So how do you use your sampler?

[MotorMind]

I use my sampler to scare my neighbor's cat.

[shamann]

I use my sampler to scare my neighbor's cat.

Audio clips?

[Marc JX8P]

I use Kontakt 2, mostly for libraries. I have started to make some instruments of my own for it though and got the excellent tutorial DVD so I may start to use it more as a synth. Even so, I tend to use lots of presets. I mostly shape the sound I want by combining instruments and layering them and such.

[beej]

Ok - 20% of people have voted that they are doing advanced sound design with their samplers - some details of the kind of things you guys are doing in terms of sound design would be much appreciated...

[shamann]

Doubt you'll have much luck. A lot of folk simply use the term "sound design" to describe "noodling about." It's one of those terms, like "producer" and "workflow," that folk use to make whatever routine tasks they're doing sound more grandiose.

[soniccouture]

Ok - 20% of people have voted that they are doing advanced sound design with their samplers - some details of the kind of things you guys are doing in terms of sound design would be much appreciated...

Beej -check our demos Here for the sound of Kontakt being pushed hard!

[uvacom]

I think the thing that draws me to samplers most is start- and loop-point manipulation, and generally making a lot of use of the loop tools that are available to samplers. Generally I use a sampler as a drum-machine or as a chromatic instrument, I don't usually use "loops" per se, although I like to chop a break as much as anybody.

I think essentially, a sampler is a tool to manipulate the playback of a digital recording - in application I like to use samplers to change the context of sounds. To me the challenge is always to take something familiar and make it sound fresh with the minimal amount of processing - it's easy to destroy sound if you destory it with 12 different processes in series. So when I manipulate a sample, I try to focus on one key thing and if I want to do more with it, I try to push that one technique a little further instead of just adding another filter or something. I chose "sound design", but I don't know if that really describes it - I also don't think what I do is "noodling", because I do put a lot of thought into it and I do take that kind of work seriously. But the "sound design" I do is pretty abstract and freeform, so I think it's fair to say that I'm not really doing what a "sound designer" does, because I don't premeditate and I'm not after a specific result (usually).

[uvacom]

Ok - 20% of people have voted that they are doing advanced sound design with their samplers - some details of the kind of things you guys are doing in terms of sound design would be much appreciated...

Specifically, here's one thing I like a lot - I like to use a sample with a lot of timbral movement, and apply a bidirectional loop, and then simultaneously modulate the loop start point (usually by a small to moderate amount) and the loop length (usually by a larger degree). That's relatively simple, I think to make a technique like that "advanced" you need to really fine-tune the parameters to squeeze every last drop of nuance out of the sound, and add some expressiveness (MIDI controllers, aftertouch, velocity sensitivity, etc.).

Oh, I use Shortcircuit btw - IMHO it is *the* tool for sample-based "sound design". Although I'd imagine a V-synth could probably do some pretty incredible things, too.

[Balthor]

Vienna is the only soundfont construction program that I've got to work.It's old and a lot of the MIDI stuff isn't functional.FL Studio's Direct Wave is good but it doesn't save as SF2.A SF2 soundfont can be constructed in your computer and then you could use it in your AKAI.Great VST synth sounds for stage use.With Receptor all of my ideas have changed.Play the synth live on stage and have all of the nuances that a soundfont wouldn't have.There is something to be said,though,for having a rock solid classic soundfont. Balthor.

[shamann]

So when I manipulate a sample, I try to focus on one key thing and if I want to do more with it, I try to push that one technique a little further instead of just adding another filter or something.

You have me intrigued with this. Any audio examples you could point us to, I'd love to hear how this works in practice. I might get a bit heavy-handed with the processing some times, would be good to hear something that reminded me not to.

Oh and noodling can be thoughtful. My big complaint about the term 'sound design' is that a lot of folk use it as shorthand, but then never explain what they mean by it.

[93143]

I am a low-end hobbyist who doesn't compose, so take this in that light.

I use "sound design" to describe what I do to obtain a variety of decent and useful sounds from one sample out of an old soundfont. I also call it sound design when I combine samples to get a sound I don't happen to have a sample of, or use a sample in a way it wasn't intended (pitch a crash cymbal down an octave and a half, it becomes a tam tam. E-MU's "meaty gizmo" filter can turn a 20th century Basun organ stop into a 17th century Posaune). I'm not sure what to call my usual mode of operation, which is mashing together soundfonts and such in Emulator X to get a degree of controllable realism the original can't touch. (Auto legato is useful sometimes if I can pull it off, but usually I use CC changes in the event editor.)

I don't usually use synth sounds - I prefer acoustic (or sometimes electric). Generating sounds that don't exist is to me less interesting than constructing a sound that resembles something real closely enough to pass as it in a mix.

[thecontrolcentre]

my music has been entirely composed from samples for about 10 years now ... if i need some variation from a sample i process then re-sample it ... or mebbe filter it in realtime, depending on what it is doing in the mix.
I used to do everything inside my Yamaha A3000 hardware sampler ... but these days i use Live 5, which is really just a big sophisticated sampler anyway , although it can also be used to playback VSTIs via midi.
I work like this cos i prefer to make decisions about audio early on in the writing process ... rather than constantly tweaking sounds. It helps me to keep focused on what's important in the tune i'm working on ...

i didn't vote cos my method of working aint represented, but i don't think the options are bullshit, there just aint enough ...

