 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Music techology
Subject: Hardware sampling dilemma!
Original Message Date: 30-May-97 @ 01:13 AM - Hardware sampling dilemma!
I'm currently facing something of a dilemma. I currently own a
Quasimidi Quasar (Cakewalk running on old slow 486 ex-works PC -
whoops I didn't say that). Its got a big pallet of usable sounds,
good effects and some pretty flexible editing.
Having used it for a while as my sole sound source my thirst for
new sounds, greater editability etc is fast leading me to a new
purchase....a sampler.
My budget is about £2000. I'm after a quality sampling/synthesis
tool. My starting options seem to be;
1) Yamaha A3000 - need to see/hear one but FM went ballistic! However
apart from the base cost of £1300 I'd also need to buy a mass
storage device, a CD-ROM for those digital transfers and the optional
Digital I/O board - there goes my most of my dosh...
OR
2) PC based sampler - probably a 166 MMX (might aswell go for the best
the budget allows) PC business spec (since I don't want the bundled
rubbish), a Pinnacal? a Terratec EWS 64??? or card X?
Then I can enjoy Rebirth, Stomper etc etc and all the other quality
software thats in development...
3) A Kurzweil K2000 with sampler option: OK...I think I've broke the budget -
but thats what budgets are for :-) From my research this looks like
a demon machine capable of satisfying both my sampler craving and
need to create fresh sounds.
4) ?
The PC option is a strong conteder, I'm prepared to spend money
upgrading should the need arise and I'm impressed with price/performance
ratio of a lot of the new PC products. I'm not into hard disk recording
as yet (although the PC gives me the option of doing that in the future).
Alternatively I could get the A3000 then next year get the PC...
Any thoughts, other ideas etc...I'm after the best quality I can get
for the money (+500 probably!).
Quasimidi Quasar (Cakewalk running on old slow 486 ex-works PC -
whoops I didn't say that). Its got a big pallet of usable sounds,
good effects and some pretty flexible editing.
Having used it for a while as my sole sound source my thirst for
new sounds, greater editability etc is fast leading me to a new
purchase....a sampler.
My budget is about £2000. I'm after a quality sampling/synthesis
tool. My starting options seem to be;
1) Yamaha A3000 - need to see/hear one but FM went ballistic! However
apart from the base cost of £1300 I'd also need to buy a mass
storage device, a CD-ROM for those digital transfers and the optional
Digital I/O board - there goes my most of my dosh...
OR
2) PC based sampler - probably a 166 MMX (might aswell go for the best
the budget allows) PC business spec (since I don't want the bundled
rubbish), a Pinnacal? a Terratec EWS 64??? or card X?
Then I can enjoy Rebirth, Stomper etc etc and all the other quality
software thats in development...
3) A Kurzweil K2000 with sampler option: OK...I think I've broke the budget -
but thats what budgets are for :-) From my research this looks like
a demon machine capable of satisfying both my sampler craving and
need to create fresh sounds.
4) ?
The PC option is a strong conteder, I'm prepared to spend money
upgrading should the need arise and I'm impressed with price/performance
ratio of a lot of the new PC products. I'm not into hard disk recording
as yet (although the PC gives me the option of doing that in the future).
Alternatively I could get the A3000 then next year get the PC...
Any thoughts, other ideas etc...I'm after the best quality I can get
for the money (+500 probably!).
Message 11/26 02-Jun-97 @ 03:29 PM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
OK - there seem to be quite a few options.
Let me just check something out - the PC setup suggestion
would work as follows...(for example)
PC running Cakewalk Pro Audio sending midi data to Quasar
and Emax II. When free mem on Emax is running low, transfer
samples to Cakewalk audio track, sequence the resulting
.wav? files just as you would midi notes (obviously without
the controller data etc). (are we talking sample dump?!?)
