Bitwig sampler -incorrect operation ?

[Jac459]

.....

Friends ! It turns out that Bitwig has no problems with the length of the sound from the sampler!! You just need to use Cycles and Texture modes instead of Repitch!! And there is no need to twist / twist anything there or use Segments !! I 'm a beginner, but why didn 't you, the experienced ones , immediately poke me into this?

The cycle and texture modes are just wonky workarounds for mostly experimental sounds which might work on some material but are for sure not good enough to replace "real" timestretching like the samplers of the other DAWs have...
Perhaps because of being a beginner you are not able to hear the differences very well but this is the reason why many haven´t mentioned it as a real replacement for what you were asking for...

Well I didn't mentionned about cycle because .... I forgot about it... (yes I used it in many songs).
I disagree that the sampler is wonky. The cycle feature has not a lot of control but the quality of the time stretching is good and there is no consensus in this forum about bitwig having a less good Timestretching.
The best examples is all the samples library provided by bitwig which are of good quality overall.

Now it is true that if I want to use the sampler as a multi- Sampler I will generally directly load Falcon.

But for an hip hop style kind of sampler, shop the sounds, play with the read speed and all, I have not found any device or vst better than bitwig sampler.

[Anatolio]

The cycle and texture modes are just wonky workarounds for mostly experimental sounds which might work on some material but are for sure not good enough to replace "real" timestretching like the samplers of the other DAWs have...
Perhaps because of being a beginner you are not able to hear the differences very well but this is the reason why many haven´t mentioned it as a real replacement for what you were asking for...

.. I disagree that the sampler is wonky. The cycle feature has not a lot of control but the quality of the time stretching is good and there is no consensus in this forum about bitwig having a less good Timestretching.
The best examples is all the samples library provided by bitwig which are of good quality overall.
Now it is true that if I want to use the sampler as a multi- Sampler I will generally directly load Falcon.
But for an hip hop style kind of sampler, shop the sounds, play with the read speed and all, I have not found any device or vst better than bitwig sampler.

I compared the sound in Cycles, Textures modes with a couple of other samplers - CR8 and Serato, and I have to agree with Transit that the sound of the Bitwig sampler is very mediocre... very. Changing additional options did not improve the sound in any way. CR8 and Serato sound a level higher. I'm new to Daw, but not in hearing As a layer of voice effects, the Bitwig sampler is ok, but no more. Let's be objective, listen for yourself, compare :

[Tj Shredder]

Time stretching and pitch shifting is a very complex task! You need different ways to do it for different material. Mainly how to deal with resonances, which is crucial for voice material. The better algos like in Falcon are protected by patents and other hurdles. It also eats up more CPU.
If you grew up with the invention of samplers, and know the technical details behind it, all this is much less of a mystery than it seemingly is for some posters…
The Bitwig sampler is doing what its made for and does that well. Its more a sound design tool than the most accurate pitch shifter of the world. And it doesn’t need to be, there are tools that do that better…
Nonetheless we all learned good lessons throughout that thread…

[Jac459]

Time stretching and pitch shifting is a very complex task! You need different ways to do it for different material. Mainly how to deal with resonances, which is crucial for voice material. The better algos like in Falcon are protected by patents and other hurdles. It also eats up more CPU.
If you grew up with the invention of samplers, and know the technical details behind it, all this is much less of a mystery than it seemingly is for some posters…
The Bitwig sampler is doing what its made for and does that well. Its more a sound design tool than the most accurate pitch shifter of the world. And it doesn’t need to be, there are tools that do that better…
Nonetheless we all learned good lessons throughout that thread…

I couldn't agree more and I think people are getting a bit confused here.

To summarise the discussion so far on this post:
1 - the first answer that was given to this post was that the sampler itself DOESN'T have a pitch shifting/time stretching features. ==> That is perfectly correct.

2 - as I mentioned, there is some effects extremely interesting that allows to have a timestretching like effect: grain (and later with discussed about cycles).

3 - after I gave an example on how to use modulations and granular synthesis to have a total control on a way a sample is digested.

4 - Now we are comparing a time stretching algorithm with cycles and grain...

Fact is cycles and grains are not at all aimed for that in the first place.
Cycles is a very interesting feature to transform the sampler in a wavetable synthesis synth. It works very well and it is very fun.
Grain is a very good implementation of granular synthesis (even if I am missing a few parameters) and it works very well and it is very fun.