[uvacom]

So when I manipulate a sample, I try to focus on one key thing and if I want to do more with it, I try to push that one technique a little further instead of just adding another filter or something.

You have me intrigued with this. Any audio examples you could point us to, I'd love to hear how this works in practice. I might get a bit heavy-handed with the processing some times, would be good to hear something that reminded me not to.

Well, I'm working on a project called 'ato ate' where I basically take this approach and apply it to TR-808 samples. Every sound on the project (probably an EP) will originate from the TR-808, and I will use no post-processing, save for perhaps a little delicate EQ'ing and dynamics, but nothing complex or obvious. I've got one track about 66% done (composed), when that's complete I'll post it at the music café to see how interesting the concept is to people. I don't know if people will find it musically interesting or not, but I will say this - it is *not* what you expect out of an 808. I think it's the kind of thing where you'd never know it's all 808 until somebody tells you, and then you listen again and you can immediately spot exactly which sound each element originates from (like, "oh, that pad is the snare!" and "that arpeggio is the rimshot!"). Well, at least that's what I'm going for.

That could honestly be months before I complete the first track though because I have a bad tendancy to overextend myself, so tell you what - I'll whip up a simple 30 second snippet manipulating a single sample, probably a breakbeat. I'll post it late tonight.

I should add that it's not complex chains of processes I have a problem with, it's that I think a lot of people use that as a shortcut to interesting sounds, and the end result is a messy indifferentiable sonic soup. I think in general there's really an inverse relationship between complexity of technique and complexity of signal chain - the more complex the signal chain, the simpler each element should be. Actually, a lot of my feelings on the subject are really a form of self-discipline, because it's a trap I can easily fall into. So I catch myself - any time I want to add something to the chain, first I ask myself "Have I fully exploited what I already have?" and if the answer is "No" (and it always is), then I go back and I try to take it a little further. I find that more often than not, the result is more pleasing than if I had chosen to simply tack on an insert effect or something.

I guess my whole point is that it's best to know how to use a tool and exploit it to it's fullest, but never to rely on the tool. For me (and it may be different for others), the best way to ensure that I'm doing that is to keep the signal chain as simple as possible, so that I have to focus on what's already there.

[cron]

So when I manipulate a sample, I try to focus on one key thing and if I want to do more with it, I try to push that one technique a little further instead of just adding another filter or something.

You have me intrigued with this. Any audio examples you could point us to, I'd love to hear how this works in practice. I might get a bit heavy-handed with the processing some times, would be good to hear something that reminded me not to.

Well, I'm working on a project called 'ato ate' where I basically take this approach and apply it to TR-808 samples. Every sound on the project (probably an EP) will originate from the TR-808, and I will use no post-processing, save for perhaps a little delicate EQ'ing and dynamics, but nothing complex or obvious. I've got one track about 66% done (composed), when that's complete I'll post it at the music café to see how interesting the concept is to people. I don't know if people will find it musically interesting or not, but I will say this - it is *not* what you expect out of an 808. I think it's the kind of thing where you'd never know it's all 808 until somebody tells you, and then you listen again and you can immediately spot exactly which sound each element originates from (like, "oh, that pad is the snare!" and "that arpeggio is the rimshot!"). Well, at least that's what I'm going for.

That could honestly be months before I complete the first track though because I have a bad tendancy to overextend myself, so tell you what - I'll whip up a simple 30 second snippet manipulating a single sample, probably a breakbeat. I'll post it late tonight.

I should add that it's not complex chains of processes I have a problem with, it's that I think a lot of people use that as a shortcut to interesting sounds, and the end result is a messy indifferentiable sonic soup. I think in general there's really an inverse relationship between complexity of technique and complexity of signal chain - the more complex the signal chain, the simpler each element should be. Actually, a lot of my feelings on the subject are really a form of self-discipline, because it's a trap I can easily fall into. So I catch myself - any time I want to add something to the chain, first I ask myself "Have I fully exploited what I already have?" and if the answer is "No" (and it always is), then I go back and I try to take it a little further. I find that more often than not, the result is more pleasing than if I had chosen to simply tack on an insert effect or something.

I guess my whole point is that it's best to know how to use a tool and exploit it to it's fullest, but never to rely on the tool. For me (and it may be different for others), the best way to ensure that I'm doing that is to keep the signal chain as simple as possible, so that I have to focus on what's already there.

Excellent post.

I've rediscovered offline processing in a big way recently. Getting rid of the signal chain entirely has done wonders for my sound design (there's that phrase again). It did help me focus on the qualities of the sound I already had, and how to emphasise those qualities rather than smother them.

I think that using Audiomulch for a long time (which I still love, of course) made me rely on signal chains and effects far too much. I suspect that, like you, I didn't have the discipline to keep myself firmly in the driving seat.

[hollowsun]

I'll give you two minor examples of things I do with sampling:

I really liked both of them. My kind of 'music'.