Rant about the lack of modern hardware samplers.

ReaPeR · Post by **ReaPeR** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:27 am

Buy an Alesis Fusion... you can use it as a sampler with an 40Gb HD, and you've got an FM and VA too

crystalmsc · Post by **crystalmsc** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:37 am

ReaPeR wrote:Buy an Alesis Fusion... you can use it as a sampler with an 40Gb HD, and you've got an FM and VA too

and some included factory samples in ROM

ReaPeR · Post by **ReaPeR** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:51 am

crystalmsc wrote:
ReaPeR wrote:Buy an Alesis Fusion... you can use it as a sampler with an 40Gb HD, and you've got an FM and VA too
and some included factory samples in ROM

Factory samples are not so good... but Hollow Sun packs are... WOW
and if you buy the fusion convertor PRO you can convert from kontakt to fusion too
(i do it even with the free version that convert only akai, wav and sf2... using extreme sample converter to make kontakt --->akai and then the fusion convertor free to make akai--->fusion)

Post by **tallowwaters** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:03 pm

piRoN wrote:Oh for f**k's sake.

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of hearing these sort of arrogant, ill-considered assumptions from people. So I'm going to say this once more:

THE REASON WE LIKE USING HARDWARE IS BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE MAKING MUSIC ON THE COMPUTER.

I don't care if it's more powerful, I don't care if modern software samplers blow my gear out of the water, that fact is that I don't like sitting static in front of a computer slowly getting eyestrain when I can be in the studio with a beer and some mates, tweaking bits and pieces, moving around, and embracing the transient nature of it all, revelling in the tactile joys of moving from one unit to the other, and working within a physical space.

And regarding all this utter drivel about 'fear of the technology' and other such c**p... I've worked for several years as a CGI animator and general tech dude in the film industry, can program in C, C++, Basic, and VB, and currently own and operate a pair of self-built editing/animation rigs connected to a four-unit render farm. If I was so terrified of technology I wouldn't have spent over six f**k grand last financial year just to keep my computers competitive in the industry.

Next time you want to pour out your unresearched assumptions at others you might want to try actually engaging in a meaningful conversation with the people you're so happily deriding and find out the truth behind the matter.

But then, I suppose it's considerably easier to simply try and force your viewpoint on others in a forum thread which obviously has no relevance to you or any of your pursuits.

To those who actually have legitimate posts in this thread: As you were, gentlemen.

for gods sake man, that was f**k beautiful...

Post by **tallowwaters** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:07 pm

Stab Frenzy wrote:There's still the V-Synth, it doesn't really offer layering and multisampling, but it has a whole lot of cool new stuff.

is it the multisampling where the weird bugs and artifacts come in? i have wondered about this...

JSRockit wrote:I'd love to have a modern Akai X3700... that would be perfect.

they did, its called the roland dj70 mk2

crystalmsc · Post by **crystalmsc** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:45 pm

tallowwaters wrote:
JSRockit wrote:I'd love to have a modern Akai X3700... that would be perfect.
they did, its called the roland dj70 mk2

and it's small, looks funky, got great filter and that big MPC-60 style lcd...JS..

JSRockit · Post by **JSRockit** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:32 pm

diezdiazgiant wrote:well...
your "performance box" could be done easily... you take a computer, set up your templates for your controller and then you tuck the computer away out of sight to avoid the technophobic criticism of using a computer.

I don't care what others think...I care about what I think when using the device... and mapping templates is just not fun... I just want to sample and go.

JSRockit · Post by **JSRockit** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:32 pm

crystalmsc wrote:
tallowwaters wrote:
JSRockit wrote:I'd love to have a modern Akai X3700... that would be perfect.
they did, its called the roland dj70 mk2
and it's small, looks funky, got great filter and that big MPC-60 style lcd...JS..

Oh, and I want it to have some style as well...

crystalmsc · Post by **crystalmsc** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:54 pm

JSRockit wrote:
crystalmsc wrote:
tallowwaters wrote: they did, its called the roland dj70 mk2
and it's small, looks funky, got great filter and that big MPC-60 style lcd...JS..

Oh, and I want it to have some style as well...

what about sampling several bars of pattern from the QY-70, loop it..and mess with it through the JD sounding filter 8)

Post by **tallowwaters** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:18 pm

style? dude, its got a big f**k spinning wheel on it! i put personal pan pizzas on mine.

Alexx · Post by **Alexx** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:02 am

I really miss the DJ-70MkII I had.

ford442 · Post by **ford442** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:30 am

the SP-505 is c**p compared to software samplers - can't wait to sell it..

tblack · Post by **tblack** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:33 am

piRoN wrote:Oh for f**k's sake.

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of hearing these sort of arrogant, ill-considered assumptions from people. So I'm going to say this once more:

THE REASON WE LIKE USING HARDWARE IS BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE MAKING MUSIC ON THE COMPUTER.

I don't care if it's more powerful, I don't care if modern software samplers blow my gear out of the water, that fact is that I don't like sitting static in front of a computer slowly getting eyestrain when I can be in the studio with a beer and some mates, tweaking bits and pieces, moving around, and embracing the transient nature of it all, revelling in the tactile joys of moving from one unit to the other, and working within a physical space.