Now we are comparing these creative algorithms with real time stretching... I think it is a mistake.

Cycles and Grain are to aimed for that...

By the way, as far as I know, the internal time stretching of Bitwig is based afak on the Zplane Elastique 3 algorithm and its reputation is that it is one of the best implementation of the DAW market.
Now why it isn't directly available on the sampler, I am not sure, maybe it is through a way I don't know.

[Jac459]

...

Hello sir,
Read my previous post please.

You can not say "you are wrong guys, there is a time stretching algorithm in the sampler" and in the same time tell us "the time stretching algorithm is bad".

Because there is no real time stretching mechanism in the sampler (that I know). Cycles and Grain are creative modes...

[Anatolio]

Time stretching and pitch shifting is a very complex task! You need different ways to do it for different material. Mainly how to deal with resonances, which is crucial for voice material. The better algos like in Falcon are protected by patents and other hurdles. It also eats up more CPU.
If you grew up with the invention of samplers, and know the technical details behind it, all this is much less of a mystery than it seemingly is for some posters…
The Bitwig sampler is doing what its made for and does that well. Its more a sound design tool than the most accurate pitch shifter of the world. And it doesn’t need to be, there are tools that do that better…
Nonetheless we all learned good lessons throughout that thread…

I couldn't agree more and I think people are getting a bit confused here.

To summarise the discussion so far on this post:
1 - the first answer that was given to this post was that the sampler itself DOESN'T have a pitch shifting/time stretching features. ==> That is perfectly correct.

2 - as I mentioned, there is some effects extremely interesting that allows to have a timestretching like effect: grain (and later with discussed about cycles).

3 - after I gave an example on how to use modulations and granular synthesis to have a total control on a way a sample is digested.

4 - Now we are comparing a time stretching algorithm with cycles and grain...

Fact is cycles and grains are not at all aimed for that in the first place.
Cycles is a very interesting feature to transform the sampler in a wavetable synthesis synth. It works very well and it is very fun.
Grain is a very good implementation of granular synthesis (even if I am missing a few parameters) and it works very well and it is very fun.

Now we are comparing these creative algorithms with real time stretching... I think it is a mistake.

Cycles and Grain are to aimed for that...

By the way, as far as I know, the internal time stretching of Bitwig is based afak on the Zplane Elastique 3 algorithm and its reputation is that it is one of the best implementation of the DAW market.
Now why it isn't directly available on the sampler, I am not sure, maybe it is through a way I don't know.

...

Hello sir,
Read my previous post please.

You can not say "you are wrong guys, there is a time stretching algorithm in the sampler" and in the same time tell us "the time stretching algorithm is bad".

Because there is no real time stretching mechanism in the sampler (that I know). Cycles and Grain are creative modes...

Friends, in no way am I trying to demonize bitwig or look for flaws in it. My research is 100% practical - I write tracks, I need commercial sound quality. That's all. And I am also against the sectarian approach, when adherents of something say only exclusively laudatory speeches about their idol. I'm for objectivity. I ask you to hear me and not be offended. When I hear that "Bitwig has no tools for changing the length and pitch," and what I see are sound design tools, I want to ask - why are these options in the Sampler? In the very sampler through which everyone used to make sequences of notes, hearing the word "Sampler". Think about it. In my opinion, you complicate the approach and play along a bit with Bitwig when he doesn't deserve it. I don't want to offend anyone, I'm writing this for the sake of objectivity.

[Jac459]

Friends, in no way am I trying to demonize bitwig or look for flaws in it. My research is 100% practical - I write tracks, I need commercial sound quality. That's all. And I am also against the sectarian approach, when adherents of something say only exclusively laudatory speeches about their idol. I'm for objectivity. I ask you to hear me and not be offended. When I hear that "Bitwig has no tools for changing the length and pitch," and what I see are sound design tools, I want to ask - why are these options in the Sampler? In the very sampler through which everyone used to make sequences of notes, hearing the word "Sampler". Think about it. In my opinion, you complicate the approach and play along a bit with Bitwig when he doesn't deserve it. I don't want to offend anyone, I'm writing this for the sake of objectivity.

