Bitwig's Sampler should be the developer's highest priority

[sombunall]

I hear you conmach but I also think there are a few arguments in favor of great native instruments (and especially a sampler) over plugins:

Workflow
- No need to lose the flow jumping to additional messy windows for plugins with completely different interface philosophies.
- No need to spend a bunch of time drilling through parameter lists for modulation etc.
- Way more likely to smoothly integrate with controller scripts, possibly even with visual feedback on devices like Push 2.

Linux - there are a lot fewer choices for plugins, especially samplers. Other than Redux I don't known of a quality sampler for Linux that beats Bigwig's (c'mon u-he!).

Resources and stability - my experience has been that native instruments tend to be more stable and use less CPU. My educated guess is that they can leverage aspects of the DAW in ways that plugins can't.

Touchscreen Support - I am not aware of any sampler plugins that have well thought-out touch support, which dovetails with my thoughts about "losing the flow" above.

Just a few thoughts to show that it is not JUST about being cheap.

[pdxindy]

Love Bitwig, never used the sampler (have Halion, Kontakt etc) I see people asking for features in a sampler that are easily achieved in the audio editor; make your loop, cross fade etc then drag in to sampler if you want to play it chromatically.

Personally I also prefer to see DAW features developed before rack instruments (where the are alternatives) and I also agree that opening up the modular system would give rise to many many more instruments and improvements from the user community and 3rd party developers, so that will probably be the biggest gear change for Bitwig (like app,e opening the App Store!)

I very much want to see the core DAW developed... I have enough synths, FX, arpeggiators, sequencers, etc. I have no need for any other tools.

I'm also in no hurry to see the modular environment opened up. I would rather Bitwig make sure it is really right because once it is opened up and there starts to be lots of devices, it gets harder to change anything.

I would like to see some more modulators. For example, a midi curve modulator... so I can adjust the curve of any midi data like velocity etc. Another would be a true random modulator.

I also think the modulators can be simplified some. 3 LFO's is confusing. I always forget which one does what I want.

[connmach]

but the whole point of Bitwig’s modular approach is to combine multiple micro devices into complex matrices of creamy goodness.

Nah,
there is no modular approach. If lining up audio, synth's, fx and modulated automation in tracks is modular, every DAW has a modular approach.
The whole point of Bitwig is how it presents its tools and places itself in the workflow of a creative, musical soul. (wow that is poetic )

And modular is not -@*magic*@- ( just fun, but, compared to the results I hear, VERY expensive... and clumsy )


__edit: typo's

[connmach]

I hear you conmach but I also think there are a few arguments in favor of great native instruments (and especially a sampler) over plugins:

Workflow
- No need to lose the flow jumping to additional messy windows for plugins with completely different interface philosophies.

that is subjective, I like different philosophies and don't think they are messy. I like choice.

- No need to spend a bunch of time drilling through parameter lists for modulation etc.

just click on what you want to automate and it is on top of the list (as with the native ones).

- Way more likely to smoothly integrate with controller scripts, possibly even with visual feedback on devices like Push 2.

haven't seen big differences in use there, but i don't have a Push 2.

Linux - there are a lot fewer choices for plugins, especially samplers. Other than Redux I don't known of a quality sampler for Linux that beats Bigwig's (c'mon u-he!).

one of my reasons not to use Bitwig on one of my Linux boxes.

Resources and stability - my experience has been that native instruments tend to be more stable and use less CPU. My educated guess is that they can leverage aspects of the DAW in ways that plugins can't.

I have no resources or stability problems, native or alien

Touchscreen Support - I am not aware of any sampler plugins that have well thought-out touch support, which dovetails with my thoughts about "losing the flow" above.

wouldn't know, not a touch person, as is the majority, (my educated guess).

Just a few thoughts to show that it is not JUST about being cheap.

I apologize, that was a bit uncalled for.

[pdxindy]

I hear you conmach but I also think there are a few arguments in favor of great native instruments (and especially a sampler) over plugins:

You make some decent points...

I would be very happy if Bitwig included a set of world class instruments such that I needed nothing else. The thing is, the plugins I like to use are just so much better. It aint gonna happen anytime soon, maybe never that Bitwig will be able to make some instruments with the character and sound quality that can replace what I like to use.

So while you are pointing out some workflow advantages to native devices, those are not the things that define my choices... sound quality, sonic flexibility and character do.

When I think of the things I most want in Bitwig... For example, I would love to have the modulators that can be per voice, work for VST's too (ones that support MPE). That adds functionality to the plugins that I am going to be using regardless of what Bitwig does with their own devices.

I'm sure Bitwig will continue to develop their sampler... I don't think anyone is against that as such, they just have different priorities of what they want done.

[sombunall]

Thanks conmach for your last point, that is all I was getting at. There are some good reasons, for some users, to have quality built-in instruments. I get that most of those points don't apply to you and many other users.

I actually agree with your premise that the sampler should not be the highest priority. I also agree that it is not really productive to have a bunch of one-off threads where users state their #1 priorities in all caps. I have seen this go more smoothly with some other developers when they let the users vote on their priorities. That way everyone gets a say and can see what everyone else voted for, and they have a sense of what the user base wants (which hopefully provides a small window into what the developers will focus on).