OK so any effects we'll say are being applied by external
hardware. This is where I'm unsure about the config. The
effects are applied on given midi channels. How are the
effect units patched into this. Does the PC audio output
go via the mixer to the effects then back into the PC for
digital recording? I'm hazy on this area - I've looked around
the rest of your set (must admit studio setups are not a
strong area for me) - Please give a description of how it
plugs together/works - sorry for the tedium - I'm just
getting a bit lost!
Let me just check something out - the PC setup suggestion
would work as follows...(for example)
PC running Cakewalk Pro Audio sending midi data to Quasar
and Emax II. When free mem on Emax is running low, transfer
samples to Cakewalk audio track, sequence the resulting
.wav? files just as you would midi notes (obviously without
the controller data etc). (are we talking sample dump?!?)
OK so any effects we'll say are being applied by external
hardware. This is where I'm unsure about the config. The
effects are applied on given midi channels. How are the
effect units patched into this. Does the PC audio output
go via the mixer to the effects then back into the PC for
digital recording? I'm hazy on this area - I've looked around
the rest of your set (must admit studio setups are not a
strong area for me) - Please give a description of how it
plugs together/works - sorry for the tedium - I'm just
getting a bit lost!
Message 12/26 02-Jun-97 @ 05:33 PM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
ok....use the emax or whatever sampler as you said...if you run out of sample space (with 8 mb max on a Emax2 this is very unlikely)...you can record the stuff over to the pc audio tracks...or from the outset simply record the long audio parts and loops into the pc.....
Ok......yes....all the emax & pc and Quasimidi audio sends go to the mixer....then add hardware based fx from the mixer.....yes, if you like you can also record the hardware fx as wav files and add them inside the pc to the track if you like.....if you did that then balanced the levels with software, it would be possible to send the whole lot via a s/pdif to a dat as a direct digital transfer, however, mixing everything with the mixer down to dat is probably more fast & intuitive.....planning and setting all the levels is ok...but sometimes some real cool stuff happens when you just set up a mix on the hardware mixer....then just go for like 20 minutes of live mixing to stereo dat....afterwards you can playback, select some real cool bits and paste 'em together.........there is a certain spontanious quality you get when you mix live.....but then what about the mistakes??....with hard disk you can let go and mix without worrying about mistakes...often you come up with real cool ideas....you can also setup & rehearse complicated fx feature moments....then record the FX pass to hard disk, then mix it into the track that way....so you can do realtime FX hardware manipulating (of more than one pot or control knob if needs be), then have that one special echo or reverb effect playback at just the right moment every time.....in stereo if you like.....if say the echo effect is stereo , at full bandwidth and lasts for say 5 seconds, that is already alot of sampler memory down the drain....but with H/D audio, you get 3 hours playback from a 170 dollar disk !!....add to this seperate outs for eq'ing etc on the hardware mixer, and those special fx can have their own seperate stereo channels eq'd just exactly right....
The effects are applied on the mixer with this setup, but you can record & manipulate them too, or mix and match hardware fx, and pc processed fx....simply put, realtime hardware fx do not impose any strain on the pc...so it is free to play as much audio & midi in sync as possible.....some fx units can be manipulated via midi, ...either to change effect at a given time, or say, to control thr reverb decay time from a modulation wheel etc...but that is coincidental to that brand & model of effect unit.....doing all the above can be done with any effects units....hey....you can do alot you know !!.....fx are applied via send controls on each instruments dedicated mixer cahnnel...then the fx returns are blended in with the final stereo mix....
of course you need a decent pc.....nothing over the top, but like if you buy your pc at high street store prices, then maybe this isn't a good plan I have suggested,.....but, if you can get a p100-166 with 32 mb ram minimum for a cheap realistic price, then it is a good cost effective method....(I pay about £ 650 UK sterling for a new p133......£ 900 for a p166 with 64 mb and a 1.6 drive, 8x cd rom and 1mb 64 bit graphics....that is about an average fair brand new prices for these kind of machines...)
