 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Samplers & sampling
Subject: hardware or software sampling!?
Original Message Date: 06-May-02 @ 12:18 AM - hardware or software sampling!?
in the discussion about soft vs hard everybody talks about how good/bad softsynths can emulate analogue synths. but what about sampling?? I actually feel more for hardware because i just like to push real little buttons and i find such a piece of equipment just cool so i am thinking buying a sampler as my first instrument(and probaly the only one cause i want to make samplebased funky house...). But now i am afraid that i'm going to waste a lot of many because you can do pretty much the same on a very simple pc... whats the opinion of experienced users of soft/hardware samplers?? thanks for the help!
Message 21/30 25-May-02 @ 11:56 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
Nah, the emulator soft looks really underwhelming. One filter?!
Message 22/30 26-May-02 @ 03:58 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
shame, software of some of that z-plane shit would murda, it'd even be great as a fx plug-in. c'mon emu, deliver the goods.
Message 23/30 26-May-02 @ 05:36 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
i think z-plane filters need a special type of chip to run. or so it says on the emu website. would be nice though.
Message 24/30 26-May-02 @ 06:53 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
they might in their smaplers and maybe saying so preserves a market for their hardware, but I'm not so sure that some clever soul couldn't code a variety of morphing filter algorithms that would work on AMD or Intel or Motorola processors. or maybe stick something on a card like those UAD things. they'd probably want used E5000 prices for one though.
Message 25/30 26-May-02 @ 08:14 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
There's a free z-plane emulation for reaktor. I dont use reaktor so no comment but it does seem possible.
Message 26/30 26-May-02 @ 08:15 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
The link got truncated.
http://www.dashsynthesis.com/index.php?category=&platform=Reaktor&order=name&ID=emuzplane#
http://www.dashsynthesis.com/index.php?category=&platform=Reaktor&order=name&ID=emuzplane#
Message 28/30 27-May-02 @ 05:14 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
Back to campati's question:
I'd say, you need to ask yourself a few questions first.
1. When you're on a PC, can you concentrate on doing one thing at a time, in detail, for hours on end? If you're easily distracted by, "oh... wait... let me go see if I can download an update... hey, wait, remember there's that other plug-in, now if I just twiddle with that for a sec..no..." and so on, go for an A3000 or A4000, they're dirt cheap right now and all you'd really need to get started.
2. Are you interested in making your own, original, interesting sounds, or in emulating the ultimate piano/guitar/woodwinds etc.? If the latter, get a PC -- you can have multi-samples that are gigabytes large, impossible on a hardware sample. If the former, either will do. You'll have more variety and flexibility on the PC, but you might find that overwhelming and frustrating at first, unless you're good at self discipline (cf. point 1.).
3. Patience issues: a) most hardware samplers have long load times. Not really a problem if you're not under pressure, but seriously a problem if you have to wait a half hour every time you turn on your sampler to load up and be ready to go, and you only have an hour to play with. b) PCs load fast, esp. if you're getting current-generation technology, but you'll have to spend some time making sure you get the right hw/OS setup, to minimize latency and maximize sound quality. Not a serious problem but make sure you're getting decent audio quality hw on your PC to complement any software you're thinking about. c) connections -- one of the most regularly frustrating things is getting stuff to and from hw sampler to PC. Think about whether you're going to want to do that, and how. It's real easy to do some ways, a total pain in the butt if you're trying to work with hw sampler and PC hooked together to transfer audio data. OTOH a PC running sequencer against a HW sampler is an extremely good combination, if set up correctly. If you're starting out, though, save the connectivity issues for later, they'll be another hurdle to overcome at some point.
Ultimately, I'd recommend starting out as simply as possible, so you have the chance to both feel and think your way to your own working style. Once you've had some time to understand what you really like doing, the way you like working most, you'll have a better sense as to whether the next step should be to go for all-out PC focus or all-out hw focus. Both get expensive quickly, if you're not careful; neither are really ultimately cheaper than the other, despite the apparent "it's only $399 of software" appeal of the PC.
Hope that helps, campati!
rt
I'd say, you need to ask yourself a few questions first.