Clearly you are not demonizing and the way you do it is open-minded and constructive.

My point is not at all to criticise your attitude and sorry if it sounded like that.

My point is I think you have still some misunderstanding that I would like to help you with.

Let me try to be clearer.
A sampler can be used for many many things but is mostly used for 2 main use cases:
UC1 : Multi-sampler. This is when you try to reproduce a real instrument by taking a ton of sample at different pitch, pressure point, velocity. And then filling the gap of sampling with time stretch and interpolation.
UC2 : Creative sampler. This is when you play with a sample to destroy it, transform it, get creative with it.

In the case of the multi-sampler, you do need a timestrech feature but it isn't mandatory neither. If you take Bitwig multi-sampling library, they don't use timestrech and that's fine, it sounds great because the sampler often enough the instrument to sound good.

In the case of a creative sampler, you need algorithm to mangle your sound. That's where the BW sampler really shine I think. The wavetable feature and the grain feature are great and really nice to play with. If you haven't played with these features for what they are, you MUST try them, you can have crazy sounding stuffs by using these features and that's really what the sampler is about.

From my point of view (which is not an expert point of view but a long time user point of view), I would not use BW Sampler as a multisampler (UC1). Not because it sucks, it doesn't, it is just not primarily aimed for that. If you listen to the sound library you will see that you can still do very very nice sounding stuffs, but compared to a UVI Falcon, it is bellow, clearly...
From a creative sampler, on the contrary, BW Sampler is my absolute favorite, I have phase plant, I have Pigments, they are not even close to the creativity and power of the BW Sampler in my opinion (but to be fair, they do a lot of other stuffs).
The only thing missing in my point of view in BW Sampler for creativity is a spectral feature like the genius one in Reason Studios GRAINS instrument. But it is forgivable because BW provides a range of awesome spectral effect so I consider leniency.

[Trancit]

...
I disagree that the sampler is wonky. The cycle feature has not a lot of control but the quality of the time stretching is good and there is no consensus in this forum about bitwig having a less good Timestretching.
...

I didn´t say the Sampler would be wonky... I said that cycles and texture mode are wonky workarounds for proper timestretching while texture mode could be an alternative and work for some material...
Not Bitwig having less good timestretching (at least since the zplane algo´s came in) but the sampler hasn´t good ones for sure as here the "normal" modes are completely missing...

[Jac459]

...
I disagree that the sampler is wonky. The cycle feature has not a lot of control but the quality of the time stretching is good and there is no consensus in this forum about bitwig having a less good Timestretching.
...

I didn´t say the Sampler would be wonky... I said that cycles and texture mode are wonky workarounds for proper timestretching while texture mode could be an alternative and work for some material...
Not Bitwig having less good timestretching (at least since the zplane algo´s came in) but the sampler hasn´t good ones for sure as here the "normal" modes are completely missing...

Agreed 100%.

[Anatolio]

Friends, in no way am I trying to demonize bitwig or look for flaws in it. My research is 100% practical - I write tracks, I need commercial sound quality. That's all. And I am also against the sectarian approach, when adherents of something say only exclusively laudatory speeches about their idol. I'm for objectivity. I ask you to hear me and not be offended. When I hear that "Bitwig has no tools for changing the length and pitch," and what I see are sound design tools, I want to ask - why are these options in the Sampler? In the very sampler through which everyone used to make sequences of notes, hearing the word "Sampler". Think about it. In my opinion, you complicate the approach and play along a bit with Bitwig when he doesn't deserve it. I don't want to offend anyone, I'm writing this for the sake of objectivity.

Clearly you are not demonizing and the way you do it is open-minded and constructive.

My point is not at all to criticise your attitude and sorry if it sounded like that.

My point is I think you have still some misunderstanding that I would like to help you with.

Let me try to be clearer.
A sampler can be used for many many things but is mostly used for 2 main use cases:
UC1 : Multi-sampler. This is when you try to reproduce a real instrument by taking a ton of sample at different pitch, pressure point, velocity. And then filling the gap of sampling with time stretch and interpolation.
UC2 : Creative sampler. This is when you play with a sample to destroy it, transform it, get creative with it.

In the case of the multi-sampler, you do need a timestrech feature but it isn't mandatory neither. If you take Bitwig multi-sampling library, they don't use timestrech and that's fine, it sounds great because the sampler often enough the instrument to sound good.

