KVR :: Production Techniques » What is resampling? [View Original Topic]
There are 64 posts in this topic.

---

eliaxe - Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:00 am

---

Hey guys,
I've heard many people talking about resampling in their tracks...what does it really mean? does it have something to do with presets?

recently i saw a pic of an FL studio work (a track) and there was a comment "So much of resampling"
The track had so many samples..so i figured it had something to do wid applying effects to those samples or 'chopping up' those samples (it was a complextro)...
so wat xactly is it?

---

Acid Mitch - Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:04 am

---

It's when you sample something, make some changes and sample it again , hence the term "resample".
Putting "re" in front of something means doing it again.

---

james_mcfadyen - Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:09 am

---

It means to change the sample rate and frequency.

For example, resampling a 16-bit/44.1Khz drum loop to 8-bit/11Khz will give a degraded sound. It's an old-skool technique and is very effective.

---

eliaxe - Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:24 am

---

@Acid Mitch
What i wanted to know was what those changes ur actually referring to....coz recently i saw a pic of an FL studio work (a track) and there was a comment "So much of resampling"
The track had so many samples..so i figured it had something to do wid applying effects to those samples or 'chopping up' those samples (it was a complextro)...
so wat xactly is it?

---

JD Gaffe - Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:30 am

---

Huh? While I can see how one could get this from the term, I've never heard of such a technique called resampling.

Resampling is, for example, taking a sound from a synthesizer, bouncing(exporting it to a .wav) it out, and then putting that sound in a sampler, and further adding distortion, or whatever effects you want. This process is most often done in complextro, and dubstep.

Here's a link to a basic method of doing this:

http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread.php?threadid=518635

That's the DOA forum, which is known for its dubstep and drum n' bass community, so they're pretty familiar with the process.

---

mrchr - Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:59 am

---

There're several meanings of it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_(audio)


Eliaxe, who was the track you found that said "So much of resampling"?

---

Acid Mitch - Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:40 am

---

It could be anything.
Changing sample/bit rates, changing pitch, adding ditortion - filters or other effets , layering samples, chopping drum loops - moving the parts and "resampling" as a single file again, etc.

Resampling means sampling a sample, nothing more.

---

thecontrolcentre - Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:45 am

---

Say I sample a drum break, then compress it, add a little distortion/delay/whatever, then I sample the result of those changes ... that would be re-sampling.

---

Acid Mitch - Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:47 am

---

The Wiki thing shows different uses for it, not different meanings of it.
In each case your taking a sample, applying a change and sampling the result.

---

quayquay17 - Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:47 am

---

In complextro and dubstep it typically means (as previously mentioned) recording an instrument for a single note or chord, and bouncing to wav, then loading it in a sampler so you can play that one note in different pitches across the keyboard.

It can add a certain character to sounds which is sought after in hip-hop, dubstep, electro, and DnB

---

eliaxe - Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:29 am

---

@mrchr The track was Steve Aoki's Ladi Ladi (Charles Deluxe Remix)
Charles Deluxe is a really talented artist! check out his tracks..!


And thanku all for d response...nd others do share ur opinions here..

---

james_mcfadyen - Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:57 am

---

Really!? That is just (time-stretched) sampling.

Resampling, in the audio world, is changing or "resampling" the original bit depth and frequency.

As stated earlier re-sampling is sampling again - but this does NOT mean recording again, it means to sample (i.e. digital sampling in terms of bit rate and sampling frequency) using different sampling configurations.

resampling drums down to 8bit/22Khz is quite a good example of resampling.

There does seem to be a lot of confusion over this matter and I'm not sure why. Resampling should almost certainly mean to "record to a given audio signal in a different bit depth and sampling frequency".

If for example you take a recording of drums from a CD recording and sample them to standard 16bit/44.1Khz WAV - this is sampling. But if you chose to sample them at 8bit/22Khz - this is resampling.

---

JD Gaffe - Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:23 am

---

I understand what you're saying, but I've never seen it being defined that way in any audio community (and I probably spend more time reading about audio than actually making music). At least not in today's world, with the resampling technique being used all over EDM.

Also the effect you're describing is also what a bitcrusher does, and that's generally the effect/term used when needing to do such a thing.