Ok......yes....all the emax & pc and Quasimidi audio sends go to the mixer....then add hardware based fx from the mixer.....yes, if you like you can also record the hardware fx as wav files and add them inside the pc to the track if you like.....if you did that then balanced the levels with software, it would be possible to send the whole lot via a s/pdif to a dat as a direct digital transfer, however, mixing everything with the mixer down to dat is probably more fast & intuitive.....planning and setting all the levels is ok...but sometimes some real cool stuff happens when you just set up a mix on the hardware mixer....then just go for like 20 minutes of live mixing to stereo dat....afterwards you can playback, select some real cool bits and paste 'em together.........there is a certain spontanious quality you get when you mix live.....but then what about the mistakes??....with hard disk you can let go and mix without worrying about mistakes...often you come up with real cool ideas....you can also setup & rehearse complicated fx feature moments....then record the FX pass to hard disk, then mix it into the track that way....so you can do realtime FX hardware manipulating (of more than one pot or control knob if needs be), then have that one special echo or reverb effect playback at just the right moment every time.....in stereo if you like.....if say the echo effect is stereo , at full bandwidth and lasts for say 5 seconds, that is already alot of sampler memory down the drain....but with H/D audio, you get 3 hours playback from a 170 dollar disk !!....add to this seperate outs for eq'ing etc on the hardware mixer, and those special fx can have their own seperate stereo channels eq'd just exactly right....
The effects are applied on the mixer with this setup, but you can record & manipulate them too, or mix and match hardware fx, and pc processed fx....simply put, realtime hardware fx do not impose any strain on the pc...so it is free to play as much audio & midi in sync as possible.....some fx units can be manipulated via midi, ...either to change effect at a given time, or say, to control thr reverb decay time from a modulation wheel etc...but that is coincidental to that brand & model of effect unit.....doing all the above can be done with any effects units....hey....you can do alot you know !!.....fx are applied via send controls on each instruments dedicated mixer cahnnel...then the fx returns are blended in with the final stereo mix....
of course you need a decent pc.....nothing over the top, but like if you buy your pc at high street store prices, then maybe this isn't a good plan I have suggested,.....but, if you can get a p100-166 with 32 mb ram minimum for a cheap realistic price, then it is a good cost effective method....(I pay about £ 650 UK sterling for a new p133......£ 900 for a p166 with 64 mb and a 1.6 drive, 8x cd rom and 1mb 64 bit graphics....that is about an average fair brand new prices for these kind of machines...)
Message 13/26 03-Jun-97 @ 08:33 AM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
OK - that clarifies things for me - thanks
Have you any experience on Ensoniq samplers?
Have you any experience on Ensoniq samplers?
Message 14/26 03-Jun-97 @ 08:55 AM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
Not really....although one of the guys here has an ensonique...but we never use it.....they are supposed to be ok tho.....really there's not to much in it between all the samplers.....except emu's have the fattest sound in my opinion.....I should say maybe, that I do also have a K2000....yet never hardly use it for samples....I always use the emax1's as they have a very raw upfront sound...cant really explain it, the kurzwiel & also I've done direct comparisons with one other 16 bit sampler ...the S1000....somehow the emax 1's have a more upfront punchy sound....for some sounds this can be a disadvantage......but generally I like that sound....so it's personal I suppose...although in the s1000 case both I and the engineer agreed to go with the emax for that particular remix...They do have very high end outputs...remember the emax 1 & 2 were 3000 & 5000 (uk sterling) respectively when they were brand new....when high end converters were expensive....and high quality (18 bit outs on the emax2...and NOT shared on either)...now manufacturers can grab some generic 16 bit ada's for a few bucks from taiwan....so 16 bit doesn't necessarily equate with...."great sound"....
so I cant really say about ensonique....you'd best check em out....
so I cant really say about ensonique....you'd best check em out....
Message 15/26 03-Jun-97 @ 10:17 AM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
If a sampler doesn't offer internal resampling is their
much signal loss by resampling the output via the in?
