Except that Kontakt doesn't sample. It is a sample player.René wrote:It's all just playing with words.My sampler can apply ringmod, therefore it's a synth???
Synthesis
n. combining of separate elements into a complete whole; formation of a compound through the combination of simpler components.
That's kinda vague, isn't it? Therefore, there's the 'uses and customs, tradition, convention' of the language.
In this latter, if your sampler has ring modulation, then it's a synth. But I agree with what Tony stated previously: if NI would add ringmod or FM to Kontakt, it'd still be a sampler.
Sampling vs Synthesis - do i need synths?!
-
- KVRAF
- 26983 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
There you go, that's a difference: a synth makes new sounds by processing any given sound source, a sampler samples. The difference between a sample player and a synth is really just how you prefer to call it.pdxindy wrote:Except that Kontakt doesn't sample. It is a sample player.
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
you could say just as well that any sampler in vst form is not a sampler, since it only works on already sampled data. you could say the host doesnt sample, likewise. you could even say the audio driver doesnt sample because it only takes the already sampled data from the soundcard. ultimately, it doesnt matter and once again there is no valid distinction. the definition of a sampler is a system that takes audio data from somewhere and outputs modulated audio data somewhere else. i dont think it matters where the data comes from.. the .wav files or whatever format you use is the source material which the sampler samples.
if you wanted to make the definition of a sampler one which takes an analog signal and replays that signal with modulation, then you can classify your entire pc as a sampler while running sample recording and playback software. you could not classify the recording or playback softwares as samplers alone though, since they only are able to be classified as such when taken togeather with the hardware as a whole.
just face it. if you want to go as far as to define a sampler as something which takes an analog signal into digital form, applies modulation and then converts the signal back into analog form, you're stuck with dedicated hardware as the only systems possible to be classified as samplers!
if you wanted to make the definition of a sampler one which takes an analog signal and replays that signal with modulation, then you can classify your entire pc as a sampler while running sample recording and playback software. you could not classify the recording or playback softwares as samplers alone though, since they only are able to be classified as such when taken togeather with the hardware as a whole.
just face it. if you want to go as far as to define a sampler as something which takes an analog signal into digital form, applies modulation and then converts the signal back into analog form, you're stuck with dedicated hardware as the only systems possible to be classified as samplers!
Last edited by aciddose on Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 2988 posts since 11 Apr, 2001
That's also playing with words.
In english, "Sampler" can mean "Something that play samples" as much as it mean "Something that records samples" (or even "Something that shows samples", as in the 'product sampler' phrase).
Now about the habit, tradition and common use: Before y2k, a sampler was "Something that samples". Nowadays, a sampler is "Something which plays samples, with some sort of built-in user sample mapping functionality".
-René
In english, "Sampler" can mean "Something that play samples" as much as it mean "Something that records samples" (or even "Something that shows samples", as in the 'product sampler' phrase).
Now about the habit, tradition and common use: Before y2k, a sampler was "Something that samples". Nowadays, a sampler is "Something which plays samples, with some sort of built-in user sample mapping functionality".
-René
-
- KVRAF
- 12615 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
i'm not playing with words, i'm talking about the scope of different definitions. when you apply a stricter scope, you take away from the number of things you can classify into that scope.
it isnt logical to apply such strict conventions. if you do, you should just give up on software and start using dedicated hardware, because you'll never produce a software to meet such definition, it is impossible.
it is very simple in my opinion. if i ask for a balloon, and i get handed a blue one, i could say; "only red balloons are really balloons, this one isnt a balloon."
in that case, you could paint the blue balloon red to make it fit the classification, but it would in that case no longer be blue. blue balloons would no longer fit into scope and the idea that you can apply a strict scope to a broad range of things is rediculous and clearly illogical!
it isnt logical to apply such strict conventions. if you do, you should just give up on software and start using dedicated hardware, because you'll never produce a software to meet such definition, it is impossible.
it is very simple in my opinion. if i ask for a balloon, and i get handed a blue one, i could say; "only red balloons are really balloons, this one isnt a balloon."
in that case, you could paint the blue balloon red to make it fit the classification, but it would in that case no longer be blue. blue balloons would no longer fit into scope and the idea that you can apply a strict scope to a broad range of things is rediculous and clearly illogical!
Last edited by aciddose on Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
theyre both types of INSTRUMENT ... just use what works best for you ...
slainte
rob
slainte
rob-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1954 posts since 15 Nov, 2003 from London, UK
I did actually make a the decision top get reason, and i picked up a used 2.5 license for a very reasonable £70.lucille wrote:Quincy--
I think you were talking about getting Reason at one point. I ditched my vsts and
went "sample only" with Reason. There are a lot of great synth sample collections for
the NNXT sampler and redrum is an excellent drum sampler. Reason 3 has a decent fx, except for the delay--whicn can b e supplemented by some of the delay reverb patches.
