multisampling hardware synths question

[origami]

One thing I have more or less clear now. I'm not going to sample my Virus' sounds. thanks for all your ideas, folks.

[deleted]

DELETED

[Spaceman Sounds]

Ahhh the S950, I learn't to sample on an S900. They sound amazing, but not due to their high sample quality When you sample with an S950 you're hardly doing much editing to the raw waveform,i.e normalization, fx or anything that changes the raw data.

All I meant was that if you're going to be doing any type editing, 16bit recording won't give as good results as a 24 bit recoding.
If you under record at 16 bit by 6-12db and you're at about 12 bit... do the same at 24 bit and you're still at uber sample depth quality.

Also I have to say what you record into an S950 isn't what you hear when you play back. Admittedly it can actually sound better, but that's down to the lo fi of the sampler, I love my EIII keyboard when it actually works. I think it sounds great when sampling at 22khz, adds reall depth to a sound, but it's an effect.

When sampling libraries, you're looking to get the cleanest sound possible with no artifacts.

[Failed Muso]

Lovesign you seem to know a lot about the merits of prefering 16bits over 24bits for recording samples???

Yes, I do

I also think that it's very easy to hear soundsets that have been recorded using only 2 notes in an octave, some samplers resampling algo's are less than amazing and are noticable only 3 notes away from their root note.

Which is why I still use my Akai hardware.

Lovesign maybe you could amaze us with your sampling prowess before making fun at others observations.

You know, I was ready to sit down and type a lengthy, detailed reply but realised that I have been in this argument before, the old 16bit Vs 24Bit battle. Then I realised that it really has gotten boring now. Go ahead and sample in 24 bits. Pander to the spec wars that have been generated by "the next great software sampler" manufacturer.

16bit is perfectly adequate for sampling instruments. They quality is beyond the levels of which a human ear can distinguish anyway, and in isolation are just as worthy as anything higher. But how often do you use those samples in pure isolation and at such levels ? Once buried in a mix, your precious extra 8 bits are insignificant. Where I do understand the benefits of 24 bit is in the overall recording process, not sampling. 24bits gives, as you say, more headroom and makes the final dithering down to 16 bit much cleaner.

All my sampling is done in this way and I have material on commercial release, so they can't be that bad I just like to use efficient techniques that provide a less bloated library. Call me "old school", but it works for me (and many other pro library devs)

If you prefer 24bits, great, I am very happy for you but I'm not going to enter into another boring, pointless argument about bitrates.

You know, I was ready to sit down and type a lengthy, detailed reply....

Oops, guess I already did

[OMU]

Where I do understand the benefits of 24 bit is in the overall recording process, not sampling. 24bits gives, as you say, more headroom and makes the final dithering down to 16 bit much cleaner.

Interesting.
So sampling is not recording. But you sample the synth in 16bit then record it in 24, that's cool.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against sampling at 16bit, it's just an observation about your techniques.
Cheers.

[Failed Muso]

Where I do understand the benefits of 24 bit is in the overall recording process, not sampling. 24bits gives, as you say, more headroom and makes the final dithering down to 16 bit much cleaner.

Interesting.
So sampling is not recording. But you sample the synth in 16bit then record it in 24, that's cool.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against sampling at 16bit, it's just an observation about your techniques.
Cheers.

Maybe I didn't make it clear. I sample at 16Bit because there is nothing to be gained in my opinion by doing it any higher. Once the instrument is in the mix, any perceived benefits of a 24bit sample are lost. 16bit fidelity is more than adequate considering the usual source material and the final application of the sample.

But when recording to HD, such as live instruments into a DAW, 24bit gives you the headroom for the mixdown and final dither down to 16bit which is necessary for CD.

And there is the other point. Why record all your samples in 24bit when they all end up at 16bit on the final CD and the human ear can't hear much beyond that bitrate anyway (the actual figure eludes me right now) ?

Still, this argument has been had so many times and there is never a clear winner, so I'm not going to get embroiled in it again

[Jeremy_NSL]

Sampling at 24-bit only strikes me as useful if you:
1. process after sampling
2. have a very low volume source

If you have a high volume source and you aren't post-processing the samples, 16-bit should be more than enough resolution.

[Spaceman Sounds]

Maybe I forgot to mention that once edited, I usually bit rate convert them to 16 bit. My whole argument was for recording then editing in 24 bit. Not the audible diferences of recording at 16 or 24 bit. Editing on -32k to +32k resolution on 16 bit files is not really that much resolution. 24bit is some huge number, which is much forgiving when messing with the raw data files.

But the proof is in the pudding I suppose, I just managed to secure a deal with Zero-g for a new Kontakt 2 library so I must be doing something right as well

[Spaceman Sounds]

If say you're doing a multisample of say.. an MS-20. You can find the highest volume note on that preset and set it to as near to maximum i.e just under 0db for recording.

But towards the top of the range of the preset or bottom, some of the notes will hit much lower recording level, due to the nature of the sound. These sounds will not be being recorded at anywhere near 16 bit due to the headroom of the loudest sample. Which is why 24 bit is so important when sampling.