---

mrchr - Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:07 am

---

What a coincidence, I'm Charles Deluxe (mrchr = Mr Charles) Thanks for your compliment!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resampling_%28audio%29

(Don't forget to copy the link with the _(Audio))

3 Uses for the word...
When you read "so much resampling" in my track.., they're talking about the "mixing" usage of the word, that you can read in that wiki...
They say that because they see a lot of audio clips, not midi... so they suppose that I "render to audio" (resample) my midi parts to use them as audio, which is true.

The sample rate / bit depth conversion usage... is more technical.....
If you ask an audio engineer/dsp engineer they'll probably say resampling is sample rate / bit depth conversion....... (I've read this one several times over years in forums and technical papers)

If you ask a producer, they'll probably say its just rendering to audio...
It depends on the context...

Regards!

---

synthgeek - Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:54 am

---

I gotta admit, this usage of the word kinda bothers me, if there was no sampler used initially. If you're just bouncing down synth parts, whether you intend to use that audio in a sampler or not, how can you "resample" something that was never sampled in the first place?

I'm coming to realize this is like the kids nowadays calling every piece of music a "beat" though... wrong or not, maybe I'd better just get used to it. In any case, for the sake of having a conveniently-short phrase, I do think the way thecontrolcentre said it ("re-sample", with a hyphen) seems more "proper", as it creates more of a distinction between that and the more technical usage. But then, notice he was talking about working with a sample in the first place too.

---

mrchr - Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:19 am

---

I understand, I'd prefer to call it "bounce to audio" too.., If I remember right, cakewalk called it like that?

Anyways... almost any audio editor has a resample function, i.e. soundforge:
http://perso.worldonline.fr/pio2001/Pictures/Resample.gif

You can blame ableton to put "Resampling" in the mixer audio from... =P
http://oi55.tinypic.com/p22ao.jpg

---

synthgeek - Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:03 am

---

Bounce, render, sample (for the first time around), whatever... it's just the "re" that bothers me here, as it implies something being done again. Not like I'm losing sleep over it or anything, just one of those things.

I think I may have also confused my point when I mentioned the hyphen thing. When working with samples, the term "resampling" does work imo, I just think adding the hyphen also adds clarity.

Yeah, I'm a nerd.



Yep, that's the process that I think of when I see the word "resample".



Aha!

---

james_mcfadyen - Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:52 am

---

Exactly!!

I think some people are getting confused with this term for some reason. I really want to know why this confusion has arisen because it is completely fabricated, probably by hear-say.

At college (a good one anyway!) people will always learn that resampling is to do with changing bit depth and sampling frequencies rather than sampling with samplers. I wouldn't trust a college or tutor who thinks otherwise!

---

highkoo - Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:19 am

---

Woah, I thought this was another thread about 'resampling'.
There has apparently been a "redefining" of the term recently.
In the other one it was aciddose that brought up the 'old' term.


From my pov, you older guys can blame Noisia for screwing the term up and making it popular. Not that they dont know what they are doing, but many of their fans dont.
This video is at least half responsible for the popularity of the term 'resampling' in the last years;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwjO1c8TfhE
The backlinks to that vid are prolly outrageous. And every page has the word 'resampling' on it. Half the posters dont have mics, etc.

So this new thing is basically bouncing. But, the idea is that there should be stuff happening 'offline' after the bounce, before re-importing. In analog days this actually made sense. Nowadays with all our processing power, 9/10 times it amounts to literally nothing more than bouncing for no reason.

---

padillac - Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:12 pm

---

Not sure what the confusion is. You bounce a synth to audio. Now you have a sample. Mess with it, bounce again, and you have a new sample.

resampling (in this context) = taking a sample and generating new samples from it

an audio file that comes from bouncing a synth is a sample just like a snippet from a song or recorded on a tape recorded.

(I understand that the confusion arises from existing meaning of "resampling". but to argue that it doesn't make sense for this sort of processing…doesn't make sense to me)

---

JD Gaffe - Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:21 pm

---

How dare a college try to keep up to date on the definitions being associated with terms.

---

highkoo - Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:54 am

---

That argument is because now it is most often all processing that is 'ITB', or more precisely, its processing that could be done without the bounce, 'live'.
So, its a totally pointless thing.