In the case of a creative sampler, you need algorithm to mangle your sound. That's where the BW sampler really shine I think. The wavetable feature and the grain feature are great and really nice to play with. If you haven't played with these features for what they are, you MUST try them, you can have crazy sounding stuffs by using these features and that's really what the sampler is about.

From my point of view (which is not an expert point of view but a long time user point of view), I would not use BW Sampler as a multisampler (UC1). Not because it sucks, it doesn't, it is just not primarily aimed for that. If you listen to the sound library you will see that you can still do very very nice sounding stuffs, but compared to a UVI Falcon, it is bellow, clearly...
From a creative sampler, on the contrary, BW Sampler is my absolute favorite, I have phase plant, I have Pigments, they are not even close to the creativity and power of the BW Sampler in my opinion (but to be fair, they do a lot of other stuffs).
The only thing missing in my point of view in BW Sampler for creativity is a spectral feature like the genius one in Reason Studios GRAINS instrument. But it is forgivable because BW provides a range of awesome spectral effect so I consider leniency.

I agree with you on everything. Except that the "creative product" should not be passed off as an everyday tool. The Bitwig sampler is positioned as an everyday creative product, which in the context of our topic looks like "let's write off the flaws and dampness to the fact that this is a Creative product".Did you see any flaws ? This is a creative product for sound design!! A wonderful position , isn 't it ?

The Bitwig sampler is user-friendly, because it is built into a single DAW architecture, which is a huge plus, but it is impossible to use it for everyday tasks without reducing quality. And I'm talking about using for fairly common and simple functions - playing by notes. Saying "simple" - I exaggerate. "Simple" - at the CR8 quality level. That's all.

The truth is this -now in everyday tasks use another sampler bought for separate money and suffer every time without seeing its interface as in the native sampler, without pressing extra buttons.

[Anatolio]

...
I disagree that the sampler is wonky. The cycle feature has not a lot of control but the quality of the time stretching is good and there is no consensus in this forum about bitwig having a less good Timestretching.
...

I didn´t say the Sampler would be wonky... I said that cycles and texture mode are wonky workarounds for proper timestretching while texture mode could be an alternative and work for some material...
Not Bitwig having less good timestretching (at least since the zplane algo´s came in) but the sampler hasn´t good ones for sure as here the "normal" modes are completely missing...

An objective view of reality. And if someone does not agree - watch my video above.

[Dionysos]

The Bitwig sampler is user-friendly, because it is built into a single DAW architecture, which is a huge plus, but it is impossible to use it for everyday tasks without reducing quality. And I'm talking about using for fairly common and simple functions - playing by notes. Saying "simple" - I exaggerate. "Simple" - at the CR8 quality level. That's all.

As someone who's started making music before high-quality realtime timestretching became a thing, I find it interesting to see the expectation that playing audio in a sampler should keep the length of the sample the same across different pitches, and that not doing so could be considered a "defect" in any way.

To me, the default "tape-style" repitching behaviour feels almost like the inherently, "physically correct" way things should be, and I'd always expect timestretching to be an opt-in setting. But I realise that times are changing and that most new samplers probably come with timestretching built in and enabled by default. Future producers might even grow unaware of the inherent link between playback speed and pitch.

[Anatolio]

The Bitwig sampler is user-friendly, because it is built into a single DAW architecture, which is a huge plus, but it is impossible to use it for everyday tasks without reducing quality. And I'm talking about using for fairly common and simple functions - playing by notes. Saying "simple" - I exaggerate. "Simple" - at the CR8 quality level. That's all.

As someone who's started making music before high-quality realtime timestretching became a thing, I find it interesting to see the expectation that playing audio in a sampler should keep the length of the sample the same across different pitches, and that not doing so could be considered a "defect" in any way.

To me, the default "tape-style" repitching behaviour feels almost like the inherently, "physically correct" way things should be, and I'd always expect timestretching to be an opt-in setting. But I realise that times are changing and that most new samplers probably come with timestretching built in and enabled by default. Future producers might even grow unaware of the inherent link between playback speed and pitch.