Also, is midi sample dump the only practical method of
moving samples between PC and sampler. Could you give me
some idea how long it takes to transfer X KB via midi
sample dump?
In most of your responses you stress the number of outs, is
this because greater flexibility can be had in how you
treat those outs? E.g my quasar has a rather large flaw in
that if you choose to use the 4 mono outs on the back
the FX procs are disabled. This means everything must be
processed on the Quasar meaning EQ would have to be applied
to the whole out. BTW is it always possible to use a
stereo out as two mono outs by panning individual tracks
left and right - in which case I could have make it two
mono outs utilising the effects (although I wouldn't then
be able to use the 4 uneffected outs for other tracks!)
Cheers
much signal loss by resampling the output via the in?
Also, is midi sample dump the only practical method of
moving samples between PC and sampler. Could you give me
some idea how long it takes to transfer X KB via midi
sample dump?
In most of your responses you stress the number of outs, is
this because greater flexibility can be had in how you
treat those outs? E.g my quasar has a rather large flaw in
that if you choose to use the 4 mono outs on the back
the FX procs are disabled. This means everything must be
processed on the Quasar meaning EQ would have to be applied
to the whole out. BTW is it always possible to use a
stereo out as two mono outs by panning individual tracks
left and right - in which case I could have make it two
mono outs utilising the effects (although I wouldn't then
be able to use the 4 uneffected outs for other tracks!)
Cheers
Message 16/26 03-Jun-97 @ 01:56 PM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
Ahhh....but the Emax2 does do internal resampling,.......here's the press blurb from Emu:
Andrew Cross : (E-Mu) With the Emulator III, E-mu Systems established the professional standard in digital sound
reproduction. Now E-mu introduces the Emax II 16 Bit Digital Sound System, a new family of instruments and
peripherals that exploit our latest generation of custom VLSI technology to offer true Emulator III sound quality at a
substantially more modest price. Available in rack-mount or keyboard form, Emax II is both a professional 16-bit
sampler and a powerful synthesizer utilizing E-mu's Spectrum Interpolation Digital Synthesis.
At the heart of the Emax II is the same custom digital audio technology found in the E-mu Proteus, described by
Electronic Musician magazine as "the cleanest, clearest, quietest electronic instrument I've ever heard." The Emax II
is designed to reproduce sound with a dynamic range and lack of noise and distortion approaching the theoretical
limits of the 16 bit data format. Its proprietary pitch-shifting technique allows virtually distortion-free transposition of
samples and synthesized waveforms over a full ten octave range.
Emax II combines user sampling and the extraordinary realism of sampled sounds with the creative power of digital
synthesis. Spectrum Interpolation Digital Synthesis, first introduced in the Emax SE, is E-mu's user-friendly
implementation of additive synthesis. Spectrum Synthesis allows the creation of a virtually limitless variety of
dynamically evolving timbres, without the tedious and time-consuming programming usually associated with additive
synthesis. In the Emax II, Spectrum Synthesis has been enhanced to take full advantage of the 16 bit data format
and the Emax II's faster and more powerful central processor.
Designed specifically for the reproduction of true stereo samples, Emax II's 32 audio channels are configured as 16
stereo voices or 16 monophonic voices with true stereo chorusing. 32 custom digital lowpass filters provide
"analog-style" timbre control with the reliability and consistency of digital design. 18-bit DACs (Digital to Analog
Converters) for each of the Emax II's eight programmable polyphonic outputs (configured as 4 stereo pairs) provide the
user with increased dynamic range and a unique user adjustable headroom function to maximize dynamic range for
any application. In addition, integral sends and returns for each output allow the addition of external effects units
without the need for a separate mixer.