---

padillac - Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:06 am

---

some processing can be done live, but not all. A basic example is to take a long sample, cut parts of it up and rearrange them, reverse some bits, time stretch others, that sort of thing. With a granular synth and some clever modulation you can get the same thing but why not just do it in the daw in a few seconds? If you're just throwing a few effects on the end it doesn't matter (unless you need to bounce to save processing power), but bouncing definitely lets you do some forms of processing that you can't feasibly do live.

Also this discussion is really getting on my nerves because I've always understood bouncing to mean this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H3Ko1WyxxI

---

nix808 - Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:09 am

---

Just to add another definition in this murky kettle-
u have resampling to a different length--
like resampling 2 secs to 4 secs using interpolation.
It's another valid definition of resampling.

---

highkoo - Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:13 am

---

Yeah, absolutely.
Thing is a whole lot of the people talking about 'resampling' these days do not even know the difference, and are not doing things that require bouncing. In my observations anyway.

---

eliaxe - Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:00 am

---

@mrchr WOW MAN!!! WHAT A COINCIDENCE!! I'm so excited!! Charles Deluxe!
And Aoki shud have chosen ur track for the comp, man! it was THE best..

Thanx for replying..well i think i've got THE answer(the one which i was looking for) from the guy himself!! appreciate it! well to all the others, i really respect u for sharing ur valuable opinion..yup, nd i understand that resampling has a wider meaning..these discussions have conveyed a lot of things I didn know before...so thank u all

Thank you

And once again @mrchr..MAN u rock!! ur tracks r so good! Keep it up!

---

Syncretia - Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:55 am

---

Really, it doesn't matter about the definition of "resampling". In it's widest sense, it just means taking something that has been recorded and doing something to it. Mr Bill has some great tuts on how to resample stuff and then mess with it. You can probably do this in any DAW but it's super easy in Ableton:

This one is on resampling your master track. This video made so many things click for me. It explains how you can take an existing track, and completely glitch it up:
http://vimeo.com/23939493?width=920&height=600

Here's a vid on taking a drum loop and slicing it up to make it sound different:
http://vimeo.com/23940391?width=920&height=600

The point is you can endless mess with a sound by sampling some track, or collection of tracks.

---

aciddose - Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:15 am

---

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=343654

---

aciddose - Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:22 am

---

actually that's called copying.

sampling is when you convert from a continuous ("analog") signal to a discrete ("sampled") signal. "re-sampling" is when you convert a discrete signal to a continuous one, then convert it back to a discrete signal again. usually the sampling rate or some other property (phase, whatever) is different in the new discrete format.

---

synthgeek - Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:18 am

---

Actually, it does matter, if you want people to be able to follow a conversation. See aciddose's post above.

---

yeshua_batholiths - Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:41 pm

---

A lot of the responses have been really good, if you need a quick look at a walk-through, you can check out this video I made. I produce and work in Ableton, but the concept is pretty much the same for any DAW software.

http://www.intergalacterrorist.com/2012/03/ableton-live-resampling-101.html

cheers!
¥

---

james_mcfadyen - Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:46 am

---

No. I believe that is an uneducated answer. Sorry to be blunt but anybody who has formal training in audio production would never define resampling as you have so given it.

I don't mean people who are not educated are any lesser - far from it!! - BUT, resampling is a VERY well understood concept by those in the know. I don't understand why the debate!!

I do agree, however, if people insist on making a new definition for resampling, that they hypenate it to read re-sampling.

Let me say once again -- I don't mean people who are not educated are any lesser. Let me be very clear on that fact.

---

james_mcfadyen - Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:47 am

---

...

---

cron - Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:02 am

---

The meaning of words changes over time, and plenty of words have dual meaning. Welcome to English.

When a hip-hop artist talks about sampling, nobody thinks for a second that they're merely talking about capturing an analog signal in the digital domain. Heck, plenty of VSTi instruments classed as samplers can't even record, yet we still call them samplers because they're suited to working with and manipulating sampled material. Nobody has stopped calling them samplers because they no longer have the functionality to capture an analog signal. Same with an EDM producers talking about resampling. It makes perfect sense when you consider how the meaning of the word sampling has broadened over the years.