My take is that the time stretch algorithm should be the highest priority because it appears to be the main deficiency compared to Ableton, Bitwig's primary competitor. I have gone back and forth so many times about whether to pay the upgrade fee for Bitwig or switch to Ableton for that reason alone.

There is a whole (not insignificant) group of people that use Ableton primarily for DJing, not production, and quality time stretching is absolutely essential for that group. Hell, with proper time stretch Bitwig could even compete to some degree with the Traktors, Seratos, and Rekordboxes of the world.

So putting myself in Bitwig's shoes from a *business* perspective, I would focus on the time stretch algorithm first, beat the competition, and the leave them in the dust with full modularity etc.

[sombunall]

pdxindy if we focused on the sampler only, though, would it soften your position a bit? Since sampling is so heavily dependent on the source material/samples, are there really a lot of samplers out there that have way better sound quality and character than a native sampler? If Bitwig's sampler had 90% of the feature set of other samplers, would you still grab those other samplers instead?

In Bitwig and Ableton the sampler is important to me workflow-wise because it is integrated into other aspects of the DAW.

If I drag a sample onto a drum machine pad it is loaded into Bitwig's sampler, not Kontakt etc. If I want to finely manipulate the sound in ways that Bitwig's sampler is not capable of I have to remove the sampler, add the 3rd party sampler, and then pick a sample, all before manipulating the sound.

I lean more your way though when it comes to other types of synthesizers. Character and sound matter more to me there.

I do really wish there were better 3rd party instruments with touch screen support though. Like most, I do not work primarily with the touch screen, but it is nice to be able to use it on the couch or on the go without needing to get up, find a controller, plug it in, carry the controller with me on a work trip, etc. To me, the touch screen is just another controller that is more convenient than all of the little plastic mini controllers out there that are easy to carry along with you.

[lunardigs]

When it comes to 3rd party samplers , there is only one option for me . It is Redux from renoise .
Really great full of unique features.

http://www.renoise.com/products/redux

Redux is great! Although, no hi-dpi, which is deal-breaker for me. Sux, because I intend to get it (immediately) once this may develop. The other thing with Redux I'd like to see is disk-streaming, although hi-dpi is the killer.

... If I would use a sampler, I would get the best or one of the best out there, made by people dedicated to making samplers. And then I would use them in a DAW made by people whose field of expertise is in making a DAW ...

True, mevla, I generally think the same. Although, Bitwig/others release much content utilizing the sampler. There's great functionality in being able to package/publish content like this. It would behoove them to progressively enhance their sampler for this reason alone. Ya know?--top priority, no, but important, I'd say yes.

[pdxindy]

pdxindy if we focused on the sampler only, though, would it soften your position a bit? Since sampling is so heavily dependent on the source material/samples, are there really a lot of samplers out there that have way better sound quality and character than a native sampler? If Bitwig's sampler had 90% of the feature set of other samplers, would you still grab those other samplers instead?

In Bitwig and Ableton the sampler is important to me workflow-wise because it is integrated into other aspects of the DAW.

If I drag a sample onto a drum machine pad it is loaded into Bitwig's sampler, not Kontakt etc. If I want to finely manipulate the sound in ways that Bitwig's sampler is not capable of I have to remove the sampler, add the 3rd party sampler, and then pick a sample, all before manipulating the sound.

I lean more your way though when it comes to other types of synthesizers. Character and sound matter more to me there.

I do really wish there were better 3rd party instruments with touch screen support though. Like most, I do not work primarily with the touch screen, but it is nice to be able to use it on the couch or on the go without needing to get up, find a controller, plug it in, carry the controller with me on a work trip, etc. To me, the touch screen is just another controller that is more convenient than all of the little plastic mini controllers out there that are easy to carry along with you.

You are correct that the Sampler is different than regular synths and it is also an essential for the Drum Machine. For sure I want to see the Bitwig Sampler be improved as well as the Drum Machine... Hell, I'd love to see a fast, efficient way to sample my synth sounds right in Bitwig Sampler/Drum Machine. I'd use them then.

I mostly use synths... not much in the way of samples... thus it is not so much a priority for me.

[risch]

I have to agree with some of the sentiments in this thread, for me when I start a track it's always a toss up between ableton and bitwig and whichever i go with i miss the features of the other which has started to be a (mild) annoyance. If i go with bitwig I miss abletons sampler, timestretch and operator. If i go with ableton everything feels like it takes twice as long haha... I've still to upgade to bitwig 2 but better timestretch, and a revamped fm-4 / sampler would seal the deal for me personally, and i could skip on the live 10 upgrade for sure!

[mevla]

... If I would use a sampler, I would get the best or one of the best out there, made by people dedicated to making samplers. And then I would use them in a DAW made by people whose field of expertise is in making a DAW ...

True, mevla, I generally think the same. Although, Bitwig/others release much content utilizing the sampler. There's great functionality in being able to package/publish content like this. It would behoove them to progressively enhance their sampler for this reason alone. Ya know?--top priority, no, but important, I'd say yes.

Not sure what you mean with the released contents. And that might be due to the fact that I'm not yet into modifying extensively loops and samples. But last time I checked I have some 143 GB of commercial loops and samples, which is waaaay too much, almost scary. And I do not use the sampler. I do use from time to time Redux but everytime I feel I'm not doing much to get more involved with it. I do use regularly the loops and samples I have though as they are part of building blocks, w/o using a sampler.

[limitlesssss]