Hello folks!

I recently watched this and another video of him where his explains that hardware samplers are superior in quality because when they pitchsift a one note sample around they do a unique samplerate conversion for every note or something like that (I cannot rewatch the videos right now) and apparently software samplers such as Kontakt cannot do that at all and him will not even consider them "real" samplers at all in this aspect.

Can you guys give more info on what hardware-unique circuitry is responsible for this sounding process?

I am quite experienced with ITB music production and I can hear the difference myself but I have no clue of what goes on on the hardware level.I am sure that some software can be made to emulate this circuitry with the current cpu processing power but apparently it hasn't yet? What about samplers like the TAL-Sampler?Never used it.

Thanks a ton!

Another example of a cringefluencer overestimating his technical expertise and confusing the masses by spouting BS.

Only way to have variable sample playback rates is to have a dedicated digital clock for every individual sample playback voice. AFAIK the Synclavier sampling option was the only one ever having this. Which was reflected in the price and the bulk.

All other hardware samplers run on a fixed internal sampling rate, and they all do fractional sample interpolation in one way or another. (Ot they don't and call the result "characterful". )

Pointing out he’s wrong about the technical details, sure fine. But kinda odd to reduce a guy with as many big credits as Junkie XL as just a “cringefluencer.”

Mean those [Credits] they also use to sell you UAD plugins and shampoo on instagram with?

I get where you’re coming from but it’s pretty cringe to promote hw based on pseudoscience or falsehoods..

People here have difficulty comprehending the meaning of 'creating music' and what it involves for the creator to find the right feeling to make music. Technical details are for nerds, not for artists.

Oh yeah like I said, zero issue with pointing he’s wrong, and it’s a good reminder that just because someone has a lot of hits or songwriting credits, that doesn’t mean they know their ass from their elbow when it comes to technical details. It’s just being a bit liberal with the “influencer” label. Just because someone has a YouTube channel, they’re not automatically an “influencer.”

Hardware has converters, just like most audio interfaces, I’ve found most interfaces try to be transparent. If a person is just importing samples and manipulating with software... where’s the sound of the sampler?

I love samplers, but only have two. OG SP404 and a 1010 Blackbox. I thought I loved the sound of the 404, I do actually, it’s got a nice sound due to its converters, it changes the sound in a nice way. It’s got a vibe, some character. However, the fidelity of the Blackbox is beautifully clean with a very nice hi-fi sound. That box actually changed my idea about fidelity.

I still love both types of sounds, but simply put, imo, hardware simply just has a sound to it.

This very thread is proof that he obviously influenced people with BS information. I think that is cringe, but I'm fine with "bullshitfluencer" too.

Oh no not that BS trope again. Wendy Carlos gave Bob Moog quite a bit of technical feedback when using the modular. Krystian Zimerman (arguably the greatest Chopin interpreter alive) builds and maintains his own piano mechanisms. John Chowning literally stumbled over FM when working on his avant-garde electronic compositions. And the list goes on...

There are plenty of software options that emulate the way vintage samplers used to do this. Modern sample plugins simply do it better, which means there's less artifacts and coloration resulting from the process.

TAL sampler has many times been mentioned in this context. Arturia has Emulator V which supposedly emulates Emulator II in this aspect as well. Arturia also has Fairlight V and Synclavier V (altough I'm not certain this can play samples. Certain models of hardware Synclaviers certainly could) that emulate those machines.

In short, to get the vintage sampler vibe you don't need vintage sampler today. To get the vintage sampler user experience and confirmation bias you will always need them.

I don't make calculations with my instruments, I play chords, melodies, drums and noise.
For calculations i use Alexa.

Unless it was the artifacts and coloration that someone liked...

I enjoyed the video, the Ensoniq sounded especially cool. The "grit" and character in the sound from the old samplers is due to hardware limitations in the period in which the samplers were manufactured, right? The main point of the video seemed to be that one should choose the sampler and its resulting character based on the need of the track which is cool and makes sense, but most people don't have access to an array of classic samplers.

What are some ways to achieve an approximation of the effect the Mirage had on the sample in that video with a modern digital sampler? For example, how would I achieve that same sort of "grit", especially at lower octaves, with my MPC Live 2 and its effects, or Logic sampler and AU effects?

Good point, I didn't even think of the Arturia emulations. I have an older version of the Arturia Suite.

I have no experience with vintage samplers so have no opinion on whether software emulations are successful in capturing the qualities people liked about the vintage versions.

I do have half a dozen software wavetable synths. None of them sound like the Waldorf M which is an homage to the original Microwave.

Pot calling the kettle black there methinks...