When talking about changing sample rates, I've noticed that many producers say downsample or upsample, depending on which direction they're going. You can see why they do this when the meaning of the word sample and its derivatives are changing. We see this kind of 'transposition' in language all the time.

I really don't see a problem with people using terms like this. The meaning is always obvious from the context.

---

aciddose - Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:22 am

---

i think we're wasting our time.

---

seismic1 - Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:09 pm

---

In signal processing terminology (specifically Seismic Data Processing) resampling refers to an increase in the sampling rate (in either the time or spacial offset domain), from, say 4 ms to 2ms, or from 50m to 25 m. Conversely, desampling results in a decrease of the time domain or spacial domain sample rate.

---

highkoo - Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:18 pm

---

wtf?
AD, is this guy wasting his time?

---

aciddose - Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:24 pm

---

when you get to the point where you have to back off from a foamy mouthed horde and try to excuse yourself by saying something like "not that i think the stupid are any less intelligent, but..." it means you've wasted your time.

it's true through what has been said about semantics. language evolves over time.

the language of the stupid evolves stupidly.

eventually we'll see a widening gap between english and the new "markkan" language. in this language everything will mean everything. the most common word will be "ugh", although you'll also often see occurrences of "meh" and "lol".

if their language enabled them to do so, they would argue that this is not stupid but is in fact evolution toward a more efficient means of communication. considering the fact that the thoughts they wish to communicate are exactly equal to the various grunts they're capable of producing in their common tongue, i would be a fool to argue against it.

---

highkoo - Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:20 pm

---

AD, please please, please tell me you have seen Idiocracy?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

They foresee the same thing happening to language, along with everything else.
(Although your last paragraph is the important part. That never gets brought up. Thats why I dont text. And I let my posts get as long as I want. There is a feedback loop into the thought process. No one even notices.)

Now, to many seasoned members of the forum it may seem near insane to recommend that movie to you.
You would no doubt have various worthwhile and legitimate critiques. Its not the best film ever made. But I guarantee you get at least one laugh out of it. It might be a short, thin, half sigh, kind of 'fukk this world' kind of laugh, but a good one.

This is a diagnosis from a Doctor in the film, pictured:



Shit, I cant tell if the pic will make you more or less likely to check it out.

---

aciddose - Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:28 pm

---

you know where frito says: "Huhh! Yeah, suck one. Time machine costs, like, 20."

or the laugh butthead does regularly. huhhuhuh.

of course these are both created by the same guy.

---

quayquay17 - Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:29 pm

---

I'm glad everyone has their own definition of the word. What OP was asking is what do stupid uneducated subspecies such as EDM producers mean when they say resample, and in that case, it means bouncing to audio to reapply effects, slice, and rearrange.

There really isn't much need to go further in this case!

---

cron - Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:02 pm

---

From what I can gather about the film's message from a quick bit of reading, the format in which that picture/quote is presented takes facepalm irony to new heights.

The film looks like it'll be a good watch though!

---

seismic1 - Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:49 pm

---

Is desampling a waste of time, or merely cost-effective?

---

highkoo - Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:28 pm

---

Oh theres a little Frito in all of us-
"Yeah.., I like money though!"


Sorry seismic, I was just messing with you because you happened to be the guy that posted. Well, and cuz your post seemed informed.
Measuring earthquake data does seem a little dubious to me though because I think we cause half of them now.



Theres that fag talk we talked about.
j/k!

Uh, apparently the whole works is on the Yoot in full quality?-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMkrJOOTjj4&feature=related


Camacho 2012!!!

---

aciddose - Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:59 pm

---

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho?



the only thing with the movie is it's sad how depressing it is if you can realize it's all just a very accurate portrait of the way some people (the same people capable of this revelation) see the world as it is now. ...and always has been and likely always will be.

well you have two choices. you can either laugh it off or go on a killing spree.

---

mystran - Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:04 pm

---

I guess the confusion with the term "resampling" comes really from the confusion with the term "sampling". In technical language, "sampling" means taking (eg recording or calculating) samples of some continuous signal (eg audio, image, whatever) in order to create a discrete representation of finite data-points. If the original signal was band-limited (as per Nyquist-Shannon), we can then reconstruct the original signal from the samples (exactly, in theory anyway).