Emax II also offers true 16-bit DSP (Digital Signal Processing) functions including Digital Sample Rate Conversion,
Digital Pitch Conversion, and Transform Multiplication- a sample by sample processing of two digital sounds which
result in one new and unique sound. MIDI Analyzer allows you to view real-time MIDI information. Emax II also
provides a "scratchpad" multitimbral MIDI sequencer. With its Super Mode function, you can transfer compositions
from external sequencers directly to the Emax II, eliminating the need to carry a separate computer or dedicated
sequencer.
In keeping with E-mu Systems' position as the leader in sound library support, Emax II provides immediate access to
the industry's most extensive sampled sound library. In addition to being able to read and play all original Emax
sound disks (including Optical Media International's "Universe of Sounds" CD-ROMs), Emax II arrives with its own
large (and ever-growing) selection of 16 bit stereo and mono samples digitally transferred from the legendary Emulator
III sound library.
To support a wide range of applications and user requirements, Emax II offers a variety of system configuration and
expansion options. Its internal memory may be increased to a total of 8 megabytes and a very quiet and rugged
40MB internal hard disk drive is available for fast load times and convenient mass data storage.
For further flexibility, a SCSI (Small Computer Systems Interface) port offers additional storage and performance
capabilities. Macintosh compatible storage devices including the new 600-Mb Optical Re-Writeable drives as well as
E-mu's own RM45 (a rackmount 45 MB removable cartridge hard drive) and HD300 (300 MB rackmount hard drive)
allow extremely fast data transfer and convenient archival data storage. To take maximum advantage of its SCSI
capabilities, Emax II includes a powerful disk operating system that allows access to multiple drives and provides a
backup and restore function with user- configurable automated backup routines.
For the dedicated Emax II programer, Alchemy, by Blank Software and Sound Designer II, by Digidesign will offer
powerful, graphic editing programs for the Macintosh computer.
Standard version (rack or keyboard) has 1-Mb internal RAM. A "Turbo" version is available with 4-Mb of internal RAM
plus a 40-Mb internal hard disk drive.
resampling in-to-out will give slightly worse signal quality...but...that can only be done if the sampler will record & play simultaeneously...(rare)
Midi sample dump is real slow....i cant give you times I'm afraid,...but it's slow...I would suggest getting a zip drive with the emax 2 or whatever if it aint got internal HD....some emax2's have a 40mb internal...and you can still get internals for them...
Yes...I was stressing the creative possibilities of seperate channels for treating the sounds.....yes..it's normally the case , even with very expensive synths, that the sounds are FX treatable when in performance mode, orstereo out mode...but the unit would need 16 fx processors to add fx to sounds in multi-mode if you think about it......it's just so much quicker to tweak an eq on the mixer....also, certain fx etc can be created by using a mixer and outboard...like the infamous Prodigy rhythmic distortion sound etc...plus you can combine all the sources to create new wierd & wonderful stuff...but hey, in the end you can be creative with any kit....
Message 17/26 03-Jun-97 @ 02:06 PM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
oh yes....the sequencer in the emax is kak...forget it....er....also no timestretch...however...if you've heard timestretch on the s1000, then you know you aint missing much !!!.....the only thing is....you talk about transfering samples from the pc to the sampler...but I cant think of any samplers except those that read .wav files that yiou could store the samples on the pc....you can get a programme called re-sample pro...but it's an old 16 bit prigramme...I believe that there's a new 32 bit 95 compatible version on the way however...but this simply converts samples from one format to another...but you could use it to store stuff I suppose.....
Message 18/26 04-Jun-97 @ 11:16 AM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
Cheers for info - I'd found the same info off the Emax
homepage the other day - thought I follow up your
suggestion.
OK things are getting much clearer for me now. Homing in
on a few points you made about H/D recording. Basically
the master out of the mixer is connected to the PC card
(stereo in?) and you're recording yourself in the mix
tweaking EQ/FX as you see fit. Full duplex cards are designed
for this so no problem, yeh? Are you just recording it
as a new track within you midi/hd app? Then to listen
back, soloing this new track? Or are you using another
method to capture the mixer feed
In the case of recording an effected part from say a piece
of midi kit, you're recording that mixer out only (?) to
a new track, then able to free up that midi box/effect for
other uses. Then when you reply the sequencer the new
track (i.e. the old effected track) is fed through the mixer
for EQ'ing?