Preferred and better are two different things. Subjectively your preference is better to you, but in achieving the goal of pitching the sample while maintaining it as original as possible the modern algos do better job than old ones. That's not a preference but a fact.

I think the Akai S900 / S950 transposes by changing the DA converter clock of the individual output channels, too.

There are many things in to consider here. For one, do any of those software wavetables you mentioned actually try to mimic MW1 or M? Wavetables are a synthesis method that can be done in many ways. The tech limitation induced glitchyness and lofi grit are not always preferred nor pursued. Unlike in M that has been meticulously designed to mimic previously existing 80's tech when it comes to sound production aspects. Modern day Waldorfs can do wavetables in a way and fidelity the M can't. I think something like Iridium or Quantum can get a lot more close to your soft synths sonically.
Microwave can be emulated with modern computers just as well as vintage samplers. The obstacle is not the computer power but the person doing the emulation.

How dare you?
Plugins are superior, despite being designed for a very different market than hardware and the investment involved is on another scale. But let's pretend they are better.

They must be better cos experts say they are…

Better is a subjective term... try again

One thing is that hardware samplers were built to be sampled into. Recording nice and hot into an S950 at the freq of choice is something special.

The M is a modern day Waldorf... oh, and btw, it has a modern mode too. You might consider not trying to sound like an expert when you obviously don't even know the synth.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And yes, I have a Waldorf Quantum as well.

Many software samplers don't even sample...

i could be mistaken but didn’t junky xl famously sell a bunch of his vintage gear and go with a modern setup?

for dirt/distortion he had a quad setup with tube eqs and distressors i think

I was going ask about that. I haven't been anywhere near a soft sampler in years, but back when I did the only one I seem to remember being able to actually sample was fxpansion geist, even then it was pretty buggy

Always right, aren't we?

There's no need to pick a hill to die for if you just take all of them.

Check the thread title and the contents of the first post. This is about samplers. Samplers. You brought the wavetables into this and I'm not going to help you hijack this thread.

@ The Great Preset

Are you aware of this mans experience? His many many works? I am.

Who are you to quote how a hardware sampler works when you state that the Synclavier was the only sampler to have individual sample clocks?

Before putting someone who clearly knows what they are doing down, please make sure you know what you are talking about.

Interpolation as in the modern way of transposing pitch in samplers only became a thing when the CPU inside the hardware sampler had the power to do so. It's only real benefits were a greater polyphony when compared to older samplers that had up to 8 voices as far as I remember due to cost.

I'm sat looking at my Akai S-950 being the last of its kind and the lack of interpolation transposition is why I keep it around. It's very similar to a how slowing down or speeding up a vinyl record sounds superior on a breakbeat compared to pitching in DSP on that same recording. The non interpolating sampler is changing pitch simply by slowing or speeding up the playback clock for that notes channel. And yes that meant basically 8 separate play back engines in hardware for the Akai S900 and S-950. this all changed with the S-1000 and some would say not for the better with a view to transposition quality.

It's a simple test, slow down a break beat on an S-950 by an octave and listen to the attack portion of the sample and how musically pleasing it sounds. Now do the same in any interpolating sampler hardware or software and hear how the transients are mushy compared to the S-950.

Your post was rude and ill informed. Junkie XL has walked the walk and his discography is insane not to mention his movie scores. Care to post yours?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkie_XL_discography

There were many non interpolating samplers up until the Akai S1000 era, anything with 16 voices of polyphony would have been Interpolation due to cost although I'm not sure on the earlier Fairlights and Synclaviers but they were out of my price range.

Akai 612, X7000, S-900, S-950, Emulator 1 and 2 (never owned one bust pretty sure they are clock based playback, Ensoniq Mirage, Prophet 2000, Synclavier and Early Fairlight. Early Rolands up until S50/S70

EIII, ESI 32 range, Emax 2, S1000, S1100, S2000, MPC's after MPC60 (never had an MPC60 so not sure), kurzweil K2000 etc.. An d all Software samplers/romplers by their very nature have to playback by interpolation

Wrong. An expert composer is not an expert DSP engineer. He just uses stuff DSP engineers made. Plus you are doing argument from authority, twice. That is not logic, it is false.

Agreed. This is so common though. For example, champion runner who thinks they can also coach runners, or advise on diet or physiology. It's just mansplaining
Not the only one no. Fairlight and Emulator 1 too (that with an analogue VCO).

here is more detail from @ acreil who does not post here any more because idiots

Taxonomy of early digital synthesizers and samplers @ steelyfan it's almost never the converters, it's the transposing scheme.