipment. I think about that when i start lusting for new gear, as well as:

Yeah, that seems to me to be the right answer. Rather than lusting after a 4 track because it makes everything sound so raw and special...

try listening to some early grime stuff. It sounds off the fucking hook in terms of rawness. What sounds clinical is stuff by people who've read more DOA production tutorials than they've had original ideas...

That all sounded fucking awful to me but I see your sentiments exactly. Early days of music, under produced stuff has charm. Has a feeling. A feeling that is missing in polished over produced stuff.

Yeah, I mean you may not like it but you wouldn't say that it sounds clinical and overly smooth, despite the fact that it's produced using entirely software...

See: Jungle. Tracks nowadays don't have that charm. That mentality of chucking in samples that may not sound quite right but leaving them there. It's a raw sound. A sound of people who had ideas but not the technical knowledge.

Yeah, it's about being excited by the sound and pushing it forwards and taking the rawness along with you and accepting it as part of the music and moving on to the next awesome tune rather than feeling a bit uninspired and putting together a 'will this do' tune and polishing off all the rough edges because even if you haven't got many new or exciting ideas then you might at least make it sound slick.

I mean, tbh I've got nothing against technical competency (because that includes knowing how to make something rough as well as how to make it smooth if you want to), it's only when it's a substitute for actual excitement and originality that it gets really tedious.

That mentality of chucking in samples that may not sound quite right but leaving them

yeh exactly

and not to mention the lack of sample time you had with a lot of the old samplers

meaning there was more emphasis on doing the most you could with one or a few samples

Y'see, that's the kind of thing I disagree with. It just sounds like a crap excuse to me - essentially what you're saying is "the reason people back then made better tunes than me / us / people today is, er, because they had, um, much, er, worse and more limited equipment."

If you went back in time and gave 4 Hero or someone a sampler with loads of sample time they'd still have made fucking ruff tunes. Because they were great musicians with a load of ideas, a drive to express themselves, and were riding the crest of a music scene that thrived on innovation and was kicking the shit out of the rulebook on a monthly basis.

what id love to have in my s5000 is the 10/20khz option when sampling (s3200xl/s3000xl have it)....it nicely changes some sharp treble into something much more pleasing to the ear!

ive been doing some of this last night with some bass sounds and i noticed it also reduces the sample rate to 22,050hz when you use the 10k option... possiblly another reason it gives it that more dirty/gritty feel

Yeah there's no magic to it really, the akai just gives the possibility to use a reduced sampling rate (22 kHz), and also re-sample at anything between 22 kHz - 65 kHz

The limited bandwidth works well with some material that has high amounts of harmonic distortion, such as brutally overdriven beats..

I wish the akai had an option for a bit depth of 12 or 8 though...