I really like working with rex files in Dr Rex for beats.
Its a simple composition environment with super intuitive automation. There are limitations--its all about trade offs--Paul
I'm having LOADS of fun with it, it can do all the basic tasks needed for making tunes like synthesis, sampling, drums, fx etc, and the routing possibilities are just superb. There's been many rants about how you can do stuff like that with energyXT etc, but frankly thats a load of horseshit - reason is almost unique in its routing capability. Anyway thats another argument, and one i don't want to get into. I'm loving such ideas as having a delay send effect, where the delayed signal is then ran through an LFO modulated bandpass filter. Lots of fun
Oh and those matrix step sequencers are brilliant, having much experimentation routing loads of them into a redrum for really weird rhythms.I digress....Point is - i've found a perfectly capable closed environment(rock stable too), which i can be now focus on and learn to the best of my ability, and stop worrying about every new VST/i that gets announced on KVR.
Its quite a liberating feeling to be honest :8
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
it started as wether a sampler can be as good as synthesizing as a synthesizer, and now it's just pointlessly arguing on definitions..
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1954 posts since 15 Nov, 2003 from London, UK
Good point there tony, but quite often these discussions lead to people thinking about what could be done differently, so maybe something good can come from this sort of debatetony tony chopper wrote:it started as wether a sampler can be as good as synthesizing as a synthesizer, and now it's just pointlessly arguing on definitions..
-
- KVRAF
- 2988 posts since 11 Apr, 2001
Sorry, we crossposted. My answer wasn't for you, but to the previous post.i'm not playing with words, i'm talking about the scope of different definitions. when you apply a stricter scope, you take away from the number of things you can classify into that scope.
-René
-
- KVRist
- 252 posts since 6 Jun, 2002 from San Francisco, CA
good for you! i think you are going to have loads of fun. don't forget to post the results of your work on the music cafe board.quincy wrote: I did actually make a the decision top get reason, and i picked up a used 2.5 license for a very reasonable £70.
I'm having LOADS of fun with it, it can do all the basic tasks needed for making tunes like synthesis, sampling, drums, fx etc, and the routing possibilities are just superb.[...]
I digress....Point is - i've found a perfectly capable closed environment(rock stable too), which i can be now focus on and learn to the best of my ability, and stop worrying about every new VST/i that gets announced on KVR.
Its quite a liberating feeling to be honest :8
-jsd-
-
tony tony chopper tony tony chopper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=3103
- KVRAF
- 3561 posts since 20 Jun, 2002
the point was, a plugin is made with either sampler caps or synth caps in mind.
If some of you know a plugin that was made with both designs in mind (personally I don't), and is the best at both, then it's a 'synthler', and maybe it's a third category.
For the rest, a synth is the best at synthesizing, and a sampler is the best at sampling (or to play with words again, playing back samples).
If some of you know a plugin that was made with both designs in mind (personally I don't), and is the best at both, then it's a 'synthler', and maybe it's a third category.
For the rest, a synth is the best at synthesizing, and a sampler is the best at sampling (or to play with words again, playing back samples).
-
- KVRAF
- 26983 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
rounser wrote:Romplers. They're not synths.There are many sample-based synths whose oscillators come from samples,Generating the initial waveform is the synthesis, which is the oscillator's job. I don't think what you're describing constitutes synthesis (nothing is being synthesized, only effected).and most samplers use synthesis techniques (e.g. filters, modulation, etc) to achieve (synthesize) new sounds from existing samples.
AAS uses no samples or wavetables, so their synths are 'synths'.
Sure I could sample String Studio and play that in Kontakt, but it would not be the same. There is a subtlety and expressive character in the synth that you cannot capture by sampling.
I think it is pointless to say the sampler is superior because it can sample a synth and thus be both. Something is lost. Maybe you do not value that something, but someone else does. Same with sampling a violin. It does not equal a violin. Something is lost.
I like that String Studio does what it does, and is easy to grasp and edit and has a unique character. It is more like an instrument that way.
I have Kontakt, which I am liking more as I use it (though I wish it just did easy sample/resample without relying on the host and it doesn't drag and drop from the host). It is incredibly versatile for manipulating all types of sounds. I use it mostly for vocal mangling and the synths for synth type sounds. Kontakt has enough sound shaping tools that it really is a sampler(player) synth.
Someone else said the lines between them are blurred and I agree. IMO, the main difference is in focus and UI and what tasks are optimized for the user. Editing a synth patch in Kontakt while playing live is not fast and easy like a simple synth. One simple VA synth then has a value that Kontakt cannot match.