Any fans of the EIIIX?

[Userfriend]

Hi, the Emu sampler that is the least popular and talked about has to be the EIIIXP/XS. It´s not even mentioned on VSE:s Emu site/archive. Totally overshadowed by it´s predesessors and successors. The EIII forum and emulatorarchive has not forgotten it, but it deserves an own page here too. Does it exist any cult around it, any faithful EIIIX fans out there?

[madtheory]

I like the library for it, but I dislike hardware samplers. It's got their digital filters, right? Those were very good, but Kontakt is easily as good if not better. For its time, its a great UI.

[balma]

I dislike hardware samplers.

[CS_TBL]

I dislike hardware samplers.

It's related to context. For a fact: contemporary computers offer more quantity (bigger RAM and HD's) and easier editing (bigger monitors and an interface that's rather uniform with the rest of the OS). Take virtual orchestras: try fitting VSL in one of those old samplers that's claimed that the end of orchestras would be near. With a bit of luck you can fit two (2) sustaining notes in there.. ^^ There may be a context for hardware samplers, I dunno, but how far off are software samplers in practice? Oh, and before you start with 'actual sampling', I wonder how many people did that back in the days, and how many people were just using prefab libraries.

[madtheory]

Hey CS_TBL, what AMEK desk do you have? I've a BCII that I'm about to sell after seven years of great service.

Hardware samplers- it's a funny one. There are some nice things done to the sound in some hardware samplers. But we have Kontakt 5, which has SP-1200 and MPC-60 emulation built in! Would be great if they added some more. I'm guessing they're only doing drum machines because emulating the transposing will take a lot of horsepower.

I'm pretty sure the EIIIx is the same engine as the ESI-4000? So same filters and limited modulation ranges? Fat sound.

But I don't think that subtlety of sound is worth the hassle of hardware, myself.

And the "sampling" argument is rubbish. Waaay back when I had the Yamaha TX16W, I pretty soon stopped sampling on the actual machine, and did it inside the computer instead, then dumped it across. That's much easier, much better. Because you have things like Recycle to chop them up or Antares Infinity to get perfect loops. No hardware sampler was ever able to beat those creative facilities.

[CS_TBL]

It's a TAC (some sub brand of Amek), but all the converters/channels (which can be moved around) are Amek afaik. I don't see a specific type, but it's a size of a single bed..

-edit- no wait, I remember! It's a TAC Matchless. http://www.blevinsaudio.net/matchless.html (not my studio!)

[Userfriend]

---

[Ashe37]

If you're going to be upset by topic wander, you're not going to like this forum.


But seriously, the E4 series is generally superior to the EIIIX

[madtheory]

Ah, the TAC Matchless. Nice for a synth studio!

So anyone know if the ESI32/4000/2000 is basically an EIIIX?

[CS_TBL]

Ah, the TAC Matchless. Nice for a synth studio!

Hm well, just so you know: my rack o' modules is gathering dust, and my TAC makes for a nice desk to trash my mail on, place books on, oh and my tin whistle is located between chn1 and chn2. I'm all in-the-box. The hardware was bought slightly before I went into the "in-the-box".. But ok, let's not wander around too much..

[Userfriend]

So anyone know if the ESI32/4000/2000 is basically an EIIIX?

The ESI:s are based on the EIIIX, but they were made as a lower cost series and in some areas more limited but more advanced in others. http://www.emulatorarchive.com/Samplers/samplers.html

[Userfriend]

---

[mp3]

There may be a context for hardware samplers, I dunno,

There is a context.

but how far off are software samplers in practice?

They're a lot closer in 2011 than they were in 2009. thanks in large part to Ableton, Maschine, BPM and Geist. Because they can actually sample, but also because consideration is starting to be given to interface (specifically, getting to a state where you can operate the thing blindfolded - symbiosis, if you will) and workflow (getting from point A to point B in a way that doesn't sap creative energy).

Oh, and before you start with 'actual sampling',

Oh. Sorry.

I wonder how many people did that back in the days, and how many people were just using prefab libraries.

The people that were sampling back in the days still are. In my 'back in the days', loop libraries as we know them now were very few and extremely far between (not to mention they all sucked - and they still do, if you ask me - the concept itself sucks...). Everyone who had a sampler was charged with finding something to sample. Ah, the good old days... And yet, if we needed a piano patch, we went and bought one.. It was primarily about weaving a composition out of found sounds. Making art from magazine clippings or stuff you find in a dumpster is a valid analogue.

The approach is so ingrained in me that I prefer sampling my keyboards and sound modules to actually sequencing them.

And the "sampling" argument is rubbish. Waaay back when I had the Yamaha TX16W, I pretty soon stopped sampling on the actual machine, and did it inside the computer instead, then dumped it across. That's much easier, much better. Because you have things like Recycle to chop them up or Antares Infinity to get perfect loops. No hardware sampler was ever able to beat those creative facilities.

Well, see here's the thing, that's a great approach unless and until you want to go from capture to play as quickly as possible. In order to stay in the moment. Its not about how quickly or efficiently you can manipulate a sample. Its about how fast you can weave it into a composition. And the thing is, you had/have to put in a lot of hours to get up to a good working speed on a hardware sampler. (Back in the day, you really didn't have a choice in the matter if you couldn't afford a $5000 computer/editing package to accompany your $2000 sampler.) You had to get to a point where you could execute button-push, data-wheel-turn sequences in your sleep. But once you did, you got to a creative space that software like Maschine and Geist are just beginning to re-explore. A space that's still hard to describe. Who wants a perfect loop? How about a unique, imaginative one? Who wants a perfect chop? What if it sounds great having the tail of the previous sound before the attack of the current one?

Never owned an EIIIX. I'd like to one day, but I don't really see any great desirable thing about them, being that they are sandwiched between the real EIII (which I'll buy once I'm moderately wealthy thankyouverymuch) and the superior in every way E4.

[madtheory]

I did say it was my point of view. Each to his own. For me it's a total pain in the a*s organising disks and sorting out multitimbral mode, compared to Kontakt with Pro Tools. You load up the session and it's all there exactly as you left it. I find Recycle with Structure to be superbly facilitative to creative work. I also tend to keep making sounds largely separate from composing. Happy accidents tho, are always welcome.

[mp3]

Happy accidents tho, are always welcome.

And there is where we agree!