A fair remark in the matter of length - this was the main question and it probably did not prevent the final track from being cool. But it was sorted out, the length does not suffer. But the quality suffers. Although again, it's not a fact that this will ruin the track

[Jac459]

Friends, in no way am I trying to demonize bitwig or look for flaws in it. My research is 100% practical - I write tracks, I need commercial sound quality. That's all. And I am also against the sectarian approach, when adherents of something say only exclusively laudatory speeches about their idol. I'm for objectivity. I ask you to hear me and not be offended. When I hear that "Bitwig has no tools for changing the length and pitch," and what I see are sound design tools, I want to ask - why are these options in the Sampler? In the very sampler through which everyone used to make sequences of notes, hearing the word "Sampler". Think about it. In my opinion, you complicate the approach and play along a bit with Bitwig when he doesn't deserve it. I don't want to offend anyone, I'm writing this for the sake of objectivity.

Clearly you are not demonizing and the way you do it is open-minded and constructive.

My point is not at all to criticise your attitude and sorry if it sounded like that.

My point is I think you have still some misunderstanding that I would like to help you with.

Let me try to be clearer.
A sampler can be used for many many things but is mostly used for 2 main use cases:
UC1 : Multi-sampler. This is when you try to reproduce a real instrument by taking a ton of sample at different pitch, pressure point, velocity. And then filling the gap of sampling with time stretch and interpolation.
UC2 : Creative sampler. This is when you play with a sample to destroy it, transform it, get creative with it.

In the case of the multi-sampler, you do need a timestrech feature but it isn't mandatory neither. If you take Bitwig multi-sampling library, they don't use timestrech and that's fine, it sounds great because the sampler often enough the instrument to sound good.

In the case of a creative sampler, you need algorithm to mangle your sound. That's where the BW sampler really shine I think. The wavetable feature and the grain feature are great and really nice to play with. If you haven't played with these features for what they are, you MUST try them, you can have crazy sounding stuffs by using these features and that's really what the sampler is about.

From my point of view (which is not an expert point of view but a long time user point of view), I would not use BW Sampler as a multisampler (UC1). Not because it sucks, it doesn't, it is just not primarily aimed for that. If you listen to the sound library you will see that you can still do very very nice sounding stuffs, but compared to a UVI Falcon, it is bellow, clearly...
From a creative sampler, on the contrary, BW Sampler is my absolute favorite, I have phase plant, I have Pigments, they are not even close to the creativity and power of the BW Sampler in my opinion (but to be fair, they do a lot of other stuffs).
The only thing missing in my point of view in BW Sampler for creativity is a spectral feature like the genius one in Reason Studios GRAINS instrument. But it is forgivable because BW provides a range of awesome spectral effect so I consider leniency.

I agree with you on everything. Except that the "creative product" should not be passed off as an everyday tool. The Bitwig sampler is positioned as an everyday creative product, which in the context of our topic looks like "let's write off the flaws and dampness to the fact that this is a Creative product".Did you see any flaws ? This is a creative product for sound design!! A wonderful position , isn 't it ?

The Bitwig sampler is user-friendly, because it is built into a single DAW architecture, which is a huge plus, but it is impossible to use it for everyday tasks without reducing quality. And I'm talking about using for fairly common and simple functions - playing by notes. Saying "simple" - I exaggerate. "Simple" - at the CR8 quality level. That's all.

The truth is this -now in everyday tasks use another sampler bought for separate money and suffer every time without seeing its interface as in the native sampler, without pressing extra buttons.

Well my point was to help you and answer your questions... On the product itself, I let you have your own opinion.

Just remember that your own understanding of your needs are not the golden reference of the needs of everybody. Even in your example with a voice, you should not use a sampler but the audio feature of your DAW, for which you have a wealth of choice in terms of pitch shifting and time stretching algorithm. Same with a drum loop.
The case where you really need a time stretch in the sampler I can think of is when you want to create a multi-sampler of say... a piano and you have only one sample.
Never the less, I don't deny that the Sampler should logically have an advanced stretching feature, reason studios Mimic Sampler has one. My only point is a ton of us don't care and will never uses it.

[muzicxs]

I compared the sound in Cycles, Textures modes with a couple of other samplers

Can increase the grain size in the sampler and record again? If you set it to 100+ ms you will most likely not hear the artifacts that you currently hear. I just tried it with a vocal sample and it sounds smooth, even going 3 octaves down.