With the above "definition" of sampling, resampling then simply refers to (at least conceptually) reconstructing the continuous signal and sampling it again (possibly some additional band-limiting filters in between).

However, for whatever ignorant reasons musicians and/or audio engineers of the past decided to start calling the complete collections data-points (ie "sampled signals") simply "samples" which leads to the present ambiguity: is "sample" a single recorded value, or a collection of such values that represents a complete signal? From the latter definition of the word we then get the process of "sampling" which I guess roughly means "doing stuff with the samples" which logically leads to a definition of "resampling" as "doing stuff with the samples multiple times".

Anyway, stop calling you .wav files and whatever samples. That's incorrect, because the file REALLY contains a complete signal, composed of a reasonably large number of individual samples. Isn't that obvious, no?

---

Sendy - Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:16 pm

---

Yeah bro, it means dey take da sh*t, an' they do sh*t to it. If it sounds kinda gay after dat sh*t, dey keep doing diff'rent sh*t, till tha gaynezz goez aways, aiight? ...but if that sh*t's sick, they be sample'n all up in that b*tch to use on 'dere beat an' sh*zzle!

(Sorry, I just watched the mentioned film out of curiosity )

---

quayquay17 - Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:19 pm

---

Yes and guitarists are all idiots because they say "Amp" although amplification is only a portion of what modern guitar amplification, coloration, and and frequency calibration units do. Yet since a musician does not need to be a technician in order to make meaningful music, we refer to them as amps.



Who cares what it's called at all? all names are for is to convey meaning to another person. If the relevant people know what someone means by resampling, then it's working! Obviously OP was confused, but that was cleared up 3 pages ago.

---

aciddose - Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:46 pm

---

perfectly reasonable. although it's also reasonable to apply context to understand the complete meaning. as a technical term "sample" means a discrete data point. although it isn't entirely incorrect to use "sample" to refer to an array of samples either. if you've sampled the same signal at different times, each "sample" in the array can be thought of as a single point in a vector, sample[t] of course. so that's not totally off base.

it also isn't wrong to refer to a sampled signal as "samples" in the plural.

so either way it's fine.

no matter what you do here, while i agree it's potentially one of the sources of confusion, i don't agree that it wo9uld inherently change the definition of "sampling" or "re-sampling" if it were used in that way. just because you end up with a sample with a time axis when you do any "sampling", it doesn't mean that "re-sampling" suddenly doesn't involve actually sampling anything just because you're prefixed it with "re-".

it's simply impossible to sample anything without having a continuous signal to sample from.

what causes the definition of "sample" to change is called "ignorance".

---

aciddose - Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:54 pm

---

all depends upon the context. using the term "amp" can be equally as ambiguous as "sample" or "re-sampling". when we're talking about a tremolo chorus, we don't go and call that an amp. it's a part of some amps and was labelled "chorus" even though it was actually a tremolo. so what we'd say instead is "tremolo chorus from an amp" or something to be really clear on what we're referring to.

same thing with sampling. if you start calling what you do "re-sampling" instead of "processing and building up layered samples" you're adding layer upon layer of ambiguity.

we already have the issue of "samples" referring to a sampled signal, which is sort of acceptable given that we assume it refers to sample[t], which is a vector and not just a scalar. we can also use it to refer to multidimensional vectors including velocity, accenting and various other properties. sometimes also referred to as a "wave-table" although that isn't really much more clear.

when we start to take that already layered definition, throw out the context and tack on another layer of "processing and layering existing signals to produce the result" it gets really confusing.

you could invent another new term for this... like, erm... globbing.

that would actually just be recycling of an extinct unix term. replaced by regex, so glob is probably (or globurly) available to be used some other place.

---

mystran - Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:57 pm

---

Empirical observations largely support this claim.

---

LBN - Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:57 pm

---

"Tell me some more about your excessive need for order..."

---

mystran - Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:43 pm

---

fnord.

---

james_mcfadyen - Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:19 am

---

[quote="Sendy"]

Agreed, but what these uneducated producers call resampling, is just "Sampling". Sampling is all about processing and manipulating. Why assign a term resampling? That just seems to highlight they don't know anything about the art of sampling, and indeed digital audio.

