KVR Audio

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:34 pm

any sample resampled 1 octave up or down will sound bad anyway, or at least, very unrealistic. You're not saying that a perfect resampling would make a good bank out of 1 sample, are you?

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:14 pm

gol wrote:any sample resampled 1 octave up or down will sound bad anyway, or at least, very unrealistic. You're not saying that a perfect resampling would make a good bank out of 1 sample, are you?

Why not, if it was a simple waveform?

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:18 pm

Why not, if it was a simple waveform?

Ok, but then it's using the sampler as a synth, and a synth will do a better job.

As long as the sample has its attack built-in the sample, and a texture that's more than a couple of cycles wide, it won't resample very realisticly.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:30 pm

gol wrote: Ok, but then it's using the sampler as a synth, and a synth will do a better job.

Well, with a sampler I can mix files just to my liking. Most synths don't do that.

As long as the sample has its attack built-in the sample, and a texture that's more than a couple of cycles wide, it won't resample very realisticly.

Of course not.

mark4man · Post by **mark4man** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:47 am

OK...

Read thru as much of this thread as I could stomach (man...& I thought I was rude!)...& ran across this, from the developer:

The site is providing resampling engine information, which is IMHO not biased and informative since they are graphics and not forum marketing hype. There are enough external links there to make someone aware of what aliasing is and make his own conclusions.

(It's the first sentence there which is important to me.)

And then across this, from Majken:

The tests may not accurately show the difference between the quality of the playback and pitch engines in the sampler. But I believe that it does show there at least is a difference.

See, backing up a bit, I was about to pick up MachFive...because; A) It plays every sample format known to man; &, B) It plays PlugSound samples, which I absolutely love the quality of (notwithstanding the fact that USB leased the UVI engine to MOTU...which makes them sort of affiliated.)

Then I ran across George's test; & having just recently gotten my feet wet in this area...took the results to mean overall application quality. So, I almost switched to VSampler, since it fared better.

My sole use for a soft-sampler right now is sample playback...period.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, gol:

Ok, but then it's using the sampler as a synth, and a synth will do a better job.

Stated my above intended usage, will a synth do a better job, for me? (You are talking soft-synth, correct?) I'm still stuck on Mach5...but I'm curious how a soft-synth can do a better job of playing samples than a software sample player.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, George (Mr. developer) (or...anyone else, for that matter):

Where, IYHO, can I find conclusive info on the quality of soft-sampler playback engines?

How do you feel about the overall quality of MachFive?

(anyone else...feel free to chime in.) It would really suit my purposes right now...but I would like to know I am purchasing a top-flight sample player.

Thanks all,

mark4man

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:56 am

mark4man wrote: I'm still stuck on Mach5...but I'm curious how a soft-synth can do a better job of playing samples than a software sample player.

I'm sure gol only meant that regarding the use of single waveforms to build synth-alike patches in your sampler of choice.
Most soft synths come with a large variety of those simple waveforms for their oscillators, usually aliasing way less than what you'd get out of some waveforms slapped into your sampler (for whatever reasons).

Midiworks · Post by **Midiworks** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:07 am

mark4man wrote:Where, IYHO, can I find conclusive info on the quality of soft-sampler playback engines?

How do you feel about the overall quality of MachFive?

(anyone else...feel free to chime in.) It would really suit my purposes right now...but I would like to know I am purchasing a top-flight sample player.

Thanks all,

mark4man

As I said before: Start at the beginning.

All info had been given to you before ,
you just need to listen.

There is a simple rule concerning samplers and recording:
crap in, crap out !

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:26 am

gol wrote:any sample resampled 1 octave up or down will sound bad anyway, or at least, very unrealistic. You're not saying that a perfect resampling would make a good bank out of 1 sample, are you?

Who said that we're out chasing realism? You have already decided that samplers are only used with sample libraries, some people don't use samplers like that but more as a separate instrument or whatever. Give people the freedom to repitch whatever they want without huge aliasing

Or atleast, you don't have to debate against methods for allowing them to do so just because you think people don't want to work like that.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:35 am

Who said that we're out chasing realism?

right, so you could as well live with an unrealistic aliasing no?

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:35 am

stefancrs wrote: Or atleast, you don't have to debate against methods for allowing them to do so just because you think people don't want to work like that.

True. I for myself like to "abuse" sampler as synths.
The main reason being that most of my stuff is coming out of samplers (EXS and now partially Kontakt), so I'm rather familiar with their interfaces. I can just work very quickly with them, especially the EXS offers a great oversight of parameters (sure, it lacks some things, but usually that doesn't bother me).

I wish those samplers had a per patch setting for oversampling quality, such as "normal" (for natural sounds that won't be pitched at all), "high" (for, say, mapped synth samples) and "elite" (for single sample patches) or so.
That way I could decide what I'd need for the particular situation.

FWIW, I've been using a Terratec EWS 64 back in the days, and I've been building quite some patches out of single waveforms - I can't remember it to show such a bad aliasing as, say, Kontakt. Unfortunately I can't compare anymore. Still have the thing but no ISA slot anywhere around.

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:41 am

gol wrote:
Who said that we're out chasing realism?
right, so you could as well live with an unrealistic aliasing no?

Only when I want it. If I don't want non-harmonic distortion, I don't want it

Just because someone might want to repitch a vocal track 2 octaves up making it sound all smurfish and whatnot does not mean that they want to add aliasing noise as well. You make weird assumptions.

High fidelity and realism are not the same thing at all to me anyway.

mark4man · Post by **mark4man** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:48 am

There is a simple rule concerning samplers and recording, when exibiting condescension in a K-v-R forum reply: crap out; & f**k off !

--
Don't let them foam you...

Midiworks · Post by **Midiworks** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:18 am

mark4man wrote:There is a simple rule concerning samplers and recording, when exibiting condescension in a K-v-R forum reply: crap out; & f**k off !

You really don't want to get it,
instead you are wasting peoples time.

Learn to crawl before you walk !

The aliasing thread