KVR Audio

setAI · Post by **setAI** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:52 pm

I have found in my own work that sample manipulation [particularly wavetable/transwave/granular processing] of EVERY type of acoustic source offers HIERARCHIES of infinites of deeper/richer acoustics than standard electronic synthesis- granular modulations of recorded mammalian vocal tracts/ insect sounds/ electric motors/ feedback circuits offer electrified spacey and robotic sounds that are orders of magnitudes more complex/fat/rich/wet/squelchy/resonant than any voltage controlled oscillator ever made IMO- with the same classes of sounds accesible through experimentation and effort- far superior analog emulation can be acieved with wavetable processing than 'VA' approaches-

for me the conceptual aspect is just as important- using samples/audio as a medium for alchemical expression like Burroughs/Gysin cut-ups/ Duchamp's ready-mades/ Musique Concrete/ tape music/ collage art/ Foley art/ etc [I call my approach 'memesynthesis']- I prefer to bootstrap/hack/kludge[pervert] the complexity of the actual Universe directly through sample/audio manipulation rather than generate simple models through sysnthesis-

rounser · Post by **rounser** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:21 pm

There's also things that samplers can do that a synth can't.

LOL, that's got to be the understatement of the year.

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:27 am

Funny thread, all those semantic discussions...

Anyways, for me, it boils down to this: If there's ONE single instrument (apart from my guitars that is) that I wouldn't want to miss ever again, it's gotta be a sampler.
I'm using samplers for such a variety of tasks, couldn't imagine doing remotely the same with whatever synth. So, for me it's just the most flexible instrument there is.
But then: I do just love it that there's more and more synthesis features thrown into samplers.
But then #2: Even if a sampler would be my choice for a "what if..." situation, I really wouldn't enjoy living without some synths much either.

fac · Post by **fac** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:46 am

rounser wrote:
There's also things that samplers can do that a synth can't.
LOL, that's got to be the understatement of the year.

No, I just didn't have time to list some examples. In any case, how is that an understatement?

Dewdman42 · Post by **Dewdman42** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:49 am

Interesting point...

Polite Company · Post by **Polite Company** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:54 am

Funny thread, all those semantic discussions...

Judging from half the threads here we've as many linguists as musicians.

I'm including my self in that.

Sampling vs Synthesis - do i need synths?!