1. When you're on a PC, can you concentrate on doing one thing at a time, in detail, for hours on end? If you're easily distracted by, "oh... wait... let me go see if I can download an update... hey, wait, remember there's that other plug-in, now if I just twiddle with that for a sec..no..." and so on, go for an A3000 or A4000, they're dirt cheap right now and all you'd really need to get started.
2. Are you interested in making your own, original, interesting sounds, or in emulating the ultimate piano/guitar/woodwinds etc.? If the latter, get a PC -- you can have multi-samples that are gigabytes large, impossible on a hardware sample. If the former, either will do. You'll have more variety and flexibility on the PC, but you might find that overwhelming and frustrating at first, unless you're good at self discipline (cf. point 1.).
3. Patience issues: a) most hardware samplers have long load times. Not really a problem if you're not under pressure, but seriously a problem if you have to wait a half hour every time you turn on your sampler to load up and be ready to go, and you only have an hour to play with. b) PCs load fast, esp. if you're getting current-generation technology, but you'll have to spend some time making sure you get the right hw/OS setup, to minimize latency and maximize sound quality. Not a serious problem but make sure you're getting decent audio quality hw on your PC to complement any software you're thinking about. c) connections -- one of the most regularly frustrating things is getting stuff to and from hw sampler to PC. Think about whether you're going to want to do that, and how. It's real easy to do some ways, a total pain in the butt if you're trying to work with hw sampler and PC hooked together to transfer audio data. OTOH a PC running sequencer against a HW sampler is an extremely good combination, if set up correctly. If you're starting out, though, save the connectivity issues for later, they'll be another hurdle to overcome at some point.
Ultimately, I'd recommend starting out as simply as possible, so you have the chance to both feel and think your way to your own working style. Once you've had some time to understand what you really like doing, the way you like working most, you'll have a better sense as to whether the next step should be to go for all-out PC focus or all-out hw focus. Both get expensive quickly, if you're not careful; neither are really ultimately cheaper than the other, despite the apparent "it's only $399 of software" appeal of the PC.
Hope that helps, campati!
rt
Message 29/30 27-May-02 @ 07:57 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
emu filters are based on the F chip developed way back in the EIII. There was a big article in Keyboard about the emu life line over the years. And how there founder was developing their own proprietary chips along the way. Maybe it's the G chip and the F is the next one they are working on. Can't remember. Great article though. I 'll find out what issue it was in. Remeber they are now Creative, so development has much more money behind it now and a sharing of technology.
Message 30/30 28-May-02 @ 02:36 PM - RE: hardware or software sampling!?
it's actually the H chip, developed for the emax II (which has one of these chips). the morpheus has 4! 
i'm guessing they have newer designs now.
there's nothing really special mathematically about z-plane synthesis, if you ever took DSP then you would see that z-plane conversion is a pretty standard way to talk about filters in a generic way... they just made the hardware to do it. i don't really like the sound of their filters, but one thing working in the z-plane does do is makes it very easy to have 'hybrid' filters (if filter X has one z configuration, and filter Y has a different z configuration, they are just numbers, so the hybrid is just somewhere in the middle, incidentally there are reports of some prototype morpheus-es around that had RAM for the filter definition area, and you could create your own... they took it out of the production version and made it rom because it was too easy to design filters that would physically damage your speakers!), and also morphing between filter types is also easy for the same reason.
i'm sure they did more than just implement the mathematics and put some effort into the sound too of course.
i'm guessing they have newer designs now.there's nothing really special mathematically about z-plane synthesis, if you ever took DSP then you would see that z-plane conversion is a pretty standard way to talk about filters in a generic way... they just made the hardware to do it. i don't really like the sound of their filters, but one thing working in the z-plane does do is makes it very easy to have 'hybrid' filters (if filter X has one z configuration, and filter Y has a different z configuration, they are just numbers, so the hybrid is just somewhere in the middle, incidentally there are reports of some prototype morpheus-es around that had RAM for the filter definition area, and you could create your own... they took it out of the production version and made it rom because it was too easy to design filters that would physically damage your speakers!), and also morphing between filter types is also easy for the same reason.
i'm sure they did more than just implement the mathematics and put some effort into the sound too of course.
Pages: 1 2 3
There are 30 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