---

aciddose - Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:27 am

---

we've already talked about this though. now we have to come up with a theory about why they've misconstrued the meaning of the term sample that has something to do with their mothers.

in fact sampling is an entire musical genre with a great many totally awesome tracks in it. you use nothing but a sampler. you don't even play notes, you just chop shit up.

of course for years this was considered a "not a genre but quite simply pure crap" genre and perhaps still is. it has it's gems though.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec98/articles/creatsamp.318.htm

---

james_mcfadyen - Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:05 am

---

I think it's just a case of people don't know what they don't know. Happens in all walks of life.

No shame in ignorance, but if people just don't know, they will adapt and make their own means.

However what I cannot stand, is when ignorant people (not ignorant to other peoples opinion, but educationally ignorant) trying to justify their means for the reasoning, unknown to them that they reasoning is fabricated from ignorance itself.

And so it continues. But let's not be fooled, we are all ignorant in some ways - that is why we learn.

Education is key here - or at least a certain level of self-learning based on truth.

---

seismic1 - Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:01 pm

---

Don't worry, I'd figured that out on my lonesome



I got away with that one



Oil exploration is probably the main application of these techniques.



I still have some tcsh scripts kicking about which contain strategically placed set/unset noglob statements.

---

aciddose - Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:08 pm

---

actually i think perl and other languages have a glob function which is actually used fairly often.

reasonably though... i'm not entirely sure. it might be reasonable to use the term. or "layers" or something at least. if you say "i globbed a trumpet on a rhodes and added a phaser" i hope only the real neck-beards will be picturing the string "trumpet * rhodes phaser"

---

mystran - Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:36 pm

---

I've mostly seen "glob" used a synonym for the "wildcard" syntax that shells accept (and that's pretty much what the Perl glob does too), but most importantly it's not really interchangeable with "regex", because regex is short for regular expression, which can be used to express regular grammars, which in turn have the computational power of finite-state automata.

Globs are much more limited; eg using the usual syntax, /ab+c/ is a simple regular expression that matches any string consisting of "a" followed by one or more "b" characters, followed by a "c". There's no way to do this in any normal glob-syntax though, because we don't have the Kleene star for repetition. Likewise /(foo)|(bar)/ would match either "foo" or "bar" but you can't really do this in globs either, because while you can (usually) pick one from a set of characters, you can't group characters into words and pick one of the complete words.

Hence, globs are useful for stuff where you want to pick all the files with the word "error" and ending ".log" (eg "*error*.log"), but there's plenty of useful stuff that's just impossible (which is why "find .|grep 'whatever'|xargs barf" isn't exactly uncommon in shell-scripts).

Now, modern Unix "regular expressions" like those accepted by PCRE or whatever are not actually "regular expression" because they typically have extensions that cannot be implemented as FSM but the point is: when the term "regex" is used you generally expect AT LEAST the expressive power of formal regular expressions.

Anyway, if you really want to hi-jack the "glob" term, go ahead, but for the classic meaning "wildcard" is much better substitute than "regex"

---

aciddose - Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:17 pm

---

yeah i was going to mention that. what i meant though was that you can replace globs with a regex.. i should have been clearer. anything a glob can do can be done via regex.. wildcard is probably a good replacement term and i've only ever seen glob commonly used by the older unix users.

there must be a similar term these new-age retro samplists can use though. samplism? it's like a prism for samples.

a goopey? i gooped up some vocals with a banjo and mic'd that going through my tremolo chorus amp, yo dawg i heard you like banjo on your banjo so i played back your banjo on a banjo, mic'd it and used that as a convolution impulse for your banjo.

---

ga3music - Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:41 pm

---

thank you! it helps me alot

---

highkoo - Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:14 pm

---

oh, thats a schpangle.
past tense is 'i schpanged the shit out of some xyz...'

---

highkoo - Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:06 pm

---

http://www.pensadosplace.tv/2012/03/26/episode-60-bob-horn/

Bob Horn uses the phrase 'resampled so many times'.

---

aciddose - Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:31 pm

---

i'm sure even i would end up using the term now and then. doesn't make it right.

that's another reason such harsh opposition exists: once such a term becomes a part of common language it takes on a sort of viral nature.

---

There are 64 posts in this topic.