And regarding all this utter drivel about 'fear of the technology' and other such c**p... I've worked for several years as a CGI animator and general tech dude in the film industry, can program in C, C++, Basic, and VB, and currently own and operate a pair of self-built editing/animation rigs connected to a four-unit render farm. If I was so terrified of technology I wouldn't have spent over six f**k grand last financial year just to keep my computers competitive in the industry.

Next time you want to pour out your unresearched assumptions at others you might want to try actually engaging in a meaningful conversation with the people you're so happily deriding and find out the truth behind the matter.

But then, I suppose it's considerably easier to simply try and force your viewpoint on others in a forum thread which obviously has no relevance to you or any of your pursuits.

To those who actually have legitimate posts in this thread: As you were, gentlemen.

Good God man,

"I fear thou doth protest too much"

You're taking things way too personally. It's not aimed at you, ya know. Why the flame war, man? Obviously
you don't want to make music on a computer because you sit behind one all day for work. That doesn't mean
someone else can't. Or shouldn't. Or that an old Akai sampler is better than a soft sampler.

I prefer hardware as well, generally speaking. I have lots and lots of it. But it's about using it all imo. Computers, hardware, software, analog, digital. Whatever.

Freaking out about your preferred method is just silly. And I really do think it's silly to reject a new technology outright
just because it's new and different. I liken it to the b**b who thought Bob Moog's invention was going to literally
"destroy music." Perhaps that's why I get annoyed by the semi-Luddite mentality. If you like piano, use a piano. If you
like a synth, use a synth. Ditto with hardware vs software.

All of it is good, man. And all of it should be used. Why so incredibly defensive? All I'm saying is that computers (which are in the studio as well)
are great for some things....superior actually. Sampling happens to be an example, imo.

I just don't understand the pining away for something that will never be. I personally like recording to tape
but I know there probably won't be a new, commercially feasible new product in that area.
So I'm not going to wonder why someone doesn't make one.

If someone wants a hardware sampler, then just use one. Theyre still available. And for cheap.

Try not to be so friggin offended by one (or 2) men's opinion. (btw I reject your crazy use of apps for work and will only
use a 1981 Wang computer!!

)

gnusynth · Post by **gnusynth** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:49 am

Hey, Mr Bill, I still use my K2000RS. The Kurz gives the samples some sort of character that sits in the mix good. Hardware samplers are real musical instruments in their own right with their own set of quirks that can be exploited musically. A retro styled hardware sampler using today's technology would be very cool. I'd buy it.

piRoN · Post by **piRoN** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:11 am

tblack wrote: Good God man,

"I fear thou doth protest too much"

Hardly.

tblack wrote: You're taking things way too personally. It's not aimed at you, ya know. Why the flame war, man? Obviously
you don't want to make music on a computer because you sit behind one all day for work. That doesn't mean
someone else can't. Or shouldn't. Or that an old Akai sampler is better than a soft sampler.

Re-read my post. Nowhere did I say that people shouldn't use computers. I said that I'm sick of people strutting into a thread and telling people how they should be working even though they've already clearly stated that they're not happy using that system.

tblack wrote: I prefer hardware as well, generally speaking. I have lots and lots of it. But it's about using it all imo. Computers, hardware, software, analog, digital. Whatever.

No-one in this thread is questioning this.

tblack wrote: Freaking out about your preferred method is just silly. And I really do think it's silly to reject a new technology outright
just because it's new and different.

Again, re-read my post. I didn't say anything other than that I don't find the software workflow to be one that works for me personally. Comments such as "You should just use a computer" are ignorant and fail to acknowledge that there are other factors that determine what musical tools work for any given person.

tblack wrote:I liken it to the b**b who thought Bob Moog's invention was going to literally "destroy music." Perhaps that's why I get annoyed by the semi-Luddite mentality. If you like piano, use a piano. If you
like a synth, use a synth. Ditto with hardware vs software.

Now I'm confused. You tell someone that they should be using software because of it's power, and then suddenly you're echoing the very point I'm making?

tblack wrote:All of it is good, man. And all of it should be used. Why so incredibly defensive? All I'm saying is that computers (which are in the studio as well) are great for some things....superior actually. Sampling happens to be an example, imo.

Yet again, I don't dispute this. And yet again you're making assumptions that people who choose to use hardware are doing so out of ignorance. Re-read my post, I did acknowledge that software sampling was more powerful. I also pointed out that whether or not it was more powerful was completely and utterly irrelevant.

tblack wrote:I just don't understand the pining away for something that will never be. I personally like recording to tapebut I know there probably won't be a new, commercially feasible new product in that area.
So I'm not going to wonder why someone doesn't make one.

Perhaps you should go into General Synthesisers and do the same with all the stargazing that occurs in there then.

tblack wrote: If someone wants a hardware sampler, then just use one. Theyre still available. And for cheap.

Yet again, this is not the issue at discussion.

tblack wrote: Try not to be so friggin offended by one (or 2) men's opinion. (btw I reject your crazy use of apps for work and will only use a 1981 Wang computer!! )

I am not concerned with people's opinions. I'm concerned with those opinions being presented as empirical fact and rammed down the throats of people who have, as I said before, already stated their disagreement with them.

You still haven't understood my point.