|
|||
synthgeek wrote: 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
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 |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 11 Nov 2010 Member: #243347 | ||
|
|||
mrchr wrote: synthgeek wrote: 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
I understand, I'd prefer to call it "bounce to audio" too.., If I remember right, cakewalk called it like that? 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. 
mrchr wrote: Anyways... almost any audio editor has a resample function, i.e. soundforge:
http://perso.worldonline.fr/pio2001/Pictures/Resample.gif Yep, that's the process that I think of when I see the word "resample". mrchr wrote: You can blame ableton to put "Resampling" in the mixer audio from... =P
http://oi55.tinypic.com/p22ao.jpg Aha! 
 |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 17 May 2002 Member: #2797 Location: up on Cripple Creek (CO) | ||
|
|||
synthgeek wrote: mrchr wrote: Anyways... almost any audio editor has a resample function, i.e. soundforge:
http://perso.worldonline.fr/pio2001/Pictures/Resample.gif Yep, that's the process that I think of when I see the word "resample". 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! ---- James McFadyen Composer |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 20 Apr 2011 Member: #255084 | ||
|
|||
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. james_mcfadyen wrote: At college 
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. ----  |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 25 Jun 2004 Member: #30878 | ||
|
|||
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) |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 27 Nov 2011 Member: #269526 | ||
|
|||
james_mcfadyen wrote: 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! How dare a college try to keep up to date on the definitions being associated with terms. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 27 Sep 2010 Member: #240439 | ||
|
|||
padillac wrote: (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) 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. ---- |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 25 Jun 2004 Member: #30878 | ||
|
|||
highkoo wrote: padillac wrote: (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) 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. 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 |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 27 Nov 2011 Member: #269526 | ||
|
|||
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. ---- Smoke the pipe of peas, human beans! http://soundcloud.com/nix808 http://rekkerd.org/nix-plugs/ Phonics Audio |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 21 Jul 2006 Member: #113899 Location: Melbourne, Australia | ||
|
|||
padillac wrote: some processing can be done live, but not all. 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. ---- |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 25 Jun 2004 Member: #30878 | ||
|
|||
@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! |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 12 Mar 2012 Member: #276796 | ||
|
|||
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. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 09 Aug 2011 Member: #262305 | ||
|
|||
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=343654 Aciddose wrote: hm. oh well, techs use technical terms and people use... er, "people" terms, or shit terms if you're not trying to be polite, but that isn't really a "people" term for "people" terms now is it?
yes if you're sampling anything, it's called sampling. re-sampling is perfectly justified i guess once the thing has already been sampled. it's just that if you're going to ask about "what are the effects of resampling on a piano sound?" a technical person will think you're talking about going from one sample rate to another. if you're staying at the same sample rate you're just processing digital samples. so that would be "what are the effects of dsp on a sampled piano sound?". well, uh, they're dsp i guess. depends what you're doing to the samples. any interpolation or decimation process is technically re-sampling. so if your sampler uses interpolation (any, even nearest), boom, you're re-sampling in real time. recording the results and processing them, then re-sampling them AGAIN, sure. it has it's merits. would that be re-re-sampling? or re-re-re-re-re-sampling? i either stutter or shudder, i don't know. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Member: #50793 | ||
|
|||
padillac wrote: 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 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. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Member: #50793 | ||
|
|||
Syncretia wrote: 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.
Actually, it does matter, if you want people to be able to follow a conversation. See aciddose's post above. |
|||
| ^ | Joined: 17 May 2002 Member: #2797 Location: up on Cripple Creek (CO) |
| KVR Forum Index » Production Techniques | All times are GMT - 8 Hours |
|
Printable version |
Disclaimer: All communications made available as part of this forum and any opinions, advice, statements, views or other information expressed in this forum are solely provided by, and the responsibility of, the person posting such communication and not of kvraudio.com (unless kvraudio.com is specifically identified as the author of the communication).
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