I am on the right lines now?
Any chance you could give me an example of a tune that
involved this type of scenario (recording module output thats
been effected?
Thanks again, appreciate it.
homepage the other day - thought I follow up your
suggestion.
OK things are getting much clearer for me now. Homing in
on a few points you made about H/D recording. Basically
the master out of the mixer is connected to the PC card
(stereo in?) and you're recording yourself in the mix
tweaking EQ/FX as you see fit. Full duplex cards are designed
for this so no problem, yeh? Are you just recording it
as a new track within you midi/hd app? Then to listen
back, soloing this new track? Or are you using another
method to capture the mixer feed
In the case of recording an effected part from say a piece
of midi kit, you're recording that mixer out only (?) to
a new track, then able to free up that midi box/effect for
other uses. Then when you reply the sequencer the new
track (i.e. the old effected track) is fed through the mixer
for EQ'ing?
I am on the right lines now?
Any chance you could give me an example of a tune that
involved this type of scenario (recording module output thats
been effected?
Thanks again, appreciate it.
Message 19/26 04-Jun-97 @ 01:57 PM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
YES....YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK....The sends from the mixer to the card can be from various sources....see the mixer section dude.
Message 20/26 24-Jun-97 @ 08:38 AM - RE: Hardware sampling dilemma!
Two points missing from this on-going dialog:
1. E-mu puts out some excellent cd-roms that I believe
can only be implemented by the newer higher-end units,
which are really quite amazing and well mapped(yes,
programming is fun, but it is nice to have things just
set up so you can concentrate on writing). This
and the honestly better filters to anything else
available led me to the purchase of my e6400 in spite
of seemingly better deals available.
2. Lo-fi is cool! 12-bit is cool! My S-330 sits next to
the E-mu because sometimes I just like it better(in
fact, ALOT of times I like it better, esp. on loops).
On the other hand, my AWE32 doesn't really do anything
in my kit, because soundcard AND hard-disk sampling
is a pain.
Hell, if you're not using digital audio, the Akai MPC's
are always a fun alternative to computer-based sequencing
systems. I know which one I'd rather have just in terms
of being a writer, the lack of features easily made up for
by the 'fun' factor of the Akai's. All said, I'd sell you
my e6400 for 1800 or 1900 quid, but only because I can get another
another one for cheap from a friend. I don't want to be a
salesman here, because price/performance-wise the EMAX II
really is better (I've seen them for around 500 quid
lately), but mine'll stay with you and hold that price
longer than anything otherwise.
1. E-mu puts out some excellent cd-roms that I believe
can only be implemented by the newer higher-end units,
which are really quite amazing and well mapped(yes,
programming is fun, but it is nice to have things just
set up so you can concentrate on writing). This
and the honestly better filters to anything else
available led me to the purchase of my e6400 in spite
of seemingly better deals available.
2. Lo-fi is cool! 12-bit is cool! My S-330 sits next to
the E-mu because sometimes I just like it better(in
fact, ALOT of times I like it better, esp. on loops).
On the other hand, my AWE32 doesn't really do anything
in my kit, because soundcard AND hard-disk sampling
is a pain.
Hell, if you're not using digital audio, the Akai MPC's
are always a fun alternative to computer-based sequencing
systems. I know which one I'd rather have just in terms
of being a writer, the lack of features easily made up for
by the 'fun' factor of the Akai's. All said, I'd sell you
my e6400 for 1800 or 1900 quid, but only because I can get another
another one for cheap from a friend. I don't want to be a
salesman here, because price/performance-wise the EMAX II
really is better (I've seen them for around 500 quid
lately), but mine'll stay with you and hold that price
longer than anything otherwise.
Pages: 1 2 3
There